What would you do?

[T-Scorp]

My league uses Fanball's Commish Website. Each team starts the year with $20 CAP to spend on FA's using the automated bidding system.

 

This event happened this week (last week of FA pickups)

 

Team A bids $2 on J Jones

 

Team B bids $9 on J Jones

 

Sound simple enough...however Team B only has $6 of CAP left. The system awards J Jones to Team A (who started him on Thursday) because the bid by Team B is illegal.

 

Team B has locked up a playoff spot but needs a RB. Team A is in the playoff hunt and will lock up a playoff spot with a win this week. The team playing agaist Team A is also in the hunt so is effected by the 27 point game by Jones.

 

This has the potential to be a cluster.

 

All and any advice is welcome.

[Randall]

Is this covered in the rules?

[Piranha]

Team B should have been more aware of what they had left to spend.

Team A wins by default.

IMO.

[Chief Dick]

Is this covered in the rules?

 

576089[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That's the first question. If it is not, as commissioner I would:

 

Award the player to team B. Logic would tell you that he clearly outspent the other owner, even when using the $6 he had left. He may not have been aware, or miscalculated his cap dollars.

 

If team A complains, you simply tell him the winning bid was greater than the $2 he was willing to spend.

 

 

In a nutshell, team B would have entered $6 and won the player.

[T-Scorp]

It is not specifically coverd in the rules. It was a new feature this year so we did not anticipate this issue.

 

However, our rules do state that in our auction if an owner overbids on a player and wins the bid (ie does not have Cap enough to cover the bid) the player will be awarded to the last legal bid.

 

By using the logic of that rule, Team A would receive the player.

 

Team B should know their CAP $ left as it is on the main page of the website.

[Ramhock]

That's the first question. If it is not, as commissioner I would:

 

Award the player to team B. Logic would tell you that he clearly outspent the other owner, even when using the $6 he had left. He may not have been aware, or miscalculated his cap dollars.

 

If team A complains, you simply tell him the winning bid was greater than the $2 he was willing to spend.

In a nutshell, team B would have entered $6 and won the player.

 

576105[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The obvious, logical, mature way to handle it. But still, there will be opposition because some find that sort of thing , a hobby.

Edited November 26, 2004 by Ramhock

[jgcoach]

It is not specifically coverd in the rules.  It was a new feature this year so we did not anticipate this issue.

 

However, our rules do state that in our auction if an owner overbids on a player and wins the bid (ie does not have Cap enough to cover the bid) the player will be awarded to the last legal bid.

 

By using the logic of that rule, Team A would receive the player.

 

Team B should know their CAP $ left as it is on the main page of the website.

 

576113[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

That's it in your rules, if not specifically made for this situation it does cover what just happened. Team A gets Jones.

Edited November 26, 2004 by jgcoach

[skylive5]

That's the first question. If it is not, as commissioner I would:

 

Award the player to team B. Logic would tell you that he clearly outspent the other owner, even when using the $6 he had left. He may not have been aware, or miscalculated his cap dollars.

 

If team A complains, you simply tell him the winning bid was greater than the $2 he was willing to spend.

In a nutshell, team B would have entered $6 and won the player.

 

576105[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Afraid I'm going to disagree here CD.

 

Team B should have been aware of what he had left. No excuses. Team A gets the player, Team B loses out due stupidity. You cannot assume that Team B would have entered $6... he entered $9.

 

You don't penalize someone for following the rules and knowing what he has and where he stands and award to the guy that doesn't have a handle on any of that.

Edited November 26, 2004 by skylive5

[TruPark]

Team B should have been aware of what he had left. No excuses. Team A gets the player, Team B loses out due stupidity. You cannot assume that Team B would have entered $6... he entered $9.

.

 

576151[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Have to agree with Skylive5... Team A should be awarded the player.

[T-Scorp]

Fellow Huddlers,

 

Thanks for all of the great responses. I have talked to two of the owners in the league that have no stake in the transaction and they agreed with the majority of you that Team A should be awarded the player.

 

One owner brought up a great point, since Owner A had $6 of cap left too, he would have won the bid due to tiebreakers if they had both bid $6. So if he had bid $10 even though he only had $6 would he have gotten the player instead?

 

 

Thanks again for the advice.

Edited November 26, 2004 by T-Scorp

[theeohiostate]

Fellow Huddlers,

 

Thanks for all of the great responses.  I have talked to two of the owners in the league that have no stake in the transaction and they agreed with the majority of you that Team A should be awarded the player.

 

One owner brought up a great point, since Owner A had $6 of cap left too, he would have won the bid due to tiebreakers if they had both bid $6.  So if he had bid $10 even though he only had $6 would he have gotten the player instead? 

Thanks again for the advice.

 

576187[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Team B should have recieved the player, Team A was only willing to part with $2 of is $6 balance, while B was willing to part with his entire balance, there is no doubt that about that. Team A coulda, woulda bid $6 ??? He only bid $2 however, this could have been a typo by Team B and you being the commish should have planned for this kind of problem, if a player bids more than he has, he should AT LEAST be awarded the bid up to his maximum, i think you have made a mistake and Team B got screwed.

[Chief Dick]

Fellow Huddlers,

 

 

One owner brought up a great point, since Owner A had $6 of cap left too, he would have won the bid due to tiebreakers if they had both bid $6.  So if he had bid $10 even though he only had $6 would he have gotten the player instead? 

Thanks again for the advice.

 

576187[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

But Team A didn't. He bid $2.

 

It's a moot point anyway. Once you posted the rule of the league, it is clear Team A deserves the player.

[skylive5]

Team B should have recieved the player, Team A was only willing to part with $2 of is $6 balance, while B was willing to part with his entire balance, there is no doubt that about that. Team A coulda, woulda bid $6 ???  He only bid $2 however, this could have been a typo by Team B and you being the commish should have planned for this kind of problem, if a player bids more than he has, he should AT LEAST be awarded the bid up to his maximum, i think you have made a mistake and Team B got screwed.

 

576201[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So now the Commish is supposed to assume typo's? Next the Commish will decide on what you really meant when you drafted Fred Taylor #1 overall... you really meant to draft....... so he will just go ahead and take that drafted player away from the guy that drafted him and assign him to you because your really meant.... gimmie a break.

 

Assumptions cloudy the waters and get people in trouble.

 

 

Team A bid legally... Team B didn't. It goes no further than that.

[MrTed46]

An illegal bid is...well...illegal

 

he should have known how much money he had. the only way i would give team b the player if he asked the comish. how much cap money he had left and then the comish. told him 8$ therefore it wont be his fault.

 

Since there is no option to put "max" amount he should be responsible to do simple math.

 

I would give team a the player.

[T-Scorp]

Team B should have recieved the player, Team A was only willing to part with $2 of is $6 balance, while B was willing to part with his entire balance, there is no doubt that about that. Team A coulda, woulda bid $6 ???  He only bid $2 however, this could have been a typo by Team B and you being the commish should have planned for this kind of problem, if a player bids more than he has, he should AT LEAST be awarded the bid up to his maximum, i think you have made a mistake and Team B got screwed.

 

576201[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

TOS,

 

Your are correct in stating that Team A only bid $2...And yes in hindsite I should have had a rule specific to FA pickups, (I honestly didn't think about it. I also assumed the system would not allow an illegal bid, my bad).

 

However, we do have a rule covering the auction that applies to this situation too. The reason we made the rule to award the player to the last legal bidder is that if you restart the bid other owners now have an idea of what the player "may" be won at. We did not feel it was fair for an owner who lost a player due to an illegal bid to then be outbid by another owner (s) who now know where the bidding stopped at. I feel this rule is applicable in this situation.

 

I will have a rule about this for next year! Live and learn!!

[untateve]

Team B should have recieved the player, Team A was only willing to part with $2 of is $6 balance, while B was willing to part with his entire balance, there is no doubt that about that. Team A coulda, woulda bid $6 ???  He only bid $2 however, this could have been a typo by Team B and you being the commish should have planned for this kind of problem, if a player bids more than he has, he should AT LEAST be awarded the bid up to his maximum, i think you have made a mistake and Team B got screwed.

 

576201[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree with this. How do we know that team B was willing to part with his entire balance. Maybe he thought he had $12 and so he bid $9. If he knew his balance was $6, maybe he would have bid less.

 

Once again, it's all about personal responsibility. Team B is responsible for knowing his balance and making a legal bid. He is also responsible for reviewing his bid to insure there is no typo. Team B failed in any and all of these areas.

[whomper]

However, our rules do state that in our auction if an owner overbids on a player and wins the bid (ie does not have Cap enough to cover the bid) the player will be awarded to the last legal bid.

 

 

That section of your rules says enough for me.The team with the legal 2 dollar bid should get it over the team with the illegal 9 dollar bid

Edited November 26, 2004 by whomper

[Big John]

In an auction, in real life and in FF, any illegal bids are disqualified and the winner is the one who submits the highest bid (for buying).

 

As the $9 bid was illegal, the highest legal bid wins it - in this case, the $2 bid.

[cclevine1025]

Team B should have been aware of what he had left. No excuses.

 

Team A gets Jones hands down. If Team B didn't realize he only had $9 left, then too bad. He should have paid more attention to the $ limit.

 

If you went to Burger King to get a Whopper and only had $1.00 with you, would BK assume you meant to get only a hamburger. Bottom line, know how much you have to spend before you submit the order (or in this case, the bid for the player).

[Wolverines Fan]

Team B should have been more aware of what they had left to spend.

Team A wins by default.

IMO.

576093[/snapback]

 

Agree.

[Big Score 1]

Our rules do state that in our auction if an owner overbids on a player and wins the bid (ie does not have Cap enough to cover the bid) the player will be awarded to the last legal bid.

576113[/snapback]

 

 

With this rule in place, why did you even bother bringing this up for discussion?

[Donutrun Jellies]

Afraid I'm going to disagree here CD.

 

Team B should have been aware of what he had left. No excuses. Team A gets the player, Team B loses out due stupidity. You cannot assume that Team B would have entered $6... he entered $9.

 

You don't penalize someone for following the rules and knowing what he has and where he stands and award to the guy that doesn't have a handle on any of that.

 

576151[/snapback]

 

 

 

Team B gets ZERO for not having their feces together. Team A get Jones. It's like on "The Price Is Right" -- closest bid "WITHOUT GOING OVER" ...

 

That's the proper ruling.