question

irishpride8 · Post by **irishpride8** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:29 pm

I don't understad this.... McGahee is up for auction bid (3:30pm 36 hours from would be Sat. 3:30 am) so anyone can put a bid on, but because the auction stops @ 7pm noone can now. Blind bids is in affect now no one can touch him and the last person with the bid wins. I wonder if thats what the LBers thought would happen and it work and got him cheap!

To me I think that next year people may do that more with there high price losers on their team.

Boyz II Men · Post by **Boyz II Men** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:36 am

Wow...I thought what I did was sneaky

bonscott · Post by **bonscott** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:45 am

I'm glad someone posted this because I think this is just wrong. I know this caused a bit of controversy early this year but I think we all came to accept it because during the middle of the offseason everyone has a chance to bid on the dropped guy and make moves as needed to make room to bid if they want to. But to do this just a hour or two before the auction ends where many teams may not even know the guy is available just to get a lower salary is bad.

Technically I could have dropped Gore just before 7pm and then bid him at minimum and got him super cheap as the 7pm deadline expires. Honestly this is just not good gamemenship. Luckily a couple teams had logged on in time to bid McGahee up a bit but still. I'd almost go for putting McGahee back on the original team at his full salary.

I think we need to do something like this to prevent this in the future:
1) Off-season auction ends in terms of calling up new players a week before the season starts. Technically auction is still going on so the commish and others will need to police that nobody new gets brought up. If someone breaks the rules and calls up a player then the commish will need to stop the auction for that player and put him back as a free agent.
2) This will then allow those players still on the block to be bid on for another week but will prevent this bad move of dropping a guy just before the deadline.

Thoughts?

Achon44 · Post by **Achon44** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:49 am

I was waiting for somebody to do it. At least it's a player who IMO will drop off in fantasy value after this season (possibly sooner) and not a player like L.T. or Peterson.

Maybe we should consider a rule that would not allow any new auctions to start after 24hrs before the deadline.

Achon44 · Post by **Achon44** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:58 am

bonscott wrote:Technically I could have dropped Gore just before 7pm and then bid him at minimum and got him super cheap as the 7pm deadline expires.

At 6:45pm I actually thought about that with Fitz & Plax, but that's just not my style. I understand it's within the rules, but I just feel it's bush league.

yugimoto · Post by **yugimoto** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:31 am

Hmmm ... I have to admit when this was discussed earlier in the year I did not fully understand the issue. Now that I have seen it actually happen I now understand the problem better and allowing this type of loophole to occur is not acceptable to me.

I am willing to give DeCleaters the benefit of the doubt that it was not their intent, especially with the recent news being published about McGahee ...

Kudos to the others who may have thought about doing it, but decided to keep the integrity of the league intact ...

I agree with Bonscott that we need to establish a leaue rule to prevent this from happening (either on purpose or inadvertantly) in the future as this type of manipulation of the rules can / will lead to league dissent.

bonscott · Post by **bonscott** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:42 am

Funny how many of the things some of us feared in this thread have come to pass: http://dynastytheleague.com/phpBB3/view ... ?f=4&t=210

Hopefully we can now address it.

joe.commish · Post by **joe.commish** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:33 pm

bonscott wrote: I think we need to do something like this to prevent this in the future:
1) Off-season auction ends in terms of calling up new players a week before the season starts. Technically auction is still going on so the commish and others will need to police that nobody new gets brought up. If someone breaks the rules and calls up a player then the commish will need to stop the auction for that player and put him back as a free agent.
2) This will then allow those players still on the block to be bid on for another week but will prevent this bad move of dropping a guy just before the deadline.

Thoughts?

I'm in complete agreement. If there is an ongoing auction, it needs to be able to finish. No new players should be able to be put up for bid, but the ones going should be able to finish.

irishpride8 · Post by **irishpride8** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:42 pm

Here's a thought.... I think that players should be locked when drop for x amount of time for other owners to have a shot to bid on that player. In season should locked til next waiver period to prevent someone dropping a player 10 mins before blind bidding is over and get that player for cheap money.

It just sucked that I worked 12 hours that day and by the time I got home it was 8pm. Could I use McGahee sure but most of all I would of LOVE to jack up his price because now he get him at a low price now he could add more years if he want to.

irishpride8 · Post by **irishpride8** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:14 pm

joe.commish wrote:
bonscott wrote: I think we need to do something like this to prevent this in the future:
1) Off-season auction ends in terms of calling up new players a week before the season starts. Technically auction is still going on so the commish and others will need to police that nobody new gets brought up. If someone breaks the rules and calls up a player then the commish will need to stop the auction for that player and put him back as a free agent.
2) This will then allow those players still on the block to be bid on for another week but will prevent this bad move of dropping a guy just before the deadline.

Thoughts?
I'm in complete agreement. If there is an ongoing auction, it needs to be able to finish. No new players should be able to be put up for bid, but the ones going should be able to finish.

I agree

bonesman · Post by **bonesman** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:14 pm

yugimoto wrote: I am willing to give DeCleaters the benefit of the doubt that it was not their intent, especially with the recent news being published about McGahee ...

I appreciate that... and I assure you that when I dropped McGahee I assumed that every owner (with some $ to spend) would have a fair chance at bidding on him.

My reasoning for dropping him was that I felt I had to make room for Rice's salary to field a competitive team week one... I was initially going to cut McDonald but then I saw in our rules that we're required to have a minimum of 20 players. That means I had to add 2 players or risk forfiting games.

bonscott · Post by **bonscott** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:54 pm

bonesman wrote: I appreciate that... and I assure you that when I dropped McGahee I assumed that every owner (with some $ to spend) would have a fair chance at bidding on him.

Unfortunately half the league that is on the west coast were still at work and many of us didn't even get to the site after the game started at 7. I got on about 6:30. I would have bid but he was already out of my cap room. 2 hours was not enough to allows everyone to be able to bid on him.

My reasoning for dropping him was that I felt I had to make room for Rice's salary to field a competitive team week one... I was initially going to cut McDonald but then I saw in our rules that we're required to have a minimum of 20 players. That means I had to add 2 players or risk forfiting games.

Just need 20 total including those on your practice squad. So 18 active and 2 PR would be fine. Or 19 active and 1 PR. Sorry you had salary issues but honestly you should have seen that weeks ago and could have dropped McGahee then (or even last week) and then everyone would have had a shot at him fairly. Rudi went for over 4 million for example just in the past week, plenty of moola out there.

No matter, we still need to make a rule so this doesn't happen again, whether on purpose or not.

Post by **braven112** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:48 pm

Just wanted to check in before I head to a buddies house this weekend. No point in pretending was just a coincidence, no one is that naive

Obviously against the spirit/intent of the rules, but definitely not against any current rules

Going forward we do need a solid rule for this type of situation. We obviously are going to have people that like to bend rules or find loopholes. That's understandable. Everyone is looking for that "edge". (We'll roll out a steroid policy next season

)

Just a couple thoughts to ponder here...where in the rule book does it say that players are automatically awarded to the team with the highest remaining bid at the end of the FA auction period? It does say that if no one makes a higher bid after 36 hours the player is awarded to the highest bid. In this case teams were barred from fulfilling this portion of the rule.

We do have a rule that a player must be signed within a 24 hour period. That deadline has passed, if you are of the camp that believes players should have been awarded at the end of the offseason FA period.

A couple ideas for now or the future. What if we said any remaining players that were not won by the deadline would go into the week one blind bid pool allowing everyone a chance to bid on them. This should remove the incentive in the future, no?

For now we can do a few things here,

Said players are awarded to the teams with the highest remaining bid. And if so sign the one year contract as per league rules
Player is placed back on the original team
Or since the auction was interrupted and teams were not given 36 hours to place bids all the players that were still up for auction are put into the blind bidding pool for next week allowing everyone a chance to place their bid, and the players are ensured of going for fair market value.

I'll let everyone discuss some more then I'd like to put up a poll early tomorrow so we can come up with a decision ASAP preferable before Sunday's games.

bonesman · Post by **bonesman** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:04 pm

braven112 wrote:Just wanted to check in before I head to a buddies house this weekend. No point in pretending was just a coincidence, no one is that naive

Start shopping for a replacement owner.

Post by **braven112** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:25 pm

bonesman wrote:
braven112 wrote:Just wanted to check in before I head to a buddies house this weekend. No point in pretending was just a coincidence, no one is that naive
Start shopping for a replacement owner.

Sorry if you are offended but, are you saying you weren't trying to get him for under market value? I'm not saying you knew that everyone wouldn't be able to bid on him because I honestly didn't even realize that initially until I tried to put out a bid on him myself, but we did already go over this when when it happened earlier in the year. So its not a new issue. I don't have have a problem with someone dropping anyone on their roster as long as everyone has a chance to bid on him, that's all.

bonesman · Post by **bonesman** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:52 pm

braven112 wrote:
bonesman wrote:
braven112 wrote:Just wanted to check in before I head to a buddies house this weekend. No point in pretending was just a coincidence, no one is that naive
Start shopping for a replacement owner.

Sorry if you are offended but, are you saying you weren't trying to get him for under market value?

I'm saying I didn't anticipate having a chance to win in the bidding at all. $3 mill is about all I had to throw at him... someone surely could've and would've outbid me if they hadn't gotten locked out. I say open the bidding and let them have it... I released him w/the full expectation he'd never be on my roster again.

bonscott · Post by **bonscott** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:26 am

But when he gets dropped only 2 hours before the auction is over and no more bids can come in that doesn't give people a whole lot of chance to bid on him. Shoulda dropped him a couple days ago at least if not a couple weeks ago if your intention was to free up salary and just let him go.

Achon44 · Post by **Achon44** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:00 am

bonesman wrote: I'm saying I didn't anticipate having a chance to win in the bidding at all. $3 mill is about all I had to throw at him... someone surely could've and would've outbid me if they hadn't gotten locked out. I say open the bidding and let them have it... I released him w/the full expectation he'd never be on my roster again.

With that being said then just sign him for the remainder of this season.

Post by **braven112** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:01 am

Does anyone have a problem with making all players that aren't won by the deadline being thrown back into the blind bid pool? Also I think the teams that are the highest current bider should have to be the same as what the players are when the auction is over. Hopefully that made sense.

Biggest thing from my perspective is that what ever rule we come up with should be easy to monitor and require no additional monitoring, I think doing what I'm saying above it should encourage teams to get these type of bids out a little earlier.

bonscott · Post by **bonscott** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:29 am

braven112 wrote:Does anyone have a problem with making all players that aren't won by the deadline being thrown back into the blind bid pool? Also I think the teams that are the highest current bider should have to be the same as what the players are when the auction is over. Hopefully that made sense.

Biggest thing from my perspective is that what ever rule we come up with should be easy to monitor and require no additional monitoring, I think doing what I'm saying above it should encourage teams to get these type of bids out a little earlier.

So let me just make sure I understand.

What you're saying is that if there are any players still on the auction board when the deadline hits they automatically become free agents and available in the first blind bidding waivers?
Thus in the case of what happened this year McGahee and the other player 2 players that were still up for bid would get tossed back in the free agent pool available in blind bidding.

Do I got that straight?

bonesman · Post by **bonesman** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:22 pm

bonscott wrote:But when he gets dropped only 2 hours before the auction is over and no more bids can come in that doesn't give people a whole lot of chance to bid on him. Shoulda dropped him a couple days ago at least if not a couple weeks ago if your intention was to free up salary and just let him go.

There's a lot of things I should do but I don't (and things I shouldn't do, but do)... I'm a disorganized, impulsive, lazy procrastinator. What I am *NOT*... is a liar.

I'm 100% guilty of not being on the ball w/ the dates and minimum roster requirements n' such... if you think I'm being deceptive about that fact, there's no point in continuing this "relationship" and I'll say sianara

Post by **braven112** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:56 pm

bonscott wrote:
braven112 wrote:Does anyone have a problem with making all players that aren't won by the deadline being thrown back into the blind bid pool? Also I think the teams that are the highest current bider should have to be the same as what the players are when the auction is over. Hopefully that made sense.

Biggest thing from my perspective is that what ever rule we come up with should be easy to monitor and require no additional monitoring, I think doing what I'm saying above it should encourage teams to get these type of bids out a little earlier.
So let me just make sure I understand.

What you're saying is that if there are any players still on the auction board when the deadline hits they automatically become free agents and available in the first blind bidding waivers?
Thus in the case of what happened this year McGahee and the other player 2 players that were still up for bid would get tossed back in the free agent pool available in blind bidding.

Do I got that straight?

And the people that were high bidders at the deadline would be required to bid as much as they did when the auction came to an end.

Achon44 · Post by **Achon44** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:40 pm

braven112 wrote:
bonscott wrote:
braven112 wrote:Does anyone have a problem with making all players that aren't won by the deadline being thrown back into the blind bid pool? Also I think the teams that are the highest current bider should have to be the same as what the players are when the auction is over. Hopefully that made sense.

Biggest thing from my perspective is that what ever rule we come up with should be easy to monitor and require no additional monitoring, I think doing what I'm saying above it should encourage teams to get these type of bids out a little earlier.
So let me just make sure I understand.

What you're saying is that if there are any players still on the auction board when the deadline hits they automatically become free agents and available in the first blind bidding waivers?
Thus in the case of what happened this year McGahee and the other player 2 players that were still up for bid would get tossed back in the free agent pool available in blind bidding.

Do I got that straight?
And the people that were high bidders at the deadline would be required to bid as much as they did when the auction came to an end.

Could they bid more?

Post by **braven112** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:47 pm

Yes, that would just be the minimum.

Achon44 · Post by **Achon44** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:26 pm

Personally I'd like to see a way to just end it at the deadline, because what if somebody wants to use that player week 1? Not to mention what if that player has a great game week 1 and more owners gain interest? If there's a rule that would allow no new auctions to be started 1 week before the deadline that would give everyone ample time to bid on any players still on the board and something like this would never happen. Let's be honest if it wasn't for the McGahee auction I'm sure nobody would be commenting on any of the other auctions ending when they did.

question

question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Re: question

Who is online