0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Have you ever participated in a free agency bidding process?
Yes, there were a ton of post. But honestly, I kind of enjoyed that, plus it's like real-life and isn't that what we aim to simulate?I just don't like the idea of breaking it down by position. It's too limiting in my opinion.
No, the process you advocate. Have you seen it in action? The format I've proposed is commonly used, I have seen that play out. If you have an example of what you propose I'd like to see it. Your proposal is far more limiting actually since it limits the amount of bids with a bigger pool available. One or two players a week could take months to complete free agency. It also restricts the number of bidders since you can only bid on one or two guys. Changing a format we know works for one we don't have any prior experience with right before free agency isn't a really good plan for us I don't believe.
I said one or two nominations per owner, not overall. That would be 30-60 players up forbid at a time. A lot, but not unmanageable. I've been in leagues with a free for all and also one where only 15 players at a time are up for bid, using an for nomination. Both seem preferable to this system.My main concern is breaking it up like this limits the decent options available at one time. I think that would drive up the prices on everybody.
"Limiting the number of bids per player to two bids" would be a horrible idea, IMO. Certain positions are so limited as it is and only allowing two owners to bid on each player would ensure that only two or three teams would actually be able to get a player worth owning at those very limited positions, such as 2B & SS..