|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Feb 16, 2011 18:22:06 GMT -6
Same thing here. You are making a joke out of it. This is the same as changing your bid after the fact when you dont like how it is going.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Feb 16, 2011 20:05:32 GMT -6
Maybe I am giving him way too much credit but how do you know Cards isn't upping his bid to try to guarantee that he gets the RFA. If I have a guy for $10 & think that the team with his RFA rights will resign him for $9 but don't think that he will resign him for $13.5, I may up my bid to $15 if I am willing to pay that. Cards also increased the years so I think he is trying to get them. On the other hand, maybe he's not. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Feb 16, 2011 20:16:16 GMT -6
I dont think someone should be allowed to raise their own bid. Just delete the second bid that Cards made and go with what the lower one is. There is no point in upping a bid like that unless you know the guy plans on using his restricted free agent rights to resign him and you are just trying to up the price
|
|
|
Post by rosenthal on Feb 16, 2011 20:53:20 GMT -6
I think the second bid should be allowed. If he bid X dollars but thinks the player's original owner will match up to Y dollars, shouldn't he be allowed to go up to Y dollars? That is, if he thinks 25 would be matched and 28 would not be matched, shouldn't he be allowed to big 28?
|
|
|
Post by leftyonfire on Feb 16, 2011 21:52:50 GMT -6
he's trying to up the price b/c I won't trade him.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Feb 16, 2011 22:47:07 GMT -6
Well I can address both players. Cards and I talked about this today and he asked me if he could up his bid on Beltre because he knew at $23 Rockies was absolutely going to resign him. He had hoped that by raising the bid $ and years(which I think it is at 1 which is curious) he would increase his odds of Rockies not signing him. I belive it is the same stratedgy with Ethier.
To me as Cards explained it is not his way of trying to screw anybody out of a few bucks but to increase his chance of getting who he wants. I guess I have to take him at his word that that is his intent.
Not having the conversation I had and if I were Rockies shoes. I would also think it is poor sportsmanship.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Feb 17, 2011 0:41:50 GMT -6
This totally defeats the point of having an RFA system, which is to reward someone for gambling and signing a player longer term by allowing them to re-sign at a lower market cost. Guess what, everyone had a chance to bid on Ethier and his maximum value was 25M. Now Marlins is no longer re-signing at any kind of discount. If people had been bidding on these players and their prices went up naturally then no problem, even if it was just 2 owners. He also didnt make those bids right away but waited two days to up it again. You could also keep bids going for a long time just upping it yourself. Whats to stop Cards in two days from upping it again?
Oh and you pointed out yourself that the years on Beltre was dropped, doesnt sound like someone who is trying to get the player he wants. Rather, trying to increase the cost while also limiting the number of years he could be re-signed for in case he still didnt win. Everyone should just always then bid 1 year on any RFA's, even if they are re-signed you will free them up as UFA's for next season. Yeah, that sounds like the spirit of the rule to me.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Feb 17, 2011 1:25:21 GMT -6
I'm with Rockies on this one. I couldn't have said it better either. It doesn't make sense for someone to wait that long then just up a bid that much. If the person was really worried about the owner of the players rights resigning him then the bidder should have gone higher to begin with rather than wait and see that no one else is bidding then just go higher to "keep the other person from resigning him"
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 17, 2011 9:28:03 GMT -6
When I realized I was bidding against myself I had to make a stronger bid to actually have a chance at retaining that player.
Beltre is old. I only want him one year.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Feb 17, 2011 9:46:10 GMT -6
it's hilarious that in sports "he's old" means he's 31 LOL but it's so true !!
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Feb 17, 2011 9:50:02 GMT -6
I like how any time someone does something that a person doesn't like because it makes it harder for them to accomplish their team goals, it is considered cheating or poor sportsmanship. Am I the only one who realizes that if someone is an RFA, then there are ALWAYS two bidders the whole time? The highest bidder & the team with RFA rights. Cards is not bidding against himself. He is bidding against the owner with RFA rights. Who cares how long he waited? Isn't there a 48 hour clock? The point of an RFA is to give the owner a chance to resign a player for a lower price than the final bid. If I want a player who has RFA rights, I need to make a bid that I believe the RFA owner will not match. That usually includes a lot of years or a lot of money. There is no rule that states you HAVE to resign an RFA. If the price is too high and you do not feel that it fits market value, then you can let him go to the highest bidder & they HAVE to pay that contract. Cards cannot force you to resign these players at the price he has now set it at. He is taking a risk to get players he wants. Stop calling it cheating and man up & figure out how you're going to respond. Sorry another owner is also trying to win the league through strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.) on Feb 17, 2011 10:05:51 GMT -6
Now to be clear. My previous statement was not a ruiling but merely a statement of what was discussed. Do I like what Cards has done, absolutely not. Do I understand his thought process, its logical.
Given the night to think about it I back up Rockies on this deal. I think it sets a bad precedence and can take us down a bad road. There are actually several issues here that we need to address so we can fix our free agency system. Taking advantage of loopholes is the Stros way and I think we all aim to irradicate the opportunity for future exploitation.
Point #1 - Should a manager be able to up his own bid with a totally new bid? The easy fix is no, but I can see circumstances where it is applicable. I am undecided on this, but if you want a guy man up and make a strong bid.
Point #2 - Should you be able to cancel a bid? I would vehemently say no. If you post a bid it should be locked(which we cannot actually do). I cannot go to an auction house and bid $1000 on a painting and right before the auctioneer says last and final call....lower my bid to $750.
Point #3 - Should a GM who owns the RFA rights be able to select the time period? The only way I would be in favor of it is only if the years are increased.
Point #4 - Should a GM be able to bid over his cap space? Team A has $70 in cap space but is the high bidder on 3 guys totalling $85. Does anyone have an issue with this. Obviously if he wins all 3 he is going to have to drop someone. I think this relates to being able to cancel a bid. You want to take the risk and you get stuck, you need to figure it out. Canceling a bid should not be an option.
I am sure in the 45 minutes it took me to actually finish this post 10 other people have weighed in.
So lets discuss. If we need to put points to vote we will.
For the hear and now the issue to address is Beltre. Allow Cards to up his own bid, or cancel the $30 and his winning bid is the $23 one.
Secondly, I wish there was spellcheck!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Feb 17, 2011 10:19:59 GMT -6
Well first off I think the overbidding over the cap is going to become a crucial issue. It has happened every year in the league and we need to say you are not under any circumstances allowed to bid over you cap. It causes issues, confusion, and can have a ripple effect. Let me play devil's advocate here.
If team A and and team B are going back and fourth on a player that costs say $10. Team A has his cap of 30, team B has 20. Team A also has bids out for 20 and 20 on two other players. The original player that team and an B were fighting for goes to 21. (so now the league knows team B can't win the bid). The rest of the league stops bidding looking at team structure and when A wins that bid and his two others now he is stuck with 3 players at 61 with a cap of 30. Whats the next step he has to recoil on which one he wants or drop people from his team. If he drops guys that now play the same position it starts a whole new re-bid process. Under no circumstances should you be allowed to bid what you don't have. To use Braves analogy if you went to an auction house and had $1000 to spend you wouldn't bid on three items valued each at $500 on the chance you'd win all. This makes the free agency more like real baseball which we are aiming for. The Pirates would not have offers out to Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, and Adrian Gonzalez. Now if we MUST have this allowed then at the very least when a guy bids over his cap in the bid thread he has to state who he is dropping or how he plans on handling the money. A cap is a cap and should be viewed as such.
Now onto the Beltre bid, since it was not addressed my first reaction was he shouldn't be allowed but Mets brought up a very good point and I tend to agree. It's shady and it's slimey but it's strategy. Teams use the Yanks and Sox all the time for leverage and they use each other. I don't like it but shouldn't be illegal and since it wasn't illegal when he did it Cards played by the rules. Going forward I think we should have a rule of increase by $5 or something like that if bidding against yourself. You have to play by the rules and Cards did that but I won't stand in the way if you guys decide otherwise since I'm torn here. I played by the rules and had a fair trade yet you all veto'd it for no reason whatsoever so the doctrine has been set that we can change rules after the fact. Just my 2 cents on all matters if anyone even read this far lol
|
|
|
Post by adamdunnsbigstick on Feb 17, 2011 10:41:15 GMT -6
Thoughts on this:
A bid should be effectively locked in to place. It should not be able to be altered in either direction.
Furthermore, a team should not be allowed, or able, to bid against itself. If you do, you're just ignoring the first rule listed above.
Reason:
If you're bidding against yourself, it's because you screwed up and bid poorly in the first place. Maybe if we actually thought about our bids beforehand, this wouldn't happen. When it comes to salary numbers, I don't think it's reasonable to allow alterations of the bids.
Way to change this: after bidding on an RFA is done, allow for a one-time bid to be placed on the RFA. This bid can NOT be lower than the winning bid, but it may be any amount over the bid. This gives the winner the opportunity to raise the stakes on the RFA; since he is the highest bidder, it shouldn't matter that he can raise them. It gives him the opportunity to, effectively, bid against the holder of the RFA rights. It takes the urge to alter bids out of the equation.
Say 12-24 hours after the winning bid, the winner must declare whether he wants to increase his bid or not. If he says nothing, the bid stands.
Regarding maximum salary, I think there shouldn't be an option to bid over your cap without at least declaring how you plan on making your salary work under the cap. Personally, I'd rather there be no bids over the cap at all, but it seems unduly harsh to exercise that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 11:55:41 GMT -6
Regarding a manager raising his own bid: I'm not crazy about it, but if it wasn't addressed in the rules at the time free agency began, I think we have to accept it for this year. I don't think it's fair to impose a rule mid-draft, even if it is one I'd like to see in place. We can always address this after the season.
As for bidding over the cap, the rules clearly state that owners can't go over the $300 million off-season cap. So an owner shouldn't be allowed to have his outstanding bids go over this amount during the free agent process. If defeats the purpose of having a cap in the first place.
|
|