Waiver Rules

[keggerz]

Not if they were blind. My point is, everyone puts in their blind bid, but a guy doesn't get hosed if his blind bid happens to be twice what the next highest bid is. Oh, and as far as ebay is concerned, e-snipe, my friend, it's the only way. It's an on-line proxy bid service where you put your max bid (just like you would if you bid on ebay) but you tell it how many seconds before the bidding ends that you want it to drop your bid in.

so what if he gets hosed for double the price...that is either what he valued the guy at or what he perceived the value he would need to pay to get him...if he ends up getting burned he can file it away and maybe bid less in the future ...but then he might not win the guy...nothing wrong with a system that lets you bid what you see a guys value at according to what you are able or willing to pay...having it default down to just above the next highest bid seems ummm for lack of a better word a bit silly.

[untateve]

He's not saying to do the eBay style entirely. You won't have to pay with Paypal, lol. He is saying that if your blind bid is highest, then you pay one increment over the second highest bid. It's not auction-style, it's still blind-bidding.

 

This wouldn't work.

 

I want a player and I have 100 fantasy dollars. I bid $100 on him, knowing that no one is going to bid that high. The next highest bidder bids $22. I get him for $23.

 

Of course, if two people utilize that same strategy, someone is going to lose their entire bank.

[keggerz]

You bid the max amount you're willing to pay. If you're not willing to pay $100, then don't bid $100

so if you bid what you are willing to pay then why shouldn't you pay that amount?

Edited December 2, 2010 by keggerz

[detlef]

This wouldn't work.

 

I want a player and I have 100 fantasy dollars. I bid $100 on him, knowing that no one is going to bid that high. The next highest bidder bids $22. I get him for $23.

 

Of course, if two people utilize that same strategy, someone is going to lose their entire bank.

However, the chance that someone else might use that strategy means you actually think about what you are willing to spend on the guy and bid that. If you're not prepared to spend 100 fantasy dollars on a guy, don't bid that. Bid 50. Bid what you're willing to spend. Just like every other blind auction. The only thing I'm proposing is a "get out of jail free" for the high bidder of not having to pay what he was willing to spend, rather just up to what he was willing to spend.

 

It's no more likely to blow some players wad as holding him to his actual bid. In fact, less likely.

[detlef]

so if you bid what you are willing to pay then why shouldn't you pay that amount?

Honestly, this is a fine way to look at it. I was merely throwing this out as an option for those who had issue with the fact that guys would be caught overspending for players.

 

Like ebay. If it was a true auction, you wouldn't have to worry about paying what you're willing to spend if nobody else was interested, because nobody else would be bidding against you. However, most of us don't have the time to actually hold an auction ever week for FAs. So, you need to come up with an easier format. Mine accounts for the same thing. You throw up a bid that you'd be willing to spend if, in fact, you were all there together bidding against each other for the guy. But you're not. So why should you be stuck paying any more for a guy that nobody wants than you would if, in fact, you were all in the room bidding?

 

Say you can't make it to a sports auction and you're the only guy who cares about a certain signed jersey. Your kid loves the player, so you're ready to pay $500. So you tell a guy who can go in your place, keep bidding until it gets to $500. Thing is, it opens at $50 and nobody else bids. Should you be stuck spending $500? Why?

[keggerz]

Honestly, this is a fine way to look at it. I was merely throwing this out as an option for those who had issue with the fact that guys would be caught overspending for players.

 

Like ebay. If it was a true auction, you wouldn't have to worry about paying what you're willing to spend if nobody else was interested, because nobody else would be bidding against you. However, most of us don't have the time to actually hold an auction ever week for FAs. So, you need to come up with an easier format. Mine accounts for the same thing. You throw up a bid that you'd be willing to spend if, in fact, you were all there together bidding against each other for the guy. But you're not. So why should you be stuck paying any more for a guy that nobody wants than you would if, in fact, you were all in the room bidding?

 

Say you can't make it to a sports auction and you're the only guy who cares about a certain signed jersey. Your kid loves the player, so you're ready to pay $500. So you tell a guy who can go in your place, keep bidding until it gets to $500. Thing is, it opens at $50 and nobody else bids. Should you be stuck spending $500? Why?

and what if it were a SILENT Auction? You know that kind...usually help at fundraisers but still you know what I mean.

Edited December 3, 2010 by keggerz

[CrazyOne]

In our 10-team redraft league that still has a mishmash of stuff relating to both total points and head to head with playoffs, we still do waiver rounds with worst to first, but using total points not record. Not married to the system but haven't thought much about changing it either. The veterans are used to it, and it's not something the couple of newer owners have complained about. Yes, it can mean someone having an awful season gets first priority over and over, but so what? I never saw what was wrong with that. First priority gets only one pick at that point anyway; it's not like they get all you can eat before everyone else. It goes in order, lowest to highest YTD points, then there's a second round if anyone selects more than one player, and so on. There's still some skill to picking up players, and not everyone has it. I've been last in waivers all year and still picked up Hillis for example, because I grabbed him in the right week. And this is with not processing waivers until Friday early in the season, giving everyone a reasonable chance to look.

 

I think part of that may also stem from our roster design, which not only has just 14 spots but is strict in what we must keep: we're forced to have 2 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, TE/K/DEF at all times. You can't go down to 1 QB or 2 RB or so forth. So it makes people think a little bit harder about whether they want to drop someone, and they can't just say "oh I have Peyton Manning, doesn't get hurt, so I'm not going to carry a second QB." They must keep that spot as a QB.

 

You might think that this isn't that competitive a league if everyone isn't rushing to get the same add, but it is and always has been. (We have relative parity, just like the NFL. ) And sometimes they do go after the same one. This week, for example, 3 or 4 claims were put in for Westbrook. Obvious. After waiver rounds, we allow FCFS adds until first kickoff and that's it. That can be a pain sometimes with these Thursday games.