-
I agree with your assessment LBM. I do think having the owner post their interest publicly would stymie owners reaching out to each other in private on these deals and taking on faith that owners will not privately discuss dollar amounts before the auction is completed seems to be the only reasonable way to implement this.
-
I agree with Lindbergh Burrito
-
I would propose that to dampen some of these issues, that the only thing a league member should need to do is post their interest in the player but without the max salary. Any league members would then bid what they think is an acceptable salary to flip and negotiate the deal post-auction. Adds more risk into the equation since the winning bidder may be stuck with the player/cap penalty if this miscalculate interest. Would require the honor system that max salary is not being shared privately
-
2.) Better odds for lower placed teams, if 4 teams want to make the trade and all bid the max League Member A is willing to pay, it will always go to the lower placed team. 3.) Enforcing a cash only deal seems way too restrictive, if the max bid is known then all teams planning to bid the max for the player and then flip should be able to negotiate their preferred deal prior to the auction end
-
A few thoughts to consider: 1.) If we move ahead with what is proposed (post interest and top end salary + cash willing to include) then if you're a team looking to add the player and roster them it gives you more information to win the bid. For example, League Member A posts that they want Player X for $5 max + $3 cash loan, League Member B knows that there will be at least a few teams interested in that deal and will bid the $5 max. League Member B knows that his bid needs to start at $6
-
This could present problems if the auction is started 28 days after the cut, so instead we could instead require the player remain on someone's roster for some fixed amount of time, like a week possibly.
-
So now, you have everyone aware of what someone will almost surely bid. I was thinking about requiring that these trades cannot be processed until the full 30 days after the original owner cut the player. This way the owner who is bidding by proxy has to endure a certain amount of time with the player on the roster, so it is not a risk-free deal for them. They'd have to cut a player and lose a roster spot for days.
-
My one concern with this suggestion is that it seems to over-correct problem. While I do agree that the original problem with this acquisition is one owner having more information than the others prior to bidding, this solution provides excess information. It feels like if someone posted the max salary they'd take for that player, you could reasonably assume that at least one team would bid that high every time, since there is little to no risk in placing such a bid if they can make this trade.
-
I don’t actually want Piscotty btw. And apparently “nn” shows up if you hit “Enter” on the message board.
Ben's Banter on
August 13, 2019 11:40 PM
-
So for example, I cannot currently bid on Piscotty because I cut him within 30 days. But if I wanted him, I could say:
For Piscotty, I will accept a salary of up to $7 and will pay $5 cap.
So if someone really wants him and doesn’t want to trade him they can pay/overpay above that threshold. But if I’m willing to pay high enough, several people can try.
The one downside is this benefits lower-standing teams because they have no reason to bid below max salary. But it’s the best I got
Ben's Banter on
August 13, 2019 11:39 PM
-
Well I can reiterate my suggestion. Basically if you want a player you can’t bid on, you have to post publicly how high a salary you would accept and how much cash you *will* send in trade. It would have to be cash-only since player values depend on the team. This takes away the knowledge gap of one team reaching out in secret to another, knowing that a high bid will have immediate results.
Ben's Banter on
August 13, 2019 11:35 PM
-
Of course there is also the option of requiring a buffer period, where a trade of this sort cannot happen immediately after the auction. We could even require that the trade cannot be agreed upon until the date in which the owner would have been capable of bidding on the given player. It is completely up to the league to decide and any suggestions are welcome.
-
Update: After two days, I received 9 survey responses. 7 voted in favor of adding a rule to the charter addressing this issue. 8 voted in favor of allowing the J.D. Davis trade to process as normal. With that in mind, it seems we should now discuss what guidelines we wish to add to the charter. Ben's Banter has offered his suggestion of requiring the interested owner make their interest in the player they cannot bid on known.
-
I have 5 survey responses thus far and would like to have the rest by the end of the day. Thanks everyone!
-
Feel free to continue to use this space to discuss the matter.
-
Alright everyone. Here is a link to the survey about the rule change. Please answer the survey as soon as you are able—and only once! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/R9DSSXL
-
Eh, nothing crazy. Pretty tame as far as rule changes go!
-
I go away on a 10 day backpacking trip and you guys are re writing rules and what not? Came back to a flood of “posting” notifications. Must have missed some fun.
-
I agree. We should vote on a rule change, but you should be allowed to keep Davis and I don't see a problem with you starting him right now.
-
Well I would personally vote to allow you to keep Davis but change the rule for the future. I don’t think it violated existing rules, so you shouldn’t be punished for violating rules that we might or might not create later. Though I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
Ben's Banter on
August 9, 2019 10:18 PM
-
If the rule change passes, we can discuss how to handle Davis afterwards. Until then, I’ll leave him on my bench although I will kindly ask all owners vote within a day or two of me posting the poll.
-
My suggestion for next season is an update on the charter so that if someone wants to offer a cash-only (and it must be cash only) trade for a player that they cannot bid on, they have to advertise it on the message board. They can set the max salary and how much cash they will trade. But they can’t accept salary or send cash at higher levels.
Ben's Banter on
August 9, 2019 10:06 PM
-
That’s a fair point. Since at least one owner has expressed some issue with it, I think we should proceed as follows: I’ll post a poll on the matter where the league can decide if they want to disallow and correspondingly add a rule to the charter about this. I’m not sure if LBM and I should be allowed to vote, but if so it’s typical to require 8 votes to implement a rule change. Otherwise 6 votes of 10.
-
So this is just my take. I don’t think the rule violated the rules as written. But it feels iffy. Burrito knew he could pay more than he might have otherwise because there was a guaranteed payout at the end. So he was bidding with more info than the rest of the league.
Ben's Banter on
August 9, 2019 10:01 PM
-
Basically. Although it was initiated by me, since I needed some additional cap to play with
-
So what was the communication? Was it like “If you can get Davis for $4 or less, I will send you $3 cap”?
Ben's Banter on
August 9, 2019 9:19 AM
-
I don't see any problem with this. Unorthodox for sure, but it's not like it is collusion!
-
For full transparency: Lindbergh Burrito Method and I discussed this trade before the Davis auction ended. There is no provision against this in the league charter and I see it similarly to the situation where you trade for a player you only plan on flipping to another team for a different player. LBM saw that acquiring Davis could net him cap space so that's why he bid on him. Nevertheless, if any owners take issue with this, feel free to voice your opinion and the league can vote on it.
-
If you want, I'll bid on J.D. and then you can totally overpay for him.
-
Oof, I'm a Mets fan who loves J.D. Davis so it hurts that this auction was started 9 days before I could bid on him again.
-
There’s only room enough on my team for *one* former Giant named Hunter.
Ben's Banter on
August 4, 2019 12:44 PM
-
Can’t say I feel the same about this game squirrels.
-
I hate watching the Yankees beat up on the Red Sox, but love watching my players score over 50 points in less than 10 at bats.
-
Haha, seriously. Lots of aspiring Dipotos today. I love it.
Ben's Banter on
July 31, 2019 8:57 PM
-
Trade deadline got people all excited! Woo!
-
Bregman is available. Looking for a couple arms and to save a little money
-
Any interest in Andujar? He's on 60 Day through rest of season, so wouldn't hurt the roster this year. Looking for young, controllable arm, and would be willing to package together some pieces.
-
If anyone is interested in Stanton as keeper for next year I would be willing to move him for something to help me this year.
-
That was the saddest cut I have ever made...
-
Fine with me.
-
Good with me
-
Fine with me. RIP Skaggs such a tragedy.
-
Sounds more than fair to me
-
Yes, clearly.
Ben's Banter on
July 2, 2019 12:45 PM
-
Hey everyone, after yesterday’s tragedy, other leagues are allowing owners of Skaggs to be cut without penalty. Just wanted to check with league to make sure it’s ok. RIP Tyler Skaggs.
-
now that’s an expensive first pick...
-
I've got a surplus of 1B if anyone needs some!
-
Wow, what a blockbuster trade. Boba chett getting some absolute studs for Robles. Devers and Adell...impressive.
-
BellyBall's trade block has been updated!
-
The Lindbergh Burrito Method's trade block has been updated!
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages