junior lake CI

[shooter47]

I see now.  Just so I for sure understand, the bid will close at 9:05 tonight (if no other bids).  At that time, if Boston is not cap-compliant by 9:05 on 7/31/13, the Rays are the winning bidders.  Am I understanding that right?

If that does happen then the 72 hour clock is restarted and the second highest bid (currently by the Rays) would be the starting bid.

[VolsRaysBucs]

This could potentially create a loophole, as a team could put in a bad bid knowing they are over the cap simply to reset the 72 hr clock and buy them (or others) more time to come up with funds.  I think this is something the RC should take a look at, as I don't see a situation where resetting the 72 hr clock would be a good thing, as it unfairly punishes a team that operated within the confines of the rules while simultaneously granting more opportunities for the offending team to win the bid, despite being in violation of cap/roster rules.  Under this setup, the offending team has a full 4 days to become compliant, which is far too much time.  Just my two cents, not being argumentative, just hoping to illustrate a potential area for abuse under the current rules.

[shooter47]

This could potentially create a loophole, as a team could put in a bad bid knowing they are over the cap simply to reset the 72 hr clock and buy them (or others) more time to come up with funds.  I think this is something the RC should take a look at, as I don't see a situation where resetting the 72 hr clock would be a good thing, as it unfairly punishes a team that operated within the confines of the rules while simultaneously granting more opportunities for the offending team to win the bid, despite being in violation of cap/roster rules.  Under this setup, the offending team has a full 4 days to become compliant, which is far too much time.  Just my two cents, not being argumentative, just hoping to illustrate a potential area for abuse under the current rules.

This is on my radar for things to bring up with the RC. I will be making a discussion post for the RC to discuss this and a few other things as soon as I get some other things updated and the league running smoothly.

[VolsRaysBucs]

This is on my radar for things to bring up with the RC. I will be making a discussion post for the RC to discuss this and a few other things as soon as I get some other things updated and the league running smoothly.

You da man Bob!  Take a look at my roster and see if we line up on any deals, I'm wanting to make a move or two to fortify my roster for the stretch run.

[nerwffej]

This could potentially create a loophole, as a team could put in a bad bid knowing they are over the cap simply to reset the 72 hr clock and buy them (or others) more time to come up with funds.  I think this is something the RC should take a look at, as I don't see a situation where resetting the 72 hr clock would be a good thing, as it unfairly punishes a team that operated within the confines of the rules while simultaneously granting more opportunities for the offending team to win the bid, despite being in violation of cap/roster rules.  Under this setup, the offending team has a full 4 days to become compliant, which is far too much time.  Just my two cents, not being argumentative, just hoping to illustrate a potential area for abuse under the current rules.

how is that opening loop hole if said team bids on player and doesnt clear cap rules clearly say said team cant rebid on that player even if clears cap.

[shooter47]

The loophole that I see with this rule is that a team can place a bid that puts them over the cap and then refuse to clear cap to make the signing due to buyers remorse. In my opinion the rule should be cleaned up to say that all bids are binding and the team must make a move to cut cap and take the player.

[VolsRaysBucs]

how is that opening loop hole if said team bids on player and doesnt clear cap rules clearly say said team cant rebid on that player even if clears cap.

Very good point, but I think it could still be used by other teams to get involved well after the bidding should have been closed.  I guess I am saying that I don't think the 2nd place bidder should be penalized due to no fault of their own, and resetting the clock 72 hrs again (which is far too long in the first place, but argument for another day) does penalize the team who made the valid bid in the first place.

[nerwffej]

Who is to say another team would have bid what said team did that didnt have the cap. Starting clock where was at from previous bad bid allows others equal chance.

[VolsRaysBucs]

Understood, but my point is that those teams have already had the opportunity to bid on players (72 hrs).  To grant another 72 hrs because of lack of cap/roster space only hurts the 2nd highest bidding team.  My point was that resetting the clock in actuality provides a potential 6 day window (in this case it will be 7 day) to make a bid on a player, all the result of a rules infraction.  I don't believe violations of rules (regardless of intent) should reward teams.  As it now stands, I had the necessary cap from day 1 to sign said player, I should not (nor anyone else) have to wait an additional 3 days because another team made an invalid bid or failed to remedy the situation within the granted 24 hr window after winning the bid.  I know that is how it will go down this time, as the rules clearly state that is the way it goes, no problem adhering to the rules that are in print.  I'm hoping this dialogue brings the issue to light for the RC in the offseason, and it appears as though it has.  Win-Win for everyone. 

[Brewers GM]

The buyers remorse thing could happen once, but the second offense gets you a hefty cap penalty.