Dynasty League Dilemma (1 Viewer)

[Hinezer]

Ok here's the breakdown. I run a dynasty league that aims to be like the NFL. It has contracts, FA auctions and a rookie draft.

We are currently in the FA Auction portion. Each team is allowed one Franchise player. They are also allowed RFAs, who are players who entered the NFL in the last two years. All these players give the original team the ability to match the offer.

What was decided was that the original owner has to match the maximum bid made by the winning team. This league is very customized to my ideas, so I had to go with a small, private programmer who does all the work himself.

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

A situation involving RB Maurice Jones-Drew creates a problem:

-MJD was designated a RFA by Team A.

-MJD comes up in the auction. The auction is ran E-Bay style. He is bid up by a few players to a value of $38.50 by Team B.

-Team B wins the auction and sends a maximum bid of $61.50 to Team B to be matched.

-Team A has $61.50 to match the offer and does so because he believes that he will be getting MJD for $38.50

-A few owners believe that MJD's salary should be $38.50

This was stated in the league rules as:

"The owner will be able to retain the contract of the designated player by matching the highest bid."

This is generated by the site, not written by me personally. After about a day of discussion, a majority of the league seemed to think that it should be changed so that that salary should be the maximum bid, not the winning bid.

-Team A tells me that he would not have matched the offer if it was for $61.50 (he doesn't want to pay MJD the salary of $61.50).

-As a result of that statement and the decision of making it a match of the maximum bid, I award MJD to Team B.



The question at hand is what salary does MJD have to pay?

$38.50, the winning bid

or

$61.50, the maximum bid

**For the sake of this poll, just ignore the ignorance of myself and other problems with the situation, I'm only interested in the opinion on the salary. Also ignore personal preferences on MJD. All you need to know is that $38.50 puts MJD near the top of salary in the league and $61.50 would make him the highest paid player in the league.**

 

[Warhogs]

I personally think the original team should be able to keep him for the highest bid. If you are charging him maximum bid then the team that won him should also have to be at maximum bid. Get rid of the maximum bid as it is a bunch of hooey.

 

[Hinezer]

I personally think the original team should be able to keep him for the highest bid. If you are charging him maximum bid then the team that won him should also have to be at maximum bid. Get rid of the maximum bid as it is a bunch of hooey.

The thought behind the "maximum bid" is that we are setting a matching bid. I'm aiming for this league to be "NFL-like" where a team can make a huge contract to try and keep the original owner from matching.With that being said, we're probably moving away from that starting next season.

 

[ZWK]

It should be $61.50, because 1) that's what's closest to matching the way the NFL does RFAs and 2) otherwise your procedure doesn't make sense. The way it works in the NFL is that another team offers a contract to a RFA, and then the RFA's team chooses whether to match that contract or to let the other team get the player for that contract. But either way, the player is going to be paid that offered contract. The analogy to your league is that, after the ebay style auction, the winning team chooses what contract to offer the player (the "maximum bid"). Then the team that owns that player gets to choose whether they want to match that contract, or whether to let the other team have the player for that contract.

If Team B can keep MJD for $38.50, then there's no point to the maximum bid. The owner who wins the auction could just set the maximum bid as high as possible to dissuade the team who had the RFA from keeping the player, since the auction winner will not actually have to pay out their "maximum bid" under any circumstances. The maximum bid is basically meaningless if it doesn't have any consequences for the team that makes it, and if the team making the maximum bid doesn't have to honor it then no team could ever afford to keep their own RFA (except in the rare case where the team winning the auction doesn't have the cap space to threaten them with a large maximum bid).

If your owners didn't understand how this process works (and it sounds like they didn't), then I recommend that you redo the process, beginning right after the auction that Team B won. You should explain the rules to them clearly: By outbidding the other teams, Team B now has the rights to make MJD an "offer" which has to be at least $38.50 (the winning auction bid). The amount of the offer will be MJD's salary next year. Then Team A gets to decide whether to "match that offer" (which would mean that Team A keeps MJD and pays him the offered salary) or to not match it (which mean that Team B gets to have MJD for the salary that they offered).

 

[benm3218]

It should be $61.50, because 1) that's what's closest to matching the way the NFL does RFAs and 2) otherwise your procedure doesn't make sense. The way it works in the NFL is that another team offers a contract to a RFA, and then the RFA's team chooses whether to match that contract or to let the other team get the player for that contract. But either way, the player is going to be paid that offered contract. The analogy to your league is that, after the ebay style auction, the winning team chooses what contract to offer the player (the "maximum bid"). Then the team that owns that player gets to choose whether they want to match that contract, or whether to let the other team have the player for that contract.If Team B can keep MJD for $38.50, then there's no point to the maximum bid. The owner who wins the auction could just set the maximum bid as high as possible to dissuade the team who had the RFA from keeping the player, since the auction winner will not actually have to pay out their "maximum bid" under any circumstances. The maximum bid is basically meaningless if it doesn't have any consequences for the team that makes it, and if the team making the maximum bid doesn't have to honor it then no team could ever afford to keep their own RFA (except in the rare case where the team winning the auction doesn't have the cap space to threaten them with a large maximum bid).If your owners didn't understand how this process works (and it sounds like they didn't), then I recommend that you redo the process, beginning right after the auction that Team B won. You should explain the rules to them clearly: By outbidding the other teams, Team B now has the rights to make MJD an "offer" which has to be at least $38.50 (the winning auction bid). The amount of the offer will be MJD's salary next year. Then Team A gets to decide whether to "match that offer" (which would mean that Team A keeps MJD and pays him the offered salary) or to not match it (which mean that Team B gets to have MJD for the salary that they offered).

this is how I feel but worded better...it isnt fair to say original cant have him without paying 65 but new can... that doesnt make sense.

 

[benm3218]

I would also redo the process from the ending bid as he said too.

 

[Hinezer]

I would also redo the process from the ending bid as he said too.

The thing is it isn't that easy. It's set up in 4 auctions. MJD was in auction #2. Auction #3 is ending right now.

 

[DawnBTVS]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

Is this in the rules?

Because according to this setup...

1. Team A has to match the $61.50.

2. Regardless if Team A matches/doesn't match the $61.50, the salary goes down to $38.50.

3. Since Team A matched the initial max, he should get MJD for $38.50. (I assume if he didn't match, Team B would get him for $38.50).

 

[flooredyas]

WOW

I, as well am in a dynasty with FA bidding-contracts. For ours, we can bid on anyone whose contract has expired. I'll use Steve Smith as an example. I was the owner and he got bid up to 39 smackers (our currency). I had the right to either match or let him go. I chose to NOT match the bid. That was it-end of it. Sounds to me as thou your setup allows the winning bidder to up his bid, something that I can't comprehend. Enlighten me.

 

[Hinezer]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.Is this in the rules?Because according to this setup...1. Team A has to match the $61.50.2. Regardless if Team A matches/doesn't match the $61.50, the salary goes down to $38.50.3. Since Team A matched the initial max, he should get MJD for $38.50. (I assume if he didn't match, Team B would get him for $38.50).

The problem was that the rules (not written by me, computer generated) were not specifically spelled out, just that the Team A had to match the maximum bid. The system was set-up the way described above, but not in the rules.That's how things went down before the manual rule change happened.Team A did match the offer and was given MJD for $38.50. It was decided through league discussion that Team A should have to match $61.50 if he wanted to keep him. At this point, Team A did not want to pay that much. Team B was then rewarded MJD because Team A no longer matched the offer. That's where the question of salary comes from.

 

[Hinezer]

WOWI, as well am in a dynasty with FA bidding-contracts. For ours, we can bid on anyone whose contract has expired. I'll use Steve Smith as an example. I was the owner and he got bid up to 39 smackers (our currency). I had the right to either match or let him go. I chose to NOT match the bid. That was it-end of it. Sounds to me as thou your setup allows the winning bidder to up his bid, something that I can't comprehend. Enlighten me.

This is what I plan on going to next year. It will make the entire process much more simple.Pretty much it was made that way to add "strategy" to the bidding. Teams would be able to offer what they are willing to pay instead of the bid that winning bid. Looking back, strategy isn't worth this much trouble

 

[flooredyas]

Looks like team B wants it both ways.

Let's see, I won the bid for $38.50 and team A didn't match my MAX bid of $61, so I get him for a bargain at $38.50.

Nail him at the max then-$61.

 

[Sinners]

Looks like team B wants it both ways. Let's see, I won the bid for $38.50 and team A didn't match my MAX bid of $61, so I get him for a bargain at $38.50.Nail him at the max then-$61.

Team B gets him and has to pay the Max bid of 61. If it was any other number, Team A would of kept him....

 

[Warhogs]

Wow. Are league members really willing to wait for a year? If I was the team that lost MJD becuase of this I might just walk away right now. It is completely idiotic.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

I represent Team B in this scenario. I just joined the league this offseason. I read the rules, and attempted to use them to build the best team I could. The team I inherited had the most caproom in the league. According to the rules (which I fully admit are badly written), the former team would be forced to match my high bid (not the sales price). So I made my bid $61.50 (the highest paid players in the league currently make $40). I fully knew that the "ebay style" bidding wouldn't get that high, and also that the previous team (who didn't have a lot of caproom to begin with) wouldn't match my high bid.

There seem to be two camps of opinion in this thread (which I realize probably belongs in TAC). 1. You play by the written rules of the league. or 2. The rules don't make sense, so they should be disregarded. I am in the former.

Additionally, after the stinkstorm erupted, I offered (as someone suggested above) to either 1. Throw MJD back into the next auction with the new understanding that any bids on RFA were "hard" bids, or B. Make a subsequent "hard" bid on MJD, which the previous owner could then match or not match as he saw fit. I am not really sure how much more I could have done.

That's my attempt to explain the situation, which is totally ptts.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I messed up and voted 38.50 without fully understanding the question.

Here's where the screwup starts...

"Team A has $61.50 to match the offer and does so because he believes that he will be getting MJD for $38.50"

How on earth could you honestly believe you're only spending $38.50 on MJD when you match an offer of $61.50? If that's the case, he** you'd just auto-match anything! Who cares, you're not REALLY paying $61.50.

He should be thrown back in and re-bid on with the understanding that all bids are hard bids. And if that can't happen, team B should get MJD for $61.50. You want this league to be like the NFL. Well this is equivelant to Favre getting traded to the Panthers for 4 years and $40 million and then the Panthers telling him, "Oh, we're not actually PAYING you $40 million. We just told the Packers that's what we were doing so they'd trade you to us. It doesn't work that way.

You bid $61.50 and you're the highest bidder? You're paying $61.50.

 

[Zuul]

If it is in the rules, it's in the rules, no matter how illogical they may be.

 

[Warhogs]

The Good news below is that one of the parties involved seems to be reasonable and willing to take steps to allow you to correct a messed up rule. You might want to consider suspending all activity immediately. Have all league members look at the current rules and determine the best way to correct them and how to handle the activities that have taken place and going forward. The n start up again.I view this as the type of issue that could literally cause this league to fold. Maybe the owners aren't getting that worked up over it? If this could threaten the league existence then you must make an immediate correction.It just seems so obvious that if the original owner can not have MJD for $38.50 there is no way you can allow a bidding team to have that player for $38.50.

I messed up and voted 38.50 without fully understanding the question. Here's where the screwup starts..."Team A has $61.50 to match the offer and does so because he believes that he will be getting MJD for $38.50"How on earth could you honestly believe you're only spending $38.50 on MJD when you match an offer of $61.50? If that's the case, he** you'd just auto-match anything! Who cares, you're not REALLY paying $61.50. He should be thrown back in and re-bid on with the understanding that all bids are hard bids. And if that can't happen, team B should get MJD for $61.50. You want this league to be like the NFL. Well this is equivelant to Favre getting traded to the Panthers for 4 years and $40 million and then the Panthers telling him, "Oh, we're not actually PAYING you $40 million. We just told the Packers that's what we were doing so they'd trade you to us. It doesn't work that way. You bid $61.50 and you're the highest bidder? You're paying $61.50.

 

[Kirby]

If team B doesn't have to pay his max bid... wouldn't he always max bid 1 billion so the other owner couldn't match?

 

[Real Man of Genius]

If team B doesn't have to pay his max bid... wouldn't he always max bid 1 billion so the other owner couldn't match?

The problem with this logic, is that if two teams use that philosophy in the auction, one of them will end up paying a zillion bucks. So there is a bit of a risk/reward scenario there.

 

[GregR_2]

I don't see why the wording would suggest there is a difference between the maximum bid and the winning bid. You win an auction by bidding the most, so by definition of how an auction works the maximum bid is the winning bid. That doesn't change if you out bid yourself.

Someone can increase his own bid from $38.50 to $61.50 if he wants, but once he does so then $38.50 is not the winning bid. $61.50 is.

So by your rules, all I'd say all you have to decide is whether the auction stopped at $38.50 and no more bids were accepted (in which case one team will end up getting him for $38.50), or whether it was still going and the $61.50 bid is a legitimate bid and then one team will end up getting him for $61.50.

It sounds like you accepted the $61.50 bid as part of the auction, so unless I am wrong on that or missed something else, if the decision was mine, I'd say the original team has a right to take him at $61.50 or let him go to the other team who would get him at $61.50. But the $38.50 is neither the winning nor the maximum bid if a $61.50 bid was made.

 

[shredhead]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

Seems pretty clear to me. According to rule #1 above, the original team needed $61.50 to sign MJD (which he did). According to rule #2 above, once the salary is matched (which it was) then the salary goes down to the winning bid (which it should).The original team gets MJD for $38.50 period, end of story. If I was team A and the commish didn't decide that way, I'd be pretty T'd off and would consider not playing in your league anymore.

 

[Hinezer]

Ok since one side of the argument has come up, here's my side:

I am not Team A, I have a team in the league but this does not affect my team at all.

I take fault in that the rules were confusing and spelled out completely for the first part of the mess, the part where Team A matched the maximum deal and then paid a salary of $38.50, the winning bid.

Due to the league's opinion that Team A should have to match the salary of the maximum bid of $61.50, I made the manual change. So it went back to Team A to match the salary offer of $61.50. Team B went to great lengths to make sure Team A had to match that high salary if he wanted to keep MJD. Team A said that he wouldn't pay $61.50, so that is a non-match. Team B was given MJD for $61.50 and this is the result.

I spent all yesterday fixing the original problem so that MJD's salary would be $61.50 either with Team A or Team B. When Team B received MJD for $61.50, he said that he shouldn't have to pay that much, that he should have to pay the market value of $38.50 instead of $61.50.

My question is why would he get to make an extreme offer so that Team A won't match, but isn't responsible for the offer that he made.

He said that it was because that's how he understood it. I understand using that reasoning once when the league rules are confusing, that's why I made the first change. This is completely different. There is nothing in the league rules that suggest that you wouldn't be responsible for the maximum bid if it isn't matched. It seems completely logic in my mind that if you make a bid, you have to be willing to pay that bid.

On the subject of the resolution:

The FA Auctions are set up in 4 separate "sessions". Each one lasts 3 days. At the end of the third day the players are auctioned off, which usually results in "sniper bids" just like on ebay. There is strategy involved there and some teams lose players because they weren't quick enough on the click or weren't able to be around. MJD was auctioned off in Session #2. This entire resolution happened on Day 3 of Session #3. Session #3 ended last night.

Now there are a couple of proposed resolutions:

1. Put MJD back into the auction and have him be auctioned off again

-There was obvious a lot of interest in MJD because he was bid up to $38.50. Of the teams that dropped out of the bidding, they might have moved onto a second target. They might have gotten that player or they might have missed out on them. This may effect the bidding on MJD if he's put up there again.

-With teams knowing that MJD is going to go for as much, there might be no interest at all and he might to get bid up at all.

-All the auction sessions are connected together. We stop the process now, then Sessions #1 and #2 will have to be redone by either myself or league programmer.

-What's stopping a team saying that they would have bid more on a player if they knew they were going to go for so little and then asking for that player to be put back in the auction. It creates a horrible example for the future and opens the door for more "ignorance of the rules" excuses to come up.

2. Have Team A and Team B get together and come to a decision of what they are willing to pay

-This would have to be a completely blind bid, but IMO, there is already too much information out there for this to happen. We know Team A will match an offer for $38.50, but not one for $61.50.

-If I ask Team B for a maximum bid of how much he is willing to pay for MJD and then send that offer to Team A, how is that really different from the current result?

-Team A has the gift of having more information since Session #2 and Session #3 are over. It's entirely possible that he might now be willing to match a higher offer than he would have when MJD was initially bid on.

-Again this opens the door for other teams to try and get this process done.

I determined that those two options were not viable and would change too much to logically be done. Sure it would be nice if I could just go back in a time machine and set it to when MJD was going to be auctioned off. But you also have to look at the players that were auctioned off after him. Do teams change their bidding style because they know which teams are going to jump in and bid on a player and how much they are willing to bid? These are questions I can't say for sure, but I'm sure that other player would end up on different teams and that will piss other people off.

I had to make a quick decision yesterday and I made it.

When I made initial decision to change the rules, it didn't only affect Team B, it affected 5 other teams including my own. Team B got MJD, exactly the player he wanted by making the "poison pill" bid. Lost in this entire ordeal is that Team A lost his best player due to an extreme bid and hasn't complained about it one bit. The team that won the decision wants the player and the cheap salary.

 

[Hinezer]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

Seems pretty clear to me. According to rule #1 above, the original team needed $61.50 to sign MJD (which he did). According to rule #2 above, once the salary is matched (which it was) then the salary goes down to the winning bid (which it should).The original team gets MJD for $38.50 period, end of story. If I was team A and the commish didn't decide that way, I'd be pretty T'd off and would consider not playing in your league anymore.

The problem was that these rules were not stated in the league rules. The league rules stated:"The original team must match the maximum bid."

There's no mention of what the salary would be in the rules.

The system was set up so that the salary would go down to the winning bid no matter if it was matched or not.

The way it is stated in the league rules, it sounds like the salary that's matched should be the maximum bid. I initially didn't want to make the change because I knew that it affect several things with the salary cap and the auctions that currently were going on. But several teams agreed that it should be changed, so I changed it and dealt with the problems it created.

 

[gangles]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

Seems pretty clear to me. According to rule #1 above, the original team needed $61.50 to sign MJD (which he did). According to rule #2 above, once the salary is matched (which it was) then the salary goes down to the winning bid (which it should).The original team gets MJD for $38.50 period, end of story. If I was team A and the commish didn't decide that way, I'd be pretty T'd off and would consider not playing in your league anymore.

According to the rules would seem to be the correct interpretation. Team A now gets to match the market value of MJD and Team B cant do a darn thing about it, even though they technically want to pay more.This is why we removed the owner match rule from our rulebook before last season.

1) it provides no incentive for the original owner to bid on a player he wants to keep, just sit back and match the highest bid instead of getting into a bidding war and bidding the price up. and

2) the owner who won the bid may be willing to pay more for that player, but never gets the chance

 

[Kirby]

If team B doesn't have to pay his max bid... wouldn't he always max bid 1 billion so the other owner couldn't match?

The problem with this logic, is that if two teams use that philosophy in the auction, one of them will end up paying a zillion bucks. So there is a bit of a risk/reward scenario there.

I read this part...The auction is ran E-Bay style. He is bid up by a few players to a value of $38.50 by Team B.

Team B wins the auction and sends a maximum bid of $61.50

...as he won the auction at 38.50, then gets to make a max bid before the MJD owner decides if he will match it.

 

[Warhogs]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

Seems pretty clear to me. According to rule #1 above, the original team needed $61.50 to sign MJD (which he did). According to rule #2 above, once the salary is matched (which it was) then the salary goes down to the winning bid (which it should).The original team gets MJD for $38.50 period, end of story. If I was team A and the commish didn't decide that way, I'd be pretty T'd off and would consider not playing in your league anymore.

I tend to agree with this interpretation. Team A should be able to match the bid and get MJD for a salary of $38.50. Team A would lose the maximum bid of $61.50 from his cap during the auction.

 

[Warhogs]

Ok since one side of the argument has come up, here's my side:I am not Team A, I have a team in the league but this does not affect my team at all.I take fault in that the rules were confusing and spelled out completely for the first part of the mess, the part where Team A matched the maximum deal and then paid a salary of $38.50, the winning bid.Due to the league's opinion that Team A should have to match the salary of the maximum bid of $61.50, I made the manual change. So it went back to Team A to match the salary offer of $61.50. Team B went to great lengths to make sure Team A had to match that high salary if he wanted to keep MJD. Team A said that he wouldn't pay $61.50, so that is a non-match. Team B was given MJD for $61.50 and this is the result.I spent all yesterday fixing the original problem so that MJD's salary would be $61.50 either with Team A or Team B. When Team B received MJD for $61.50, he said that he shouldn't have to pay that much, that he should have to pay the market value of $38.50 instead of $61.50.My question is why would he get to make an extreme offer so that Team A won't match, but isn't responsible for the offer that he made.He said that it was because that's how he understood it. I understand using that reasoning once when the league rules are confusing, that's why I made the first change. This is completely different. There is nothing in the league rules that suggest that you wouldn't be responsible for the maximum bid if it isn't matched. It seems completely logic in my mind that if you make a bid, you have to be willing to pay that bid.On the subject of the resolution:The FA Auctions are set up in 4 separate "sessions". Each one lasts 3 days. At the end of the third day the players are auctioned off, which usually results in "sniper bids" just like on ebay. There is strategy involved there and some teams lose players because they weren't quick enough on the click or weren't able to be around. MJD was auctioned off in Session #2. This entire resolution happened on Day 3 of Session #3. Session #3 ended last night.Now there are a couple of proposed resolutions:1. Put MJD back into the auction and have him be auctioned off again-There was obvious a lot of interest in MJD because he was bid up to $38.50. Of the teams that dropped out of the bidding, they might have moved onto a second target. They might have gotten that player or they might have missed out on them. This may effect the bidding on MJD if he's put up there again.-With teams knowing that MJD is going to go for as much, there might be no interest at all and he might to get bid up at all.-All the auction sessions are connected together. We stop the process now, then Sessions #1 and #2 will have to be redone by either myself or league programmer.-What's stopping a team saying that they would have bid more on a player if they knew they were going to go for so little and then asking for that player to be put back in the auction. It creates a horrible example for the future and opens the door for more "ignorance of the rules" excuses to come up.2. Have Team A and Team B get together and come to a decision of what they are willing to pay-This would have to be a completely blind bid, but IMO, there is already too much information out there for this to happen. We know Team A will match an offer for $38.50, but not one for $61.50.-If I ask Team B for a maximum bid of how much he is willing to pay for MJD and then send that offer to Team A, how is that really different from the current result?-Team A has the gift of having more information since Session #2 and Session #3 are over. It's entirely possible that he might now be willing to match a higher offer than he would have when MJD was initially bid on.-Again this opens the door for other teams to try and get this process done.I determined that those two options were not viable and would change too much to logically be done. Sure it would be nice if I could just go back in a time machine and set it to when MJD was going to be auctioned off. But you also have to look at the players that were auctioned off after him. Do teams change their bidding style because they know which teams are going to jump in and bid on a player and how much they are willing to bid? These are questions I can't say for sure, but I'm sure that other player would end up on different teams and that will piss other people off.I had to make a quick decision yesterday and I made it.When I made initial decision to change the rules, it didn't only affect Team B, it affected 5 other teams including my own. Team B got MJD, exactly the player he wanted by making the "poison pill" bid. Lost in this entire ordeal is that Team A lost his best player due to an extreme bid and hasn't complained about it one bit. The team that won the decision wants the player and the cheap salary.

I am glad you brought this here to be looked at because even though you are not team A or team B you are a team owner and thus could be biased in the outcome. No matter which other team gets MJD you benefit if the salary is $61.50 because no matter what you will not have MJD and you benefit by his salary being higher for the team that owns him.

 

[Hinezer]

And just to be clear to the people voting, I'm asking:

"Due to rule change that Team A had to match the $61.50 bid and declined, what should Team B have to pay for MJD $61.50 or $38.50."

It isn't a question if Team A should have to match the winning bid or maximum bid. That ruling was already made. It's fill in this blank

Team B offers $61.50 Maximum Bid

Team A declined to match the $61.50 bid

Team B get MJD for a salary of ___________

 

[GregR_2]

Ok since one side of the argument has come up, here's my side:I am not Team A, I have a team in the league but this does not affect my team at all.I take fault in that the rules were confusing and spelled out completely for the first part of the mess, the part where Team A matched the maximum deal and then paid a salary of $38.50, the winning bid.Due to the league's opinion that Team A should have to match the salary of the maximum bid of $61.50, I made the manual change. So it went back to Team A to match the salary offer of $61.50. Team B went to great lengths to make sure Team A had to match that high salary if he wanted to keep MJD. Team A said that he wouldn't pay $61.50, so that is a non-match. Team B was given MJD for $61.50 and this is the result.I spent all yesterday fixing the original problem so that MJD's salary would be $61.50 either with Team A or Team B. When Team B received MJD for $61.50, he said that he shouldn't have to pay that much, that he should have to pay the market value of $38.50 instead of $61.50.My question is why would he get to make an extreme offer so that Team A won't match, but isn't responsible for the offer that he made.He said that it was because that's how he understood it. I understand using that reasoning once when the league rules are confusing, that's why I made the first change. This is completely different. There is nothing in the league rules that suggest that you wouldn't be responsible for the maximum bid if it isn't matched. It seems completely logic in my mind that if you make a bid, you have to be willing to pay that bid.On the subject of the resolution:The FA Auctions are set up in 4 separate "sessions". Each one lasts 3 days. At the end of the third day the players are auctioned off, which usually results in "sniper bids" just like on ebay. There is strategy involved there and some teams lose players because they weren't quick enough on the click or weren't able to be around. MJD was auctioned off in Session #2. This entire resolution happened on Day 3 of Session #3. Session #3 ended last night.Now there are a couple of proposed resolutions:1. Put MJD back into the auction and have him be auctioned off again-There was obvious a lot of interest in MJD because he was bid up to $38.50. Of the teams that dropped out of the bidding, they might have moved onto a second target. They might have gotten that player or they might have missed out on them. This may effect the bidding on MJD if he's put up there again.-With teams knowing that MJD is going to go for as much, there might be no interest at all and he might to get bid up at all.-All the auction sessions are connected together. We stop the process now, then Sessions #1 and #2 will have to be redone by either myself or league programmer.-What's stopping a team saying that they would have bid more on a player if they knew they were going to go for so little and then asking for that player to be put back in the auction. It creates a horrible example for the future and opens the door for more "ignorance of the rules" excuses to come up.2. Have Team A and Team B get together and come to a decision of what they are willing to pay-This would have to be a completely blind bid, but IMO, there is already too much information out there for this to happen. We know Team A will match an offer for $38.50, but not one for $61.50.-If I ask Team B for a maximum bid of how much he is willing to pay for MJD and then send that offer to Team A, how is that really different from the current result?-Team A has the gift of having more information since Session #2 and Session #3 are over. It's entirely possible that he might now be willing to match a higher offer than he would have when MJD was initially bid on.-Again this opens the door for other teams to try and get this process done.I determined that those two options were not viable and would change too much to logically be done. Sure it would be nice if I could just go back in a time machine and set it to when MJD was going to be auctioned off. But you also have to look at the players that were auctioned off after him. Do teams change their bidding style because they know which teams are going to jump in and bid on a player and how much they are willing to bid? These are questions I can't say for sure, but I'm sure that other player would end up on different teams and that will piss other people off.I had to make a quick decision yesterday and I made it.When I made initial decision to change the rules, it didn't only affect Team B, it affected 5 other teams including my own. Team B got MJD, exactly the player he wanted by making the "poison pill" bid. Lost in this entire ordeal is that Team A lost his best player due to an extreme bid and hasn't complained about it one bit. The team that won the decision wants the player and the cheap salary.

I think first you need to decide how the rule is supposed to work. Having original team matching a higher salary than winning team is paying obviously isn't how it should work, as you are effectively hurting the original team's ability to retain the player when the idea was to give them more options.I'd say there are three things you can do, and that won't involve completely redoing the bidding.1. Decide that teams who bid on RFAs are bidding on them at the max they were willing to bid and that is the price he goes at, to either the matching team or the winning team.2. Decide that the lowest bid that beats another team is his salary (e.g. $38) and that is the price that has to be matched.3. Once the winning team is decided, allow that owner to increase his winning bid to a higher one since he himself didn't actually select his winning bid, and that is the price that gets sent to the original team for matching and that the player will go at, whoever ends up with him. It need not be equal to the max he said he was willing to pay.Any of the three you go with, there is no need to re-auction anyone. The original bids placed on the players can still stand to select the winning team and salary. I personally think you should go with #3. Rather than force a resolution made from bids people made with differing understandings of the rules, you still have the winning team selected by the original bids (which our understanding of hasn't changed), and only have those teams involved in resolving the auction in a normal fashion by essentially doing one last bid.And I think #3 comes a lot closer to the NFL's system than what you had. The original bidding is like the RFA going around to teams and deciding which he wants where the winning team is the one he decides to sign with. The increased offer then is his contract they finally agree on, and then the original team can match that contract or not. (Of course you still need the original team being compensated in some fashion if he loses the player.)

 

[Real Man of Genius]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

Seems pretty clear to me. According to rule #1 above, the original team needed $61.50 to sign MJD (which he did). According to rule #2 above, once the salary is matched (which it was) then the salary goes down to the winning bid (which it should).The original team gets MJD for $38.50 period, end of story. If I was team A and the commish didn't decide that way, I'd be pretty T'd off and would consider not playing in your league anymore.

Number two is not in the rules. It is "how the website is set up". Which was not common knowledge to anyone.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

I don't see why the wording would suggest there is a difference between the maximum bid and the winning bid. You win an auction by bidding the most, so by definition of how an auction works the maximum bid is the winning bid. That doesn't change if you out bid yourself.Someone can increase his own bid from $38.50 to $61.50 if he wants, but once he does so then $38.50 is not the winning bid. $61.50 is.So by your rules, all I'd say all you have to decide is whether the auction stopped at $38.50 and no more bids were accepted (in which case one team will end up getting him for $38.50), or whether it was still going and the $61.50 bid is a legitimate bid and then one team will end up getting him for $61.50. It sounds like you accepted the $61.50 bid as part of the auction, so unless I am wrong on that or missed something else, if the decision was mine, I'd say the original team has a right to take him at $61.50 or let him go to the other team who would get him at $61.50. But the $38.50 is neither the winning nor the maximum bid if a $61.50 bid was made.

Actually, you are missing something. the bidding is "ebay style". You make a max bid, but only pay what other bidders drive the price up to.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

If team B doesn't have to pay his max bid... wouldn't he always max bid 1 billion so the other owner couldn't match?

The problem with this logic, is that if two teams use that philosophy in the auction, one of them will end up paying a zillion bucks. So there is a bit of a risk/reward scenario there.

I read this part...The auction is ran E-Bay style. He is bid up by a few players to a value of $38.50 by Team B.

Team B wins the auction and sends a maximum bid of $61.50

...as he won the auction at 38.50, then gets to make a max bid before the MJD owner decides if he will match it.

That was just misworded. The only bid I ever put in was $61.50.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Ok since one side of the argument has come up, here's my side:I am not Team A, I have a team in the league but this does not affect my team at all.I take fault in that the rules were confusing and spelled out completely for the first part of the mess, the part where Team A matched the maximum deal and then paid a salary of $38.50, the winning bid.Due to the league's opinion that Team A should have to match the salary of the maximum bid of $61.50, I made the manual change. So it went back to Team A to match the salary offer of $61.50. Team B went to great lengths to make sure Team A had to match that high salary if he wanted to keep MJD. Team A said that he wouldn't pay $61.50, so that is a non-match. Team B was given MJD for $61.50 and this is the result.I spent all yesterday fixing the original problem so that MJD's salary would be $61.50 either with Team A or Team B. When Team B received MJD for $61.50, he said that he shouldn't have to pay that much, that he should have to pay the market value of $38.50 instead of $61.50.My question is why would he get to make an extreme offer so that Team A won't match, but isn't responsible for the offer that he made.He said that it was because that's how he understood it. I understand using that reasoning once when the league rules are confusing, that's why I made the first change. This is completely different. There is nothing in the league rules that suggest that you wouldn't be responsible for the maximum bid if it isn't matched. It seems completely logic in my mind that if you make a bid, you have to be willing to pay that bid.On the subject of the resolution:The FA Auctions are set up in 4 separate "sessions". Each one lasts 3 days. At the end of the third day the players are auctioned off, which usually results in "sniper bids" just like on ebay. There is strategy involved there and some teams lose players because they weren't quick enough on the click or weren't able to be around. MJD was auctioned off in Session #2. This entire resolution happened on Day 3 of Session #3. Session #3 ended last night.Now there are a couple of proposed resolutions:1. Put MJD back into the auction and have him be auctioned off again-There was obvious a lot of interest in MJD because he was bid up to $38.50. Of the teams that dropped out of the bidding, they might have moved onto a second target. They might have gotten that player or they might have missed out on them. This may effect the bidding on MJD if he's put up there again.-With teams knowing that MJD is going to go for as much, there might be no interest at all and he might to get bid up at all.-All the auction sessions are connected together. We stop the process now, then Sessions #1 and #2 will have to be redone by either myself or league programmer.-What's stopping a team saying that they would have bid more on a player if they knew they were going to go for so little and then asking for that player to be put back in the auction. It creates a horrible example for the future and opens the door for more "ignorance of the rules" excuses to come up.2. Have Team A and Team B get together and come to a decision of what they are willing to pay-This would have to be a completely blind bid, but IMO, there is already too much information out there for this to happen. We know Team A will match an offer for $38.50, but not one for $61.50.-If I ask Team B for a maximum bid of how much he is willing to pay for MJD and then send that offer to Team A, how is that really different from the current result?-Team A has the gift of having more information since Session #2 and Session #3 are over. It's entirely possible that he might now be willing to match a higher offer than he would have when MJD was initially bid on.-Again this opens the door for other teams to try and get this process done.I determined that those two options were not viable and would change too much to logically be done. Sure it would be nice if I could just go back in a time machine and set it to when MJD was going to be auctioned off. But you also have to look at the players that were auctioned off after him. Do teams change their bidding style because they know which teams are going to jump in and bid on a player and how much they are willing to bid? These are questions I can't say for sure, but I'm sure that other player would end up on different teams and that will piss other people off.I had to make a quick decision yesterday and I made it.When I made initial decision to change the rules, it didn't only affect Team B, it affected 5 other teams including my own. Team B got MJD, exactly the player he wanted by making the "poison pill" bid. Lost in this entire ordeal is that Team A lost his best player due to an extreme bid and hasn't complained about it one bit. The team that won the decision wants the player and the cheap salary.

I am glad you brought this here to be looked at because even though you are not team A or team B you are a team owner and thus could be biased in the outcome. No matter which other team gets MJD you benefit if the salary is $61.50 because no matter what you will not have MJD and you benefit by his salary being higher for the team that owns him.

This is true, but he is also the league commish, and to his credit, attempted to word the original question with as little bias as possible.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Ok since one side of the argument has come up, here's my side:I am not Team A, I have a team in the league but this does not affect my team at all.I take fault in that the rules were confusing and spelled out completely for the first part of the mess, the part where Team A matched the maximum deal and then paid a salary of $38.50, the winning bid.Due to the league's opinion that Team A should have to match the salary of the maximum bid of $61.50, I made the manual change. So it went back to Team A to match the salary offer of $61.50. Team B went to great lengths to make sure Team A had to match that high salary if he wanted to keep MJD. Team A said that he wouldn't pay $61.50, so that is a non-match. Team B was given MJD for $61.50 and this is the result.I spent all yesterday fixing the original problem so that MJD's salary would be $61.50 either with Team A or Team B. When Team B received MJD for $61.50, he said that he shouldn't have to pay that much, that he should have to pay the market value of $38.50 instead of $61.50.My question is why would he get to make an extreme offer so that Team A won't match, but isn't responsible for the offer that he made.He said that it was because that's how he understood it. I understand using that reasoning once when the league rules are confusing, that's why I made the first change. This is completely different. There is nothing in the league rules that suggest that you wouldn't be responsible for the maximum bid if it isn't matched. It seems completely logic in my mind that if you make a bid, you have to be willing to pay that bid.On the subject of the resolution:The FA Auctions are set up in 4 separate "sessions". Each one lasts 3 days. At the end of the third day the players are auctioned off, which usually results in "sniper bids" just like on ebay. There is strategy involved there and some teams lose players because they weren't quick enough on the click or weren't able to be around. MJD was auctioned off in Session #2. This entire resolution happened on Day 3 of Session #3. Session #3 ended last night.Now there are a couple of proposed resolutions:1. Put MJD back into the auction and have him be auctioned off again-There was obvious a lot of interest in MJD because he was bid up to $38.50. Of the teams that dropped out of the bidding, they might have moved onto a second target. They might have gotten that player or they might have missed out on them. This may effect the bidding on MJD if he's put up there again.-With teams knowing that MJD is going to go for as much, there might be no interest at all and he might to get bid up at all.-All the auction sessions are connected together. We stop the process now, then Sessions #1 and #2 will have to be redone by either myself or league programmer.-What's stopping a team saying that they would have bid more on a player if they knew they were going to go for so little and then asking for that player to be put back in the auction. It creates a horrible example for the future and opens the door for more "ignorance of the rules" excuses to come up.2. Have Team A and Team B get together and come to a decision of what they are willing to pay-This would have to be a completely blind bid, but IMO, there is already too much information out there for this to happen. We know Team A will match an offer for $38.50, but not one for $61.50.-If I ask Team B for a maximum bid of how much he is willing to pay for MJD and then send that offer to Team A, how is that really different from the current result?-Team A has the gift of having more information since Session #2 and Session #3 are over. It's entirely possible that he might now be willing to match a higher offer than he would have when MJD was initially bid on.-Again this opens the door for other teams to try and get this process done.I determined that those two options were not viable and would change too much to logically be done. Sure it would be nice if I could just go back in a time machine and set it to when MJD was going to be auctioned off. But you also have to look at the players that were auctioned off after him. Do teams change their bidding style because they know which teams are going to jump in and bid on a player and how much they are willing to bid? These are questions I can't say for sure, but I'm sure that other player would end up on different teams and that will piss other people off.I had to make a quick decision yesterday and I made it.When I made initial decision to change the rules, it didn't only affect Team B, it affected 5 other teams including my own. Team B got MJD, exactly the player he wanted by making the "poison pill" bid. Lost in this entire ordeal is that Team A lost his best player due to an extreme bid and hasn't complained about it one bit. The team that won the decision wants the player and the cheap salary.

I think first you need to decide how the rule is supposed to work. Having original team matching a higher salary than winning team is paying obviously isn't how it should work, as you are effectively hurting the original team's ability to retain the player when the idea was to give them more options.I'd say there are three things you can do, and that won't involve completely redoing the bidding.1. Decide that teams who bid on RFAs are bidding on them at the max they were willing to bid and that is the price he goes at, to either the matching team or the winning team.2. Decide that the lowest bid that beats another team is his salary (e.g. $38) and that is the price that has to be matched.3. Once the winning team is decided, allow that owner to increase his winning bid to a higher one since he himself didn't actually select his winning bid, and that is the price that gets sent to the original team for matching and that the player will go at, whoever ends up with him. It need not be equal to the max he said he was willing to pay.Any of the three you go with, there is no need to re-auction anyone. The original bids placed on the players can still stand to select the winning team and salary. I personally think you should go with #3. Rather than force a resolution made from bids people made with differing understandings of the rules, you still have the winning team selected by the original bids (which our understanding of hasn't changed), and only have those teams involved in resolving the auction in a normal fashion by essentially doing one last bid.And I think #3 comes a lot closer to the NFL's system than what you had. The original bidding is like the RFA going around to teams and deciding which he wants where the winning team is the one he decides to sign with. The increased offer then is his contract they finally agree on, and then the original team can match that contract or not. (Of course you still need the original team being compensated in some fashion if he loses the player.)

This is exactly what I have been offering. Unfortunately, another round of auctions ran last night, and I missed out on a chance to take several other marquee players while waiting for this situation to be resolved.

 

[Hinezer]

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

Seems pretty clear to me. According to rule #1 above, the original team needed $61.50 to sign MJD (which he did). According to rule #2 above, once the salary is matched (which it was) then the salary goes down to the winning bid (which it should).The original team gets MJD for $38.50 period, end of story. If I was team A and the commish didn't decide that way, I'd be pretty T'd off and would consider not playing in your league anymore.

I tend to agree with this interpretation. Team A should be able to match the bid and get MJD for a salary of $38.50. Team A would lose the maximum bid of $61.50 from his cap during the auction.

Correct, that's how it was set up and how the league programmer imagined it working. The league rules weren't clear and a had to change them. Next year they will be clear. As I mentioned Team A accepted the ruling and moved on to adding players to replace MJD.

 

[benm3218]

I cant beleive this is so difficult. It is ludicrous to say he gets him for less than 61.50.

The owner knew what he was doing and it was almost like cheating, since th eother owner didnt play his little game and honestly declined. You cant let him get away with that. As the commish you decide it isnt fair -because it isnt.

 

[ookook]

It just seems so obvious that if the original owner can not have MJD for $38.50 there is no way you can allow a bidding team to have that player for $38.50.

This is how I feel. Maximum bid is irrelevant to me. So is the ACTUAL wording of the rules, what matters is intent. On ebay, the max bid is not used for determining the juice they take, just the winning bid.

 

[Hinezer]

Ok since one side of the argument has come up, here's my side:I am not Team A, I have a team in the league but this does not affect my team at all.I take fault in that the rules were confusing and spelled out completely for the first part of the mess, the part where Team A matched the maximum deal and then paid a salary of $38.50, the winning bid.Due to the league's opinion that Team A should have to match the salary of the maximum bid of $61.50, I made the manual change. So it went back to Team A to match the salary offer of $61.50. Team B went to great lengths to make sure Team A had to match that high salary if he wanted to keep MJD. Team A said that he wouldn't pay $61.50, so that is a non-match. Team B was given MJD for $61.50 and this is the result.I spent all yesterday fixing the original problem so that MJD's salary would be $61.50 either with Team A or Team B. When Team B received MJD for $61.50, he said that he shouldn't have to pay that much, that he should have to pay the market value of $38.50 instead of $61.50.My question is why would he get to make an extreme offer so that Team A won't match, but isn't responsible for the offer that he made.He said that it was because that's how he understood it. I understand using that reasoning once when the league rules are confusing, that's why I made the first change. This is completely different. There is nothing in the league rules that suggest that you wouldn't be responsible for the maximum bid if it isn't matched. It seems completely logic in my mind that if you make a bid, you have to be willing to pay that bid.On the subject of the resolution:The FA Auctions are set up in 4 separate "sessions". Each one lasts 3 days. At the end of the third day the players are auctioned off, which usually results in "sniper bids" just like on ebay. There is strategy involved there and some teams lose players because they weren't quick enough on the click or weren't able to be around. MJD was auctioned off in Session #2. This entire resolution happened on Day 3 of Session #3. Session #3 ended last night.Now there are a couple of proposed resolutions:1. Put MJD back into the auction and have him be auctioned off again-There was obvious a lot of interest in MJD because he was bid up to $38.50. Of the teams that dropped out of the bidding, they might have moved onto a second target. They might have gotten that player or they might have missed out on them. This may effect the bidding on MJD if he's put up there again.-With teams knowing that MJD is going to go for as much, there might be no interest at all and he might to get bid up at all.-All the auction sessions are connected together. We stop the process now, then Sessions #1 and #2 will have to be redone by either myself or league programmer.-What's stopping a team saying that they would have bid more on a player if they knew they were going to go for so little and then asking for that player to be put back in the auction. It creates a horrible example for the future and opens the door for more "ignorance of the rules" excuses to come up.2. Have Team A and Team B get together and come to a decision of what they are willing to pay-This would have to be a completely blind bid, but IMO, there is already too much information out there for this to happen. We know Team A will match an offer for $38.50, but not one for $61.50.-If I ask Team B for a maximum bid of how much he is willing to pay for MJD and then send that offer to Team A, how is that really different from the current result?-Team A has the gift of having more information since Session #2 and Session #3 are over. It's entirely possible that he might now be willing to match a higher offer than he would have when MJD was initially bid on.-Again this opens the door for other teams to try and get this process done.I determined that those two options were not viable and would change too much to logically be done. Sure it would be nice if I could just go back in a time machine and set it to when MJD was going to be auctioned off. But you also have to look at the players that were auctioned off after him. Do teams change their bidding style because they know which teams are going to jump in and bid on a player and how much they are willing to bid? These are questions I can't say for sure, but I'm sure that other player would end up on different teams and that will piss other people off.I had to make a quick decision yesterday and I made it.When I made initial decision to change the rules, it didn't only affect Team B, it affected 5 other teams including my own. Team B got MJD, exactly the player he wanted by making the "poison pill" bid. Lost in this entire ordeal is that Team A lost his best player due to an extreme bid and hasn't complained about it one bit. The team that won the decision wants the player and the cheap salary.

I think first you need to decide how the rule is supposed to work. Having original team matching a higher salary than winning team is paying obviously isn't how it should work, as you are effectively hurting the original team's ability to retain the player when the idea was to give them more options.I'd say there are three things you can do, and that won't involve completely redoing the bidding.1. Decide that teams who bid on RFAs are bidding on them at the max they were willing to bid and that is the price he goes at, to either the matching team or the winning team.2. Decide that the lowest bid that beats another team is his salary (e.g. $38) and that is the price that has to be matched.3. Once the winning team is decided, allow that owner to increase his winning bid to a higher one since he himself didn't actually select his winning bid, and that is the price that gets sent to the original team for matching and that the player will go at, whoever ends up with him. It need not be equal to the max he said he was willing to pay.Any of the three you go with, there is no need to re-auction anyone. The original bids placed on the players can still stand to select the winning team and salary. I personally think you should go with #3. Rather than force a resolution made from bids people made with differing understandings of the rules, you still have the winning team selected by the original bids (which our understanding of hasn't changed), and only have those teams involved in resolving the auction in a normal fashion by essentially doing one last bid.And I think #3 comes a lot closer to the NFL's system than what you had. The original bidding is like the RFA going around to teams and deciding which he wants where the winning team is the one he decides to sign with. The increased offer then is his contract they finally agree on, and then the original team can match that contract or not. (Of course you still need the original team being compensated in some fashion if he loses the player.)

This is exactly what I have been offering. Unfortunately, another round of auctions ran last night, and I missed out on a chance to take several other marquee players while waiting for this situation to be resolved.

The situation is and has been resolved. You just didn't accept it. If you were worried about bidding on "marquee players", maybe you shouldn't have been so set on getting MJD.

 

[Chairshot]

Not to cast stones, but this is one screwed up rule and one screwed up league if the rule isn't change right away.

Honestly, even if I wasn't involved with the transaction, this would be the type of rule that would make me leave a league. You wouldn't have any issues if everyone just took 5 minutes to re-write the rule in a way that makes sense.

That said, in my eyes, there is no way Team B should have to pay the $61. In eBay style bidding, you very often don't meet your max bid. That's just as high as you are willing to go and the max bid acts as a convenience so you don't have to sit online all day bidding. If it's a max bid situation and the bidding only got to $38 then he should get MJD for the $38. That's the point of eBay style bidding. If I'm bidding on a copy of Madden 09, for example, and I'm willing to go as high as $50, but the bidding stops at $40, the seller doesn't get to hit me up for $50 because I was willing to go that high. The seller gets $40 because that's what the market bared on his auction. It's really, really simple.

If you make him pay the $61, then you are basically penalizing him for following the league defined auction process and the rules as they are written (if I'm understanding them correctly, which I might not be since it's a really unclear rule), which seems totally unfair in every way, shape and form. It's not his fault that the rules are crappy.

 

[Warhogs]

I don't like how people are comparing this to an ebay item. I understand the analog being used to decide the bid process but there is a huge difference. On ebay the seller is choosing to sell the item without a right to match (unless you are also incorporating a minimum bid). This league is set up where the seller has a matching right.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Not to cast stones, but this is one screwed up rule and one screwed up league if the rule isn't change right away.Honestly, even if I wasn't involved with the transaction, this would be the type of rule that would make me leave a league. You wouldn't have any issues if everyone just took 5 minutes to re-write the rule in a way that makes sense.That said, in my eyes, there is no way Team B should have to pay the $61. In eBay style bidding, you very often don't meet your max bid. That's just as high as you are willing to go and the max bid acts as a convenience so you don't have to sit online all day bidding. If it's a max bid situation and the bidding only got to $38 then he should get MJD for the $38. That's the point of eBay style bidding. If I'm bidding on a copy of Madden 09, for example, and I'm willing to go as high as $50, but the bidding stops at $40, the seller doesn't get to hit me up for $50 because I was willing to go that high. The seller gets $40 because that's what the market bared on his auction. It's really, really simple.If you make him pay the $61, then you are basically penalizing him for following the league defined auction process and the rules as they are written (if I'm understanding them correctly, which I might not be since it's a really unclear rule), which seems totally unfair in every way, shape and form. It's not his fault that the rules are crappy.

 

[stevegamer]

I voted $38.50, based on this:

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

The winning bid is $38.50, no matter how you slice & dice it. So the salary should be $38.50.

The blame here really lies with the commish & the programmer (if he didn't exactly what was wanted)

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It looks like the guy should get the player for $38.50 but have the full $61.50 removed for the rest of the auction. Like the excess money is tied up in escrow or something. He's paying the lower number but "losing" the higher number for the rest of the auction, as a way to hold onto his player.

 

[FantasyTrader]

It's July 16th. Not September 3rd. Burn this bi*ch to the ground, make every bid a HARD bid and start from scratch.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I voted $38.50, based on this:

At some point along the way things get changed a little bit and this is how it got set up for RFA:

1. Original team has to match the maximum bid.

2. Once the bid is matched or not matched, the salary goes down to the winning bid.

3. Whoever got the player also loses that maximum bid from his cap during the FA auctions.

The winning bid is $38.50, no matter how you slice & dice it. So the salary should be $38.50.

The blame here really lies with the commish & the programmer (if he didn't exactly what was wanted)

I think you have to look at the intent and spirit of the rule instead of the word for word description of the rule.So the rulebook may be poorly worded, so what? What is the intention and spirit behind that rule?

To be fair, just take MJD back to auction and follow the intention of the rule.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Not to cast stones, but this is one screwed up rule and one screwed up league if the rule isn't change right away.Honestly, even if I wasn't involved with the transaction, this would be the type of rule that would make me leave a league. You wouldn't have any issues if everyone just took 5 minutes to re-write the rule in a way that makes sense.That said, in my eyes, there is no way Team B should have to pay the $61. In eBay style bidding, you very often don't meet your max bid. That's just as high as you are willing to go and the max bid acts as a convenience so you don't have to sit online all day bidding. If it's a max bid situation and the bidding only got to $38 then he should get MJD for the $38. That's the point of eBay style bidding. If I'm bidding on a copy of Madden 09, for example, and I'm willing to go as high as $50, but the bidding stops at $40, the seller doesn't get to hit me up for $50 because I was willing to go that high. The seller gets $40 because that's what the market bared on his auction. It's really, really simple.If you make him pay the $61, then you are basically penalizing him for following the league defined auction process and the rules as they are written (if I'm understanding them correctly, which I might not be since it's a really unclear rule), which seems totally unfair in every way, shape and form. It's not his fault that the rules are crappy.

I disagree. This isnt the same as an ebay auction because someone gets the chance to match the price.If I am willing to pay $61 bucks for MJD, then why would it be fair if the auction ends at $36 and then the original owner can just match MJD for a lower price?Ebay style bids are useless in this type of format and is what needs to change because if it doesn't go up to the bidders max then the original owner can get the player for less than what the bidder would have actually paid.

 

[Chairshot]

I disagree. This isnt the same as an ebay auction because someone gets the chance to match the price.If I am willing to pay $61 bucks for MJD, then why would it be fair if the auction ends at $36 and then the original owner can just match MJD for a lower price?Ebay style bids are useless in this type of format and is what needs to change because if it doesn't go up to the bidders max then the original owner can get the player for less than what the bidder would have actually paid.

You know, I had a whole post all written out about why it could be considered fair that the original team can match the offer of $36, but it's pointless.With a situation like this, you are basically trying to plug the holes in the dam with your fingers. No matter how you look at it, it's a broken system and it just doesn't seem to really work. I've read a half dozen interpretations of the rule and twice as many opinions on how to utilize the rule once you decide on an interpretation. And the sad part is that there really is no wrong answer, everyone makes great points when they defend their choice. The rule just doesn't work because there are plenty of ways to implement it that technically fit the way it's written.Like trying to choose between a crappy McDonalds burger or a cruddy Burger King burger when if you just spent a little more money you could enjoy a steak. There is no need to reinvent the wheel with some of this stuff, there are proven systems out there.Some one else said it a little further up - it's June 16th. Burn it to the ground and start over with a better system. You have plenty of time.ETA: just to say that I totally agree that the eBay system doesn't work here. If they want to do something like this, then it should be like FAAB bidding that is used in a lot of baseball leagues. Everyone submits their offers blind of the other offers and the best offer wins. Then the original owner can match. There are no min or max bids, just the one bid you are willing to make on that player. I still see plenty of holes in that process but it would be better then eBay.

 

[Sinners]

I didn't read the last half of this thread (don't really care), so excuse me if this has been said before.

Team B is being a ####. He's trying to twist the rules, instead of playing by the spirit of the rules. No way he should be able to keep MJD for any less than Team A could of.

The commish is a #####. Quit tip toeing around asking everybody what they think he should do. He knows the rules and he knows what he meant by the rules. Make a freaking decision and enforce it you wuss!

Uh, no offense intended.

 

[Hinezer]

I didn't read the last half of this thread (don't really care), so excuse me if this has been said before.Team B is being a ####. He's trying to twist the rules, instead of playing by the spirit of the rules. No way he should be able to keep MJD for any less than Team A could of.The commish is a #####. Quit tip toeing around asking everybody what they think he should do. He knows the rules and he knows what he meant by the rules. Make a freaking decision and enforce it you wuss!Uh, no offense intended.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I didn't make this topic to decide what I would do. I made this topic to get an outside opinion from people not involved in the situation.I made my decision before this topic was created. Team B quit as a result of my decision. I created this topic so that hopefully he would see that it wasn't just me who shared this opinion.As the topic continued to drag out and he continued to believe that I was just "screwing him over", I told him that I was sick of the topic, MJDs salary would not change and if he wanted to quit, I wouldn't stop him anymore. And he did.In the future the league rules will be stated very clearly and everything will be air-tight. I obviously made a lot mistakes in this entire process.