How Do You Interpret This Rule? (1 Viewer)

So how would you all interpret the following rule? Please keep in mind that the site we use for this is MFL.

The Rule:
"Transition Tag 
1. Owners will be able to transition tag one player per season, per team. 
2. Prior to the start of RFA, owners must place a dollar amount on a transition player. This can be whatever amount the current owner is willing to spend to retain the player. 
3. At the start of RFA period, other owners will have 48 owners to match this amount plus 25% (rounded-up) 
4. If no bids are matched, player will go back to original team at the owner's assigned bidding price. 
5. If the offer is met, plus 25% (rounded-up), the player goes to the new team at the new bidding price. 
6. Additionally, the new owner also must immedietaly sign that player to a new contract and pay Dynasty Dollars for each year as follows: Player may only be given a maximum of 3 year contract, with each year costing $3. Max $9"

Previous Example:
So an owner who transition tagged Alex Smith wrote "Tag Smith at $6," and then said, "$11, 14, or $17 to match."

Questions:
How do you interpret this rule? Is it an auction/bidding system, a matching system, or something else? Does the the first team to match get the player, or can somebody bid after a player has been matched and increase the price?

In the event that it is a bidding system, where do you apply the 25% kicker? Do you apply it to the tag price (to the $6 number on Smith), or do you apply it to each individual bid that is made on the player (so if someone bids $12, then the total price they pay will be $12 + (12/4) + 3(number of years signed for))? Using the previous formula, if somebody wanted to sign the player for three years, then it would be $12 + $3 + $9 = $24. Accordingly, if the bid was $14, then it would be $14 + $4 ($3.5 rounded up) + $9 = $27. If you apply it to the tag price of $6 for Smith, you get $8 ($6 + (6/4) = $8). So does that mean $7 would be an invalid price to pay for Alex Smith?

Keep in mind that this is how the rule has been disclosed to the league the past few years and nobody has actually increased the bid on a match until this year. In fact, the commissioner was the one to match the tag for Alex Smith, and nobody came in with a price increase. Also assume that the intent of the commish and drafters of the rules are unknown.

Need help. Thanks.

I’m starting to think this is a class project or something. Am I close?

Tool said:

I’m starting to think this is a class project or something. Am I close?

Click to expand...

lol nah, Dynasty League conundrum.

I am a student though, so close in that sense.

3, 4, and 5 spell it out. 3 says - match THIS amount - pretty clear there’s no tiering on the match.

Seems the tagged player goes into auction, to be retained by the team that tagged him unless the minimum of X+25% is met. At that point, the $3/6/9 kicker is added by the winning team. 

So, if I tag Josh Gordon at $10. I keep him unless someone else bids $12.50 (if you're using whole dollars, $13). Then that winning owner adds $3/6/9 depending on length. 

I don't think I'm fully understanding the dynasty dollar part. If I am, I don't like it. 

Also, rewrite the rule. It's not well drafted. 

-OZ- said:

Seems the tagged player goes into auction, to be retained by the team that tagged him unless the minimum of X+25% is met. At that point, the $3/6/9 kicker is added by the winning team. 

So, if I tag Josh Gordon at $10. I keep him unless someone else bids $12.50 (if you're using whole dollars, $13). Then that winning owner adds $3/6/9 depending on length. 

I don't think I'm fully understanding the dynasty dollar part. If I am, I don't like it. 

Also, rewrite the rule. It's not well drafted. 

Click to expand...

Yeah, the rule isn't my work, it's the commissioner's. He's pretty touchy though. BIG ego.

Geez, the poll came out a little messy. Sorry about that fellas.

Lack of clarity on the possibility of multiple bids...  25% kicker is on the initial bid.  Only sensible option at that point is to let it go auction.  The 3, 6, 9 comes after the new price is determined

DropKick said:

Lack of clarity on the possibility of multiple bids...  25% kicker is on the initial bid.  Only sensible option at that point is to let it go auction.  The 3, 6, 9 comes after the new price is determined

Click to expand...

That's fair. The rule really needs to be re-written.

DropKick said:

Lack of clarity on the possibility of multiple bids...  25% kicker is on the initial bid.  Only sensible option at that point is to let it go auction.  The 3, 6, 9 comes after the new price is determined

Click to expand...

Any other insights?

The way I read it is that the original owner places a bid as to what he is willing to pay.  In order for any other team to "steal" the player away they must place a bid of 25% higher than the original owner bid.  The assumption I would make is that since all other owners have the opportunity to bid for 48hrs that it is like a blind bid situation.  Owner 1 could bid 30% over original owner bid, Owner 2 could bid 45% over original owner bid, etc.   The player goes to the highest bidder (assuming it is at least 25% over the original owner bid). 

It doesn't say anything about multiple teams bidding original + 25% so I made the assumption that the other teams could bid whatever they wanted but would only acquire the player if the bid was at least 25% over the original owner bid.  Otherwise, how are ties broken if two teams bid exactly 25% over the original owner bid?

I have no idea what the example means:

So an owner who transition tagged Alex Smith wrote "Tag Smith at $6," and then said, "$11, 14, or $17 to match."

I don't get the "$11, $14, $17 match" part.  The way it looks to me is the original owner sets a price they are willing to pay.  The other owners have to bid 25% over that to steal the player away.  So what is the match part mean?  isn't that what the original tag price is for?

So a second question, which is a follow-up to the scenario in this thread. 

Let's say the commish has now forced you to place a bid that you did not consent to, nor did you ever intend to make it. Commish has admitted that he made a mistake, but instead of scrapping the bid and starting over again, he is making you pay your initial bid, plus an undisclosed amount of dynasty dollars. As such, he has unilaterally reduced your dynasty dollar stash by the full bid that he put in.

Do you leave the league because of this? Do you put him on blast? Do you just let it go? Or something else?