Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 2:42:00 GMT
One example I can give is say:
Team A bids on J. Upton at 1 yr for 26.5M per
Team B bids on J. Upton at 3 yrs for 14M per
Well team B wins because he has more committed (42M) to the contract than team A (26.5)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 2:45:04 GMT
If you bid 3 years at $10M/year it would be value of $30M. That would beat a bid of 2 years at $14M/year cause that would be a value of $28M. You take the yearly salary and multiply that by the number of years. If the value is the same the tie breaker would be number of years. . Yes I agree with what Bryan is saying here. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Dec 6, 2015 3:08:03 GMT
It certainly will lead to longer commitments. Example: In the Upton bidding that ended at 26mil. The next bid could have been 2 years at 14 (28M invested and the winning bid)..and continued on from there. 2 years at 16 etc.. up until 2 years at 26 and then 3 years at 14..etc. so... without the five bid max, bidding could be lengthy, but we do have until April. LOL I agree that the five bid max (although useful in bringing bids to a conclusion) is unfortunately subject to collusion and should be done away with.
Total Value gets my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox on Dec 6, 2015 3:19:02 GMT
If there is any collusion in this league I hope those owners would be kicked out. No need for that in any league especially this one. We have 20 good owners so I would hope nobody would be doing this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 3:19:57 GMT
But after the 10th bid the minimum increments will be $1M so that will raise the value pretty quick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 3:25:43 GMT
Well people figure away around the 5 max bid rule. Which it wasn't against the rules cause you could have one team bid and then make a trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox on Dec 6, 2015 6:25:17 GMT
Well people figure away around the 5 max bid rule. Which it wasn't against the rules cause you could have one team bid and then make a trade. If an owner tells another owner to make a bid on a player so the first owner can get that player I would think that is collusion especially if they did it to try and get other teams to use their bids like someone mentioned before (can't remember who) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 6:46:06 GMT
Well eliminating the max bids will prevent that and doing the $1M increments will make the bids go by faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Dec 6, 2015 14:21:21 GMT
God forbid in real life that the Yankees call the braves and say hey if u guys sign or draft this guy , we will give player JOE blow and our pick for him , once again we want to be more real the complain about something that goes on in real life ..... Is it collusion or just business
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 14:32:28 GMT
I like this example, so last off season (on or about Feb 19) SEA and I didn't need nor want a bidding war on FA RA Dickey so I was upfront with Mats when I told him this. After a bid or two were placed I told Mats to allow me to win the rights to RA and then I would trade him to Mats. So was this collusion or a smart business move between two owners?
I say a business move that bettered each of our teams while building a long term friendly relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves on Dec 6, 2015 16:01:43 GMT
Nicely put Stu!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox on Dec 6, 2015 16:50:36 GMT
I like this example, so last off season (on or about Feb 19) SEA and I didn't need nor want a bidding war on FA RA Dickey so I was upfront with Mats when I told him this. After a bid or two were placed I told Mats to allow me to win the rights to RA and then I would trade him to Mats. So was this collusion or a smart business move between two owners? I say a business move that bettered each of our teams while building a long term friendly relationship. I was more talking about what was mentioned earlier about an owner telling another owner to bid on a player to force a hand of another owner so they run out of bids. That is more collusion then what you described. I'm not a huge fan of what you described either but that really isn't collusion |
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Dec 6, 2015 17:10:32 GMT
I like this example, so last off season (on or about Feb 19) SEA and I didn't need nor want a bidding war on FA RA Dickey so I was upfront with Mats when I told him this. After a bid or two were placed I told Mats to allow me to win the rights to RA and then I would trade him to Mats. So was this collusion or a smart business move between two owners? I say a business move that bettered each of our teams while building a long term friendly relationship. I was more talking about what was mentioned earlier about an owner telling another owner to bid on a player to force a hand of another owner so they run out of bids. That is more collusion then what you described. I'm not a huge fan of what you described either but that really isn't collusion Thanx Mr "Webster" for that definition clarification on collusion |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox on Dec 6, 2015 18:10:40 GMT
I was more talking about what was mentioned earlier about an owner telling another owner to bid on a player to force a hand of another owner so they run out of bids. That is more collusion then what you described. I'm not a huge fan of what you described either but that really isn't collusion Thanx Mr "Webster" for that definition clarification on collusion Why are you being such an ass? Do you know how to talk to people in a civil and adult manner? |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies on Dec 6, 2015 18:14:50 GMT
Thread closed.
Vote over.
New winning bid in place.
Thanks.
|
|
