! Open FA Bid Resolution !

[fuz]

Alright - we need to talk about somethings still up in the air: resolution on canceling bids and a time commitment/penalty to abiding by player caps and contract year caps in relation to acquiring a player. 

 

I want everyone to keep in mind several things as we talk about this: I don't want to scare people off - as this is the first year of the league.  I'm still wanting people to enjoy this league, even if it is different than what everyone expects - but, I'm wanting everything to still be fair as money is on the line.

 

First - canceling bids:  I cannot find anything in the rules that are hard and fast about bidding and commitment related to bids (nothing in the RFA or trading section of the rules, too).  We need something, otherwise once someone can retract a bid, insecurity will abound, and anyone that doesn't want someone to get a player can simply overbid and then cancel their bid as if nothing happened.

 

I'd like to propose the creation of a new rule regarding the canceling bids on Free Agents as well as Restricted Free Agents (thinking ahead to late next summer).  I'd like that rule to read something like: 11.3.2:  All FA bids posts an the board cannot be rescinded or deleted for any reason.  Once that bid is on the board it will remain and be sold to the highest bidder per 11.3.  Should the owner not sign the player, 1/2 of the credits bid (rounded up) will be deducted for canceling a bid, the player will be back in the free agent pool.  What is everyone's thoughts on something like this?  Will it help bring resolution to canceling bids? 

 

I don't know think it is fair to retroactively apply this proposal.  I want things to be fair for all.  Matt and Alex - I understand that you didn't quite understand.  Which players are you officially proposing to cancel your bids on?  Let us know and everyone needs to fire out any objections to cancellation of bids in this instance.

 

Secondly - time commitment on bids.  I think we should also add to the 11.3 rule announcing not only players that need to be cut if you go over the player count, but add a clause on contract year cap to help add clarity to how one is planning on acquiring that player.  Or give a certain amount of time before this needs to be addressed after the bid is resolved or the player either goes back in to the FA pool and then a fine is assigned.  This will add clarity to finishing off bid proposals.

 

Please let me know ASAP how you feel about either of these.

Edited October 4, 2018 by fuz

[mgee76]

I don't have any problems with that. I can't imagine there will be too many instances of retracted bids, going forward, thanks to the recent debacles.

I've never done an auction league, and also never one with a 48 hour window... perhaps it could be forgiven in instances where a manager is the first and only person to bid? I don't know. As it isn't waivers, it's hard to compare. In a normal league, you submit a waiver and then wait to find out if you got the player. If the player were to get injured, or explode, or circumstances on the team change in any way, you are free to cancel that waiver before the deadline with no repercussions. Providing nobody else has bid on the same player, I'm not sure what the harm would be. 

I think half credits bid is totally fair, though, and would especially detract disingenuous bidding on coveted players.

[mgee76]

I would cancel the Fitz pickup, obviously, and don't have a problem getting dinged for it.

[alexgee]

Fuck it, have them both back– though I'd thought the Allison pickup got canceled anyway. 

 

 

[fuz]

Alex - there was nothing final drawn up - you still have Allison and have not been given Lindsay yet.  If you are to get Lindsay (whether you have Allison or not), you would be over 40 contract years.  I've seen no plan of attack from either you (or Matt) on how you are addressing it if you were to keep them - so, yes, (the really bad word) it is the only presented option at the moment.

 

I'm bringing this up to make sure everyone gets a chance to weigh in.  The only discussion I've had is here in the office with Shane and Chris.  Ken, Dave, Wade, Adam, Jeff or JD - half of the league - has not weighed in.

 

Their chance will run out fairly soon though.  I'd like to get something in place for the weekend ahead so players can be assigned to teams and we can move forward.

[Gizmo]

If this is an attempt to completely discourage owners from not signing the players they bid on, I would proposed rule 11.3 should have much more severe consequences, (I could easily consider biddding 3-4 credits on a player to block the opposing team from picking up a F.A. if I were playing that owner that week) then never sign that player (only costing me 2 credits). If this is a strategy that we don't mind being part of the game, then half the credits, as stated is acceptable.  This is not a strategy that an NFL ownwer/coach implements which is what I thought this league is set up to make you think like.

 

I think the penalty stated in 11.3 should be MUCH steeper of a fine (minimum of 10 credits, or matching the winning bid, whichever is higher) to totally discourage owners from implanting the strategy I stated above.

 

[Gizmo]

Of course my suggestion above only works if that player has credits banked, it should be stated that if the player does not currently have the credits, the credits will be drawn from the following years allotment. 

[mgee76]

8 minutes ago, fuz said:

I've seen no plan of attack from either you (or Matt) on how you are addressing it if you were to keep them

I mean... there's only one option, right? If I'm forced to keep Fitz, I have to drop a player with more than one year on their contract. Unless I'm missing something?

[fuz]

2 hours ago, mgee76 said:

I mean... there's only one option, right? If I'm forced to keep Fitz, I have to drop a player with more than one year on their contract. Unless I'm missing something?

 

The simplest way is to cut a player with more than one year on them.  This is a bad year to think about what free agency is like.  Comparing which players on your team have the right number of years will not be the same in the future.  In the future, you will have more mistakes and commitments to players that you didn't wish you had - i.e. you draft Josh Doctson and, due to injury and now not quite putting it all together, you can more easily decide not to keep him a year or two later when you still had 4 years on him.  This year, everyone just drafted their whole team, so there is much more comfort in where contract years have been placed at the moment.

 

There are other options - trading is always on the table (remember you can trade future draft picks as well as credits or players - and the contract years of players go with them - even players with only 1 year on them - trades do not result in penalty years).  Had I known that you were looking to ditch Burkhead or Trubisky, I might have worked something up with you. 

 

Also, keep in mind, if someone bids on your previously released players and they are acquired, your penalty year goes away.

[fuz]

4 hours ago, Gizmo said:

If this is an attempt to completely discourage owners from not signing the players they bid on, I would proposed rule 11.3 should have much more severe consequences, (I could easily consider biddding 3-4 credits on a player to block the opposing team from picking up a F.A. if I were playing that owner that week) then never sign that player (only costing me 2 credits). If this is a strategy that we don't mind being part of the game, then half the credits, as stated is acceptable.  This is not a strategy that an NFL ownwer/coach implements which is what I thought this league is set up to make you think like.

 

I think the penalty stated in 11.3 should be MUCH steeper of a fine (minimum of 10 credits, or matching the winning bid, whichever is higher) to totally discourage owners from implanting the strategy I stated above.

 

 

Or we could tweak a rule already in place to encompass this idea as well.

 

5.1.2 already states: A team may exceed the maximum number of players after a draft, but must cut the roster down to 20 players the Sunday before the beginning of the season. If a team does not submit any roster or contacts by the deadline, the team will be fined 10 credits immediately and 5 credits per day until the roster and contracts are submitted. If a team submits a roster and contracts by the deadline, but the roster exceeds the aforementioned 20 player limit or the contracts exceed 40 years (see rule 8.3), then the team will be notified and fined 5 credits immediately and 5 credits per day until their roster and/or contracts are fixed.

 

The latter half of this rule seems like it has some bones for tweaking - maybe ditching the 5 credits immediately and give at least 24 hours for resolution to happen.  After 24 hours and every subsequent 24 hours would result in a 5 credit penalty.    Maybe that rule should extend from 1 week before the start of the season through week 13...

[Gizmo]

5 hours ago, fuz said:

 

Or we could tweak a rule already in place to encompass this idea as well.

 

5.1.2 already states: A team may exceed the maximum number of players after a draft, but must cut the roster down to 20 players the Sunday before the beginning of the season. If a team does not submit any roster or contacts by the deadline, the team will be fined 10 credits immediately and 5 credits per day until the roster and contracts are submitted. If a team submits a roster and contracts by the deadline, but the roster exceeds the aforementioned 20 player limit or the contracts exceed 40 years (see rule 8.3), then the team will be notified and fined 5 credits immediately and 5 credits per day until their roster and/or contracts are fixed.

 

The latter half of this rule seems like it has some bones for tweaking - maybe ditching the 5 credits immediately and give at least 24 hours for resolution to happen.  After 24 hours and every subsequent 24 hours would result in a 5 credit penalty.    Maybe that rule should extend from 1 week before the start of the season through week 13...

 

 

I personally agree!

 

Rule 5.1.2 could be modified to set a time limit for an owner to roster newly acquired player after winning a bid which would include corresponding roster moves.

 

I'm in favor

 

[Fiese]

I'm in favor as well

[fuz]

Ok - after hearing from everyone that has desired to weigh in, I'm going to take action on a couple of things.  Typically, new rules are not formed in this manner, but I'm looking at all of this as an extenuating circumstance with some loopholes in the system.  Typically, the rules would have the commissioner acting as an "executive director" to a "board".  The "board" being all 12 owners of this league.  A typical situation would be for at least 4 owners to put up a resolution to change the rules and then, depending on the time of year, would need a majority or all 12 owners to vote "yes".  I hope to adhere to this rule in the future.  But, to move forward, I'm proposing an automatic alteration to the rules.

 

First, I am canceling the original bids on: Allison, Fitzmagic, Callaway, and Lindsay as of this moment.  Please adhere to the rules regarding future pickups.  To give a bit of additional time after clearing things up, I don't feel like I should completely cancel the secondary bid on Lindsay, but I should give a bit more time for others to see this and adjust accordingly.  The secondary bid on Lindsay is in effect per 24 hours prior to this post - so the current second thread by Gizmo will expire 24 hours from this post.

 

Secondly, I am including a new rule on unresolved bids: 5.1.3: A team may, at no time during the season, exceed the roster player or contract year cap limits except to resolve newly acquired players.  Owners have 24 hours to resolve newly acquired players.  After 24 hours, the team will be fined 5 credits immediately and an additional 5 credits per day until the player cap or contract year caps are resolved.

 

Thirdly, I'd like to add a new rule on canceling of bids: 11.3.2: Any canceled bids on free agents will result in an immediate penalty of the credits bid on said player.  For bids on players 5 credits or less, a 5 credit penalty shall be imposed.

 

Since this is a different way to propose rules and the exact wording of these rules have not been officially proposed, please file an appeal regarding these rule changes ASAP (rule 21.2).

[Fiese]

looks good Tim!