|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 17, 2011 11:57:46 GMT -6
essentially that is what i did. I thought no way those guys would go for 30 or under and I was just not showing all my cards...
Then once i saw no other bids I realized I needed to make a strong bid for the guy. I want to pay the guys what I bid.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Feb 17, 2011 12:18:38 GMT -6
I do understand having to state how you are going to stay under the cap by who you are going to drop. I do not understand having a period after the winning bid to give the winner a chance to make one more offer. Just let him make another bid during the auction. That would just be a waste of time to set it up afterward. Again, on an RFA you are never bidding against yourself. You are bidding against the team with his RFA rights. For another example, it's like bidding on an item on Ebay that has a reserve. You can bid again if you don't meet the reserve. That is what is happening here except that the reserve is being assumed rather than actually known. Also, bidding an RFA up so that he is closer to actual market value without expecting to get him is a strategy. And not a slimy or shady one. In fact, if I see an RFA going way below market value, I am playing against myself if I just let him go because I am giving the other owner extra salary than what is expected which could come back to bite me later on in another auction. I bid on Brian Wilson with the thought that I was upping the price to make it closer to what I felt his value is. I figured White Sox would resign him. The risk I took was White Sox just leaving him to me. It was a calculated risk and I still made a bid. That is part of the game when dealing with RFAs. If I have an RFA that I want to resign and the price goes way above what I want to pay, Then I LET HIM GO TO THE BIDDER AND CHANGE MY FOCUS TO ANOTHER OPTION. Not complain that the bidder is raising my price.
|
|
|
Post by adamdunnsbigstick on Feb 17, 2011 13:54:50 GMT -6
Mets, giving the winning bidder an opportunity to raise his own bid actually lowers the amount of time spent fiddling with the system. If we let the potential winner just bid against himself, then we potentially have to wait another 48 hours just to let the auction end. If we put them on a 24 hour clock to up the bid, then close the RFA process with the original owner (up to 24 hours), we shave at least a day off the process. Letting the team rebid adds 48 hours, then another 24 hours to deal with the RFA process.
The process also becomes transparent. It's dishonest to go back and change bid amounts without making the rest of the teams aware of it. I understand wanting to change mistakes, but let's make it so that we don't have to deal with people having to resort to shady actions in order to try to make it happen. Let's give a clear option to people to be able to pay a premium in order to try to get hold of an RFA, and let's make it so the whole league can see the process.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Feb 17, 2011 17:12:02 GMT -6
Great point Phillies. If Im trying to work out trades for instance now I have to keep waiting an extra 48 hours.
Just because something isnt explicitly against the rules doesnt make it right to do. You need to take some responsibility with your bids and not just bid whatever knowing you can always change it 48 hours later no? I was bidding on Jimmy Rollins and if Phils resigns him it was my fault for not coming out with a higher bid. If Cards knew there was no chance in hell of getting Beltre at a 23M bid then why bother bidding that in the first place?? There was absolutely no point in that other than to delay the whole process! If you believe that with the RFA you are bidding against the owner who holds his rights then its basically put in your best offer on the first shot because the owner who holds his rights isnt going to be bidding anyways.
|
|