The League

braven112 wrote:Hmm....

Basically either an increase in salary and/or an increase in years is acceptable.

Player A is tagged for 1.0 million by team 1
Team 2 can be bid on for 1.025 million and a 1 year contract
Team 3 can bid on Player A for 1.025 million and a 2 year contract
Team 2 can then place a higher bid of 1.05 million and a 1 year contract
Team 3 can then place a higher bid of 1.75 and a 2 year contract
Team 2 can then bid 2.0 million and a 1 year contract.
Team 3 could then bid 2.025 million and a 5 year contract
Team 2 can then bid 2.05 million and a 1 year contract.
Team 3 can then bid 2.05 million and a 2 year contract.
Team 2 can then bid 2.05 million and a 3 year contract.
Team 3 can then bid 2.05 million and a 4 year contract.
Team 2 can then bid 2.05 million and a 5 year contract.



Is that more clear?

My ...

In the example above a team raised the value from 2.025M to 2.05M, but lowered the years from 5 to 1. Now let's say the bid was at 2.025M for 2 years. Would a another team then be able to bid 1.75M for 3 years and because they raised the years they take over as high bidder?

IMO I don't think the years of the contract should be able to be lowered once they've been raised. If a team bids 2M @ 3 years any future bids should have to be at least @ 3 years and once a bid reaches 5 years any future bids should need to be @ 5 years.

LV Elite wrote:

Achon44 wrote:

braven112 wrote:Hmm....

Basically either an increase in salary and/or an increase in years is acceptable.

Player A is tagged for 1.0 million by team 1
Team 2 can be bid on for 1.025 million and a 1 year contract
Team 3 can bid on Player A for 1.025 million and a 2 year contract
Team 2 can then place a higher bid of 1.05 million and a 1 year contract
Team 3 can then place a higher bid of 1.75 and a 2 year contract
Team 2 can then bid 2.0 million and a 1 year contract.
Team 3 could then bid 2.025 million and a 5 year contract
Team 2 can then bid 2.05 million and a 1 year contract.
Team 3 can then bid 2.05 million and a 2 year contract.
Team 2 can then bid 2.05 million and a 3 year contract.
Team 3 can then bid 2.05 million and a 4 year contract.
Team 2 can then bid 2.05 million and a 5 year contract.



Is that more clear?

My ...

In the example above a team raised the value from 2.025M to 2.05M, but lowered the years from 5 to 1. Now let's say the bid was at 2.025M for 2 years. Would a another team then be able to bid 1.75M for 3 years and because they raised the years they take over as high bidder?

IMO I don't think the years of the contract should be able to be lowered once they've been raised. If a team bids 2M @ 3 years any future bids should have to be at least @ 3 years and once a bid reaches 5 years any future bids should need to be @ 5 years.

I am still reading Bravens example as the highest $$$ amount per year will win the player and not necassarly the years on the contract. Is that right? It cant be the TOTAL $$$ amount with years taken into account because your examples of Team 2 taken over the bidded player for 2.50 for 1 year after the previous bid was 2.025 for 5 years won out. Hope that makes sense, the way I am interperating it is simply the highest $$$ amount per year no matter the contract length will win the player.

I'm just saying IMO once the years have been raised they should not be allowed to be lowered. I feel If a team bids $2,500,000 @ 3 years on a player the next minimum bid should be $2,525,000 @ 3 years. If this was the NFL what player in their right mind would take a $2.05M @ 1 year deal over a $2.025M @ 5 year deal?

Achon44 wrote: If this was the NFL what player in their right mind would take a $2.05M @ 1 year deal over a $2.025M @ 5 year deal?

Actually players do this all the time. They would rather just have a 1 year contract to be assured of being an unrestriced FA the following season, in hopes of a bigger payday on the next contract. But that doesn't have much to do with this discussion.

So I guess I need to give my opinion on this too.

My only experience is in seeing what some other dynasty leagues do and typically they do what we do.
Basically the highest salary wins the player with contract length being the tie breaker if there are two bids of the same price. This is pretty much what our rules are now.

The only other system I've seen is that *total* money wins the player which would be the salary times the contract length. But I personally think this has problems because 1 million for 3 years would win the bid over a 2 million 1 yr contract.

I think what we have is fine. Highest salary wins the player, contract length only matters if there are multiple bids for the same salary as has been shown in the examples.

bonscott wrote:

Achon44 wrote: If this was the NFL what player in their right mind would take a $2.05M @ 1 year deal over a $2.025M @ 5 year deal?

Actually players do this all the time. They would rather just have a 1 year contract to be assured of being an unrestriced FA the following season, in hopes of a bigger payday on the next contract. But that doesn't have much to do with this discussion.

Depending on the signing bonus. But that doesn't have much to do with this discussion.

bonscott wrote:So I guess I need to give my opinion on this too.

My only experience is in seeing what some other dynasty leagues do and typically they do what we do.
Basically the highest salary wins the player with contract length being the tie breaker if there are two bids of the same price. This is pretty much what our rules are now.

The only other system I've seen is that *total* money wins the player which would be the salary times the contract length. But I personally think this has problems because 1 million for 3 years would win the bid over a 2 million 1 yr contract.

I think what we have is fine. Highest salary wins the player, contract length only matters if there are multiple bids for the same salary as has been shown in the examples.

For this to me be effective shouldn't the bid be blind? Or is it blind and I haven't studied my constitution

bonscott wrote:So I guess I need to give my opinion on this too.

My only experience is in seeing what some other dynasty leagues do and typically they do what we do.
Basically the highest salary wins the player with contract length being the tie breaker if there are two bids of the same price. This is pretty much what our rules are now.

The only other system I've seen is that *total* money wins the player which would be the salary times the contract length. But I personally think this has problems because 1 million for 3 years would win the bid over a 2 million 1 yr contract.

I think what we have is fine. Highest salary wins the player, contract length only matters if there are multiple bids for the same salary as has been shown in the examples.

I'm in no way saying we should use a "*total* money" approach. I'm just saying once the years are raised on a bid they should not be allowed to be lowered by a future bid. We have a contract cap for a reason.

Achon44 wrote: I'm in no way saying we should use a "*total* money" approach. I'm just saying once the years are raised on a bid they should not be allowed to be lowered by a future bid. We have a contract cap for a reason.

Oh I understand. I was only bringing up what I have seen in other dynasty leagues. By no means are they the only way to do things.

Boyz II Men wrote:

bonscott wrote:So I guess I need to give my opinion on this too.

My only experience is in seeing what some other dynasty leagues do and typically they do what we do.
Basically the highest salary wins the player with contract length being the tie breaker if there are two bids of the same price. This is pretty much what our rules are now.

The only other system I've seen is that *total* money wins the player which would be the salary times the contract length. But I personally think this has problems because 1 million for 3 years would win the bid over a 2 million 1 yr contract.

I think what we have is fine. Highest salary wins the player, contract length only matters if there are multiple bids for the same salary as has been shown in the examples.

For this to me be effective shouldn't the bid be blind? Or is it blind and I haven't studied my constitution

The way it will work is public posting via the message board, at least as I understand the constitution (there is no way to use the built in MFL bidding system for this).

So for example I tagged my kicker.
You could come along and bid 600K for 2 years.
Then team B comes along and bids 600K for 3 years.
You bid again and could add another year to 4 to get the high bid or you could go 625K for 1 year to get the high bid.
Team B could then go 625 for 2 yrs to get the high bid or up the salary again to say 700K for X yrs.
And of course at the end of bidding I could then just match the highest bid and keep my player.

Basically the high salary gets the player. What I mean by contract "breaking the tie" is that simply someone could bid the same salary but longer contract and they would be high bid. Just my way of thinking of it and it obviously confused. Sorry about that.

Achon44 wrote:

bonscott wrote:So I guess I need to give my opinion on this too.

My only experience is in seeing what some other dynasty leagues do and typically they do what we do.
Basically the highest salary wins the player with contract length being the tie breaker if there are two bids of the same price. This is pretty much what our rules are now.

The only other system I've seen is that *total* money wins the player which would be the salary times the contract length. But I personally think this has problems because 1 million for 3 years would win the bid over a 2 million 1 yr contract.

I think what we have is fine. Highest salary wins the player, contract length only matters if there are multiple bids for the same salary as has been shown in the examples.

I'm in no way saying we should use a "*total* money" approach. I'm just saying once the years are raised on a bid they should not be allowed to be lowered by a future bid. We have a contract cap for a reason.

if this went to vote I'd be casting my ballot against your proposition

bonesman wrote:

Achon44 wrote:

bonscott wrote:So I guess I need to give my opinion on this too.

My only experience is in seeing what some other dynasty leagues do and typically they do what we do.
Basically the highest salary wins the player with contract length being the tie breaker if there are two bids of the same price. This is pretty much what our rules are now.

The only other system I've seen is that *total* money wins the player which would be the salary times the contract length. But I personally think this has problems because 1 million for 3 years would win the bid over a 2 million 1 yr contract.

I think what we have is fine. Highest salary wins the player, contract length only matters if there are multiple bids for the same salary as has been shown in the examples.

I'm in no way saying we should use a "*total* money" approach. I'm just saying once the years are raised on a bid they should not be allowed to be lowered by a future bid. We have a contract cap for a reason.

if this went to vote I'd be casting my ballot against your proposition

That's okay, but can you at least explain why?

I feel that the dollar amount/contract yrs should never be decrease in the tag bidding process. A team can match the dollars of the higher bidder than offer a longer term contract to break the tie. Basically a bidder has to match the dollar amount and beat the contract year bid or beat the dollar amount bid and match the contract year bid or flat out beat the dollar amount and contract years.

Achon44 wrote:

bonesman wrote:

if this went to vote I'd be casting my ballot against your proposition

That's okay, but can you at least explain why?

fear of commitment?

I can foresee instances where I would want a player and be willing to pay a million or so over what his current bid price is... but only for 1 or 2 years max... not the 3 he's already been offered.

bonesman wrote:

Achon44 wrote:

bonesman wrote:

if this went to vote I'd be casting my ballot against your proposition

That's okay, but can you at least explain why?

fear of commitment?

I can foresee instances where I would want a player and be willing to pay a million or so over what his current bid price is... but only for 1 or 2 years max... not the 3 he's already been offered.

You do realize this is a dynasty league?

Dynasty leagues are all about commitment and if a team is willing to take the chance on a player for 3 years then it should take a higher 3 year contract to beat that bid. Not to mention the negative effect huge 1 year contracts put on the top average salaries.

Achon44 wrote:
You do realize this is a dynasty league?

Dynasty leagues are all about commitment and if a team is willing to take the chance on a player for 3 years then it should take a higher 3 year contract to beat that bid. Not to mention the negative effect huge 1 year contracts put on the top average salaries.

Where was your commitment to S. Alexander? hmmmmm?

my opinion remains unchanged on the matter.

bonesman wrote:

Achon44 wrote:
You do realize this is a dynasty league?

Dynasty leagues are all about commitment and if a team is willing to take the chance on a player for 3 years then it should take a higher 3 year contract to beat that bid. Not to mention the negative effect huge 1 year contracts put on the top average salaries.

Where was your commitment to S. Alexander? hmmmmm?

my opinion remains unchanged on the matter.

Dude, that's apples and oranges. Contract years were not included in that bidding process, nor will they be included in our off season free agent bidding process, but when we bid on tagged players they are and I believe that if a team is willing to sign a player to a multi year contract then any other team that tries to outbid them should have to also offer a multi year deal.

Achon44 wrote:
Dude, that's apples and oranges. Contract years were not included in that bidding process, nor will they be included in our off season free agent bidding process, but when we bid on tagged players they are and I believe that if a team is willing to sign a player to a multi year contract then any other team that tries to outbid them should have to also offer a multi year deal.

I better start using this emoticon



by the lack of discussion, I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who's opinion you'd need to sway to see this rule implemented. Good luck.

bonesman wrote:
I better start using this emoticon

Wouldn't hurt.

I have a question that might have already been answered but it seems like a slight loophole

If I tag a WR who has a salary of 700,000 to a transition tag which is set to pay him 6,287,000 for 1 yr....shouldn't all bids on the player start with this number?

Why would I plan to give a guy 6,287,000 for 1 yr and then the bidding start at say 500,000 for 3 yrs. You could win the player with a bid of say 1,000,000 for 4yrs which would be a discount of 5,287,000 of of his original tender...seems off somewhere

Boyz II Men wrote:I have a question that might have already been answered but it seems like a slight loophole

If I tag a WR who has a salary of 700,000 to a transition tag which is set to pay him 6,287,000 for 1 yr....shouldn't all bids on the player start with this number?

Why would I plan to give a guy 6,287,000 for 1 yr and then the bidding start at say 500,000 for 3 yrs. You could win the player with a bid of say 1,000,000 for 4yrs which would be a discount of 5,287,000 of of his original tender...seems off somewhere

Yes, any bidding on a tagged player starts at the tagged salary. So in your example if I want to bid I would have to bid at least 2 yrs for 6,287,000 or increase the salary amount (I think by our minimum which is 25K).

bonscott wrote:

Boyz II Men wrote:I have a question that might have already been answered but it seems like a slight loophole

If I tag a WR who has a salary of 700,000 to a transition tag which is set to pay him 6,287,000 for 1 yr....shouldn't all bids on the player start with this number?

Why would I plan to give a guy 6,287,000 for 1 yr and then the bidding start at say 500,000 for 3 yrs. You could win the player with a bid of say 1,000,000 for 4yrs which would be a discount of 5,287,000 of of his original tender...seems off somewhere

Yes, any bidding on a tagged player starts at the tagged salary. So in your example if I want to bid I would have to bid at least 2 yrs for 6,287,000 or increase the salary amount (I think by our minimum which is 25K).

Correct.