Free Agent Bidding Controversy

[moishetreats]

Honestly, it's these exact situations that irk me the most as a Commish -- and as a leaguemate. Without a doubt.

You're correct. 100%. But, that doesn't mean that you're right. You're correct that you should be awarded the player, but relying on a technicality and then calling foul violates the spirit of a league, IMO. My leagues are all competitive -- DAMN competitive. But, I make it clear that we're in it together. You seem to be in it to get yours.

To an extent, you are correct and also wrong. If you were the commissioner, it would have been your job to point out the problem with the other bids. Calling the only owner out who understands the rules and not taking the bulk of the responsibility on yourself is a big part of the problem here.

Obviously you aren't the commissioner in this league and I agree in premise as I am the type of owner who would have pointed out the problem from the get go. But the commissioner made multiple mistakes here. One was allowing the invalid bids and failing to point then out. The second was also having the rules written incorrectly.

Agreed. In my league-wide email, I would certainly have acknowledged that I missed it, too, and that I would be including myself in the call for better vigilance and would take it upon myself to clarify the constitution. Thanks for pointing that out!

Honestly, it's these exact situations that irk me the most as a Commish -- and as a leaguemate. Without a doubt.

You're correct. 100%. But, that doesn't mean that you're right. You're correct that you should be awarded the player, but relying on a technicality and then calling foul violates the spirit of a league, IMO. My leagues are all competitive -- DAMN competitive. But, I make it clear that we're in it together. You seem to be in it to get yours.

I know that sounds harsh, and I would gladly retract those comments and apologize if there is more to the story. Given what I read, though, it seems like they messed up -- not on purpose -- and you looked to exploit that.

In sum, if I were you, I would have pointed it out ASAP. At this point, I would also gladly volunteer to put Bradford back up for auction. This is why I voted "other" (and, at this moment, there are nine votes saying that Bradford should be yours with mine the only vote for something else).

I founded this league and was the commissioner for for the first 3 seasons. I stepped down this off-season due to lack of time and another owner took over as commissioner. I agree with you about everyone being in it together and doing whats best for the league. However, owners not knowing the rules has been a consistent problem for several years. I honestly have no remorse for not pointing it out. Its not that hard to take 5-10 minutes and read the rules. I don't think owners who do not do so should be rewarded with a do-over when it backfires on them. Especially on something that is as simple bidding on players.

I don't think not saying anything is exploiting a technicality in the rules. Its a very simple rule, $10 minimum bid. I submitted a valid bid. Other owners not doing the same is on them, not me. I don't think it's even the commissioners responsibility to point it out. I'd understand if its a new rule or something that is semi-complicated. But its a very simple, strait forward rule that has been in place for 4 years. There is no excuse to not know/follow it. If owners keep getting bailed out, similar issues will keep occurring.

Ahhh.....

That being said, I would take it upon myself, were I the Commish, to do things:

1) Send out a league-wide email being clear about this -- and that there is no expectation of invalid bids being made public; and
2) Updating and making that clear in the constitution.


As an aside, I think that you/the Commish/the league need to decide if this league is meant to be more cut-throat or more collective. Neither is better or worse. Having that understanding, though, would also help determine the best course of action for you/the Commish.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

What is the issue here? You think AT&T will refund you because you didn't read a contract term? You should 100% get Bradford.

[cazzie33]

What is the issue here? You think AT&T will refund you because you didn't read a contract term? You should 100% get Bradford.

Is it an AT&T contract league ? If so then you have valid point. Otherwise not really the same. One is a recreational activity amongst a collective group of people. If the Commish just decided to kick him out of the league and replace him with another owner what next ? A lawsuit ?

I'd cite Roger Goodell's suspension powers as basis for getting rid of an owner that committed conduct detrimental the image of said league.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Perhaps I am missing something here...

But didn't your bid of $10 stand for like 3 days? And anyone else had the chance to bid $11 or higher at anytime. Why didn't they if they wanted him? That's the fundamental premise of an auction. You have a certain amount of time to place a high bid. If you don't do it, then you don't get the guy, item, etc.

Who cares whether the first bid was invalid? You made a valid bid.

[Valhalla]

Perhaps I am missing something here...

But didn't your bid of $10 stand for like 3 days? And anyone else had the chance to bid $11 or higher at anytime. Why didn't they if they wanted him? That's the fundamental premise of an auction. You have a certain amount of time to place a high bid. If you don't do it, then you don't get the guy, item, etc.

Who cares whether the first bid was invalid? You made a valid bid.

I agree he should get Bradford, but the confusion comes from the years of the contract. The wording in the rules is flawed. He bid $10, yes, but the guy following up that bid with 2 years at $7 can argue it’s a total of 14, higher than $10.
If I were the commish, the wording would have been more clear from the start, but at this point I would award him Bradford and clean up the rules wording.

[RB6]

For Team 2 in my sig.

During the off season free agent bidding is done on the message board of this league. Some relevant rules to the situation are, 1) the minimum bid on veteran free agents is $10. A player is awarded are 72 hours of no bids.

The situation is, an owner (Owner A) in the league bid 1 year and $5 on Sam Bradford (Invalid because it doesn't meet the minimum $10 per year). I replied and bid 1 year $10. Owner A came back and bid 2 years $7 (Invalid again). Then 2 days later a different owner (B) bid 2 years $9 (again invalid) and right after that a 3rd owner (C) bid 3 years $8 (invalid). I saw that all of the bids after mine were invalid and waited until 3 days after my bid to respond to the post and ask if I won the player because all of the other bids were invalid.

Owner B responded 'I say no since you didn’t point out the issue earlier. Shady kids don’t get rewarded."
I responded "It’s not my responsibility to check your bids to make sure they’re valid. Especially since it’s been the same rules since the beginning of the league."
Owner C then posted "Also does this post technically exist if the first bid was invalid shouldn’t you have to start a brand new post with valid first bid?"
I responded "Please show me in the rules where it says you have to start a new post if the first bid is invalid. As long as a valid bid is made it doesn’t matter."
Owner C responded "Please show me the rules that says you don’t have to start a new post."
I responded "That is a stupid argument that could be said about literally anything... Please show the rule that you don't have to drop your top QB every time you post on the message board. Or show the the rule that says you don't have to trade me AB for nothing if you log onto the league on a Tuesday."

The commissioner at first seemed inclined to award Bradford to me, but now it seems like he's considering a league vote to determine if a post started with an invalid bid counts. I think it's BS to punish me because 3 other owners didn't follow the rules. A rule that has been the same for the past 4 years. All of the involved owners have been in the league since the beginning so there is no excuse of them not knowing. We did change the minimum for Kickers and Defenses to $5 starting this season but that has nothing to do with position players.

Am I off base for thinking I should get Bradford here?


Here are the rules directly from the league site.

Free Agency includes any player on an active roster whose contract has expired and all available free agent players. An auction is held on the message board where any owner with the required cap space can bid on the players. Each bid must include a dollar amount (higher than the minimum of $10) and an amount of years (1-4). Highest total contract value (TCV) determines the winning bid. (Example. Team A bids 4 years $10 on a player (4 x $10 = $40 TCV) Team B bids 2 years $23 on the same player (2 x $23 = $46 TCV) Team 2 would win the player.)

To be valid each bid must
1. Increase the total contract value by a minimum of $3 over the previous bid.
2. Be posted within 3 days of the previous bid
3. All bids are final and cannot be changed or removed.

If a player is won and the winning franchise does not have an open roster spot or enough cap space for the player, that franchise MUST drop a player or players until the player they won fits on their roster. The winning owner's team will be locked and will ONLY be allowed to drop players until the player can fit on their roster.

​

***EDIT***
Commissioner just ruled that the bidding will stay open because of a typo in the rules.

It says

Once a bid is posted higher bids may be made on the player until the free agency period is completed. If no one bids on a player for 7 days then the bidding is considered closed and the highest current bid on the player wins.

His argument is that it says 7 days at a spot in the rules so the biding will stay open until 7 days after my bid. However, as a league everyone voted last season to change the waiting period from 7 days to 3 days for this year. 70+ other free agents have been awarded after 3 days already this off-season...

As the "invalid" bids are posted as years then dollar amount, just like the rules are written, should the bids not be seen as $14, $18 and $24, respectively. That's how it is formatted in the rules.

[Cult of Dionysus]

I re-read things, and it is clear that each bid comprises of two elements (1) salary and (2) contract term, the multiply of which is Total Contract Value. The rules also state the salary must be in excess of $10 and that the manager who bids the most TCV wins the player.

All the other bids failed to meet the $10 salary requirement. Therefore they are invalid bids. And the OP, who bid $10 for 1 year, with a TCV of $10, wins Bradford.

[turcorox911]

If $10 is the YEARLY minimum for a veteran, then you should win. But if the $10 refers to the TCV, then I don't think you've won. That part needs to be ironed out, I think.

[M-Dub]

I re-read things, and it is clear that each bid comprises of two elements (1) salary and (2) contract term, the multiply of which is Total Contract Value. The rules also state the salary must be in excess of $10 and that the manager who bids the most TCV wins the player.

All the other bids failed to meet the $10 salary requirement. Therefore they are invalid bids. And the OP, who bid $10 for 1 year, with a TCV of $10, wins Bradford.

I disagree. The section of the constitution that the OP shared is poorly worded and never actually clarifies whether the annual salary must be $10+ or if just the TCV must meet that threshold. I think either Team C should be awarded Bradford or they should just start a new auction and clarify the language of the constitution.

[jetsfan5757]

I re-read things, and it is clear that each bid comprises of two elements (1) salary and (2) contract term, the multiply of which is Total Contract Value. The rules also state the salary must be in excess of $10 and that the manager who bids the most TCV wins the player.

All the other bids failed to meet the $10 salary requirement. Therefore they are invalid bids. And the OP, who bid $10 for 1 year, with a TCV of $10, wins Bradford.

I disagree. The section of the constitution that the OP shared is poorly worded and never actually clarifies whether the annual salary must be $10+ or if just the TCV must meet that threshold. I think either Team C should be awarded Bradford or they should just start a new auction and clarify the language of the constitution.

I agree with Cult of Dionysus. While I think the wording CAN AND SHOULD be improved, the way it is written right now has to be interpreted the way the OP and Cult of Dionysus are looking at it. There are 3 elements that are talked about and defined:

"Each bid must include a1: dollar amount (higher than the minimum of $10) and an 2: amount of years (1-4). 3: Highest total contract value (TCV) determines the winning bid."

It could be made even clearer, but I don't see how this is unambiguous...

[jetsfan5757]

I re-read things, and it is clear that each bid comprises of two elements (1) salary and (2) contract term, the multiply of which is Total Contract Value. The rules also state the salary must be in excess of $10 and that the manager who bids the most TCV wins the player.

All the other bids failed to meet the $10 salary requirement. Therefore they are invalid bids. And the OP, who bid $10 for 1 year, with a TCV of $10, wins Bradford.

I disagree. The section of the constitution that the OP shared is poorly worded and never actually clarifies whether the annual salary must be $10+ or if just the TCV must meet that threshold. I think either Team C should be awarded Bradford or they should just start a new auction and clarify the language of the constitution.

I agree with Cult of Dionysus. While I think the wording CAN AND SHOULD be improved, the way it is written right now has to be interpreted the way the OP and Cult of Dionysus are looking at it. There are 3 elements that are talked about and defined:

"Each bid must include a 1: dollar amount (higher than the minimum of $10) and an 2: amount of years (1-4). 3: Highest total contract value (TCV) determines the winning bid."

It could be made even clearer, but I don't see how this is unambiguous...

[thebeast]

Not sure if anyone else pointed it out, but your bid wasn’t valid either. Your rules state, “Each bid must include a dollar amount (higher than the minimum of $10)”, but you only bid $10, which is not higher that the minimum of $10.

Edit: I now see that this has been pointed out, and I agree that your by laws are poorly worded, but as currently worded, your bid was also invalid. However, I will say I don’t like your commissioner using old language that has been replaced via league vote as an easy way out. I think it’s time to find a new league, sounds like you have worn out your welcome with some owners who think (right or wrong) that you acted in an unsportsmanlike manner. Also you commissioner is weak and doesn’t know how to handle controversy.