DISCUSSION: Same owner Team A Drops Team B bidding (Jay Harrison)

[thunderblade]

The discount is fine and I am all for player turn-over and forgiveness on bad contracts.

The issue is allowing GM's to set the bid price on players they have just bought-out. Yes it is fantasy hockey but it doesn't have to be dumb.

To me it's a no Brainer.A team should not be allowed to bid on their own released player to try and increase the discount of their buyout. Like said by commishioner, it is discussed every year, so a problem definately exists. A very simple solution has been discussed and should be implemented for the good of the league. 

[jackdaniels]

To me it's a no Brainer.A team should not be allowed to bid on their own released player to try and increase the discount of their buyout. Like said by commishioner, it is discussed every year, so a problem definately exists. A very simple solution has been discussed and should be implemented for the good of the league. 

Best thing to do is to vote on this.
Boys, set it up! 

[SlackJack]

Best thing to do is to vote on this.
Boys, set it up! 

The vote I want to see would be for a tandem of balancing amendments on two rules.

1) An amendment on discounts restricting GM's from bidding on players they have previously bought-out.
2) Allow for amended amnesty buy-outs to contracts.

Current ABO's must be divided over the length of remaining term and are at 40%. Do away with the stipulation on term and reduce the cost to 25%. With one ABO per roster per year allowed (all at once) we will have lots of flexibility and plenty of free agents in the pool.

This amounts to keeping the status-quo while injecting a little more common sense.

[SlackJack]

Using with Michael Hutchinson as an example.

Under current rules Snug gets to keep the player and reduce a 4 year contract from $7.3m per year to $5.5m each.

Using the proposed amendments it would cost the same $7.3m to buy out the contract using an ABO. But Hutch would be released into free-agency for everyone but to bid on.
Of course he could still do a regular buy-out at $4.8m over 4 years, but he would still lose the player. As it should be.

(Lest there be any confusion, I am not in any way voting against Snug's excellent maneuvers. This is an example.)

[favo_zomg]

To make it easier and require less math, I say we just put a time stop on it. I say we should make it 72 hours to not allow the team that released the player not be alloud to bid on him. That way, there is a chance that the team loses the player, but if the bidding is still going on, the team can come in and place a bid. 72 hours should be more then enough for the other 29 teams to see that the player is available too.

I don't have a problem with teams winning players back, but I am definitely not a fan of a team starting a bid on a player as soon as the player is released. That is why I feel 72 hours aka 3 days is sufficient time.

[SlackJack]

To make it easier and require less math, I say we just put a time stop on it. I say we should make it 72 hours to not allow the team that released the player not be alloud to bid on him. That way, there is a chance that the team loses the player, but if the bidding is still going on, the team can come in and place a bid. 72 hours should be more then enough for the other 29 teams to see that the player is available too.

I don't have a problem with teams winning players back, but I am definitely not a fan of a team starting a bid on a player as soon as the player is released. That is why I feel 72 hours aka 3 days is sufficient time.

Buy-outs will always require math.

[jackdaniels]

But again free agency is open to all. Even if the team buying out the player bid up the recently released player, all other teams still have a shot at outbidding him otherwise the guy getting the same player back deserves the reduced rate since no one else wants him.

So what if you block the team from bidding. Then arent you just colluding to limit the ceiling on a supposedly free market?

Boys, there needs to be some give in a deep league. Sure if youre in a 18-20 team league the rules should be tighter but why handcuff teams. Let us all have tools to be the most competitive owners and GMs we can be. Thats part of the fun of fantasy isnt it?,!

[SlackJack]

But again free agency is open to all. Even if the team buying out the player bid up the recently released player, all other teams still have a shot at outbidding him otherwise the guy getting the same player back deserves the reduced rate since no one else wants him.

So what if you block the team from bidding. Then arent you just colluding to limit the ceiling on a supposedly free market?

Boys, there needs to be some give in a deep league. Sure if youre in a 18-20 team league the rules should be tighter but why handcuff teams. Let us all have tools to be the most competitive owners and GMs we can be. Thats part of the fun of fantasy isnt it?,!

JD, take another look at what has been said. No one is saying we should be hand-cuffed. That's why the proposal to relax ABO's!

As far as your take on the free-agency market, consider this. All other teams have a shot at bidding on the released player but in most cases those teams have moved on and committed their cap dollars to alternatives when they were originally over-bid. It's not a level playing field the second time around.

More importantly (for me at least) it's just an offensively dumb loophole. There are an unlimited number of ways to provide cap flexibility and promote player movement that actually make sense. Buying out a player then setting the market on him is just wrong.

At minimum, there should be a 72 hour window that prevents re-bids if they are not banned altogether. Loosen up ABO's to counterbalance and promote further movement. 

Looking back through this discussion it looks like about 5 out of 7 interested GM's are opposed to re-bids on buy-outs. That's not enough participation to go to a vote but it's a clear majority among those that have bothered to give it real thought. It's up to the Commissioners to figure out weather they want to make an improvement catering to those active and engaged enough to express their desire for it.

[snugerud]

72 hours just isnt enough time to start a bid and have it finished.  on average a player sits in the bidding phase for 3-4 days.  at least a week is needed.

I dont see a need to loosen ABO's. 

There are of course ways around this as well.  Trade the player to another team to have them buy them out so you can rebid.  Just makes a GM work a little harder...

That being said,   I have tons of cap space this year not that Hutchinson is off my books.  I am willing to buyout players in exchange for draft picks. ...

[favo_zomg]

72 hours just isnt enough time to start a bid and have it finished.  on average a player sits in the bidding phase for 3-4 days.  at least a week is needed.

I dont see a need to loosen ABO's. 

There are of course ways around this as well.  Trade the player to another team to have them buy them out so you can rebid.  Just makes a GM work a little harder...

That being said,   I have tons of cap space this year not that Hutchinson is off my books.  I am willing to buyout players in exchange for draft picks. ...

But 72 hours is more then enough time for another team to set the market for the player you released. The issue is not the fact that you can win the player you released back - to me, the issue is a team being able to set the market on a player they just released. I personally have no problem with you winning the player back. My personal issue is with you setting the market on s player as soon as you buy him out.