Free Agent Bidding Controversy

[BelichekYourSelf]

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...

[honcho55]

I don't see how they have any valid argument. It's not your fault multiple people didn't follow the rules. On the other hand they are probably correct in saying you (or the commish!) should have piped up and said they were invalid bids right away, in the spirit of fair play. End of the day though its not your job, and rules is rules, if you ask me.

So, yeah maybe a hair shady to not say anything, but that's pretty minor. And more importantly: too bad, should've known the rules.

[Novacane]

Not debatable IMO. Bradford should go to the only legal bid. Anything else sets a bad precedent. Also, the rule is very clear.

[mgscott]

I agree you should be awarded Bradford as it is pretty clear in the rules. If anyone, the commish should have noticed this and let the other owners know that their bids were invalid. It's not on you to educate the other members. Pretty savvy on your part to wait it out and ask about it after the clock has run out.

[Phaded]

Honestly if you do not get him its shady af.

[kamihamster]

Clear rules. You get the guy. The other bids were like putting a penny in a quarter arcade game. It should have just spat the penny back out. You were the first and only person to put in a quarter.

[BelichekYourSelf]

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...

[Johnny Canuck]

Honestly if you do not get him its shady af.

this

[kamihamster]

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...

shady since other FA have been awarded after 3 days. but the rule still says 7 so that needs to be fixed.

what you should do is object on all the 3 day awards and say that you weren't given enough time to make your bid. so all of those are invalid and up for re-bidding.

[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.

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.

If I were the Commish, here is what I would do:

1) I'd call you. I'd talk to you. I'd share my frustration and ask that you take the high road and volunteer to have Bradford auctioned anew. If you were to agree, then I would email the league the situation and genuinely thank you for your willingness to put the interests of the league ahead of personal gain and for modeling that part of what it means to be in a league is to look out for each other.

2) If you would not agree, then I'd email the league giving everyone a heads-up about the situation. I'd write that the other owners put in invalid bids and that you waited until the elapsed 72 hours to point it out. So, technically, Bradford belongs to you. I would then use this opportunity to remind all owners that we are responsible for each other. If something is off, then this is a league where, moving forward, the expectation is that we let each other know rather than try to take advantage. That's the vision of the league, and I would hope that everyone staying in would share in that vision. Then I would call you again.

Honestly, my most cut-throat leagues are the ones where people voluntarily take one on the chin because of goodwill. And they are without a doubt the best leagues that I have ever played in. I can give dozens of examples of times when someone has put the welfare of the league ahead of his own needs for every one that someone didn't -- and only one of those owners is still in all of these leagues.

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).

[Toltec]

It... is... Sam... Bradford

Why is anyone fighting over him?

[skip]

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.

[slaughterrt]

You could argue that all of those other 70+ completed auctions are all now invalid. The commish can’t have it both ways. Sounds like he is doing everything he can to satisfy those other three owners (who’s bids were invalid). Those three guys are causing a big stink because they didn’t know the rules. That’s on them. That’s also on the commish for allowing invalid bids to be placed. That’s on him. By arguing that all of those other auctions are invalid, then the commish would be forced to re-auction all those players if he wants to remain consistent. Then, instead of three sour owners raising a stink, it will be the entire league raising a stink. This will piss off the commish and all of the other owners. It will only satisfy those three owners as far as Bradford is concerned, because they likely would be affected by some of those 70+ other auctioned players. And realistically, only one of them could be satisfied anyway because only one would eventually get Bradford (or possibly not even, if someone else wins him).

Now, ask those three owners if re-auctioning Sam Bradford is worth a full on league mutiny. If you aren’t awarded Bradford, then you demand all of those other players be auctioned under the same rule. Pure and simple.

The commish will hopefully come to his senses, and apply the rule consistently. Those three owners will maybe realize what the hell personal accountability is. Or maybe the league mutinies. Maybe it mutinies anyway. Other owners should actually care though, that the commish is applying the rules differently in different situations.

If it doesn’t work out, walk away, there are plenty of leagues out there.

Or, you realize that two wrongs don’t make a right, and that you knowingly exploited a rule to take advantage of an auction. Shady, but not against the rules. Pick your fight. If Bradford is worth potentially blowing up the league, and potentially you leaving anyway, then fight the good fight and stand up for what is technically right. Or, if you like the league and like the owners, maybe take one for the team and betterment of the league.

P.S. - Also wanted to point out the irony of you exploiting a technicality in the rules, only to have the commish fight back by exploiting a technicality in the rules).

[BelichekYourSelf]

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.

[sugbear65]

So now you’ll have to overspend to have Bradford on your roster. And who says fantasy isn’t just like the NFL?