|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Mar 6, 2017 7:13:51 GMT -5
Alright everyone, so the request to put "Blind Bidding for Minor League Players - In Season" up for vote has come through and would be implemented this season. We've tossed around the idea of having all free agency being blind bidding, but the complexity of years to sum up the offers makes that impossible for now and will be revisited this season for a vote next offseason.
If you have any gripes about this proposed change, please make your voice heard below or vote accordingly. These two last polls should be the last constitutional votes of the offseason.
Extra Note: Once this poll is closed, we'll have to decide how often the bidding is processed (1, 2 or 3 times per week).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 8:55:35 GMT -5
I voted Yes, but I think July 2 guys should be excluded in some capacity... It's always kind of tricky to know which ones are available and which ones have signed with MLB teams
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 9:03:26 GMT -5
I agree with the July 2nd signee statement. I'm going to wait to vote until that issue is discussed further.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 10:21:19 GMT -5
To clarify, my vote will probably change to no if July 2 signings aren't excluded
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Mar 6, 2017 11:48:34 GMT -5
To clarify, my vote will probably change to no if July 2 signings aren't excluded Well then why do this at all? I fail to see the distinction between the two. Both are high risk free agents that require research. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 12:10:28 GMT -5
To clarify, my vote will probably change to no if July 2 signings aren't excluded Well then why do this at all? I fail to see the distinction between the two. Both are high risk free agents that require research. I think there is a VERY clear distinction... I don't think it's fair to have all the July 2 guys thrown into the player pool on the morning of July 2 and be subject to blind bidding. If an owner was unable to check in for the 2 or 3 day period after July 2 (until whenever the blind bids were processed for that given week), then he's screwed and has no chance to bid on those guys... that's not fair. On the other hand, for a regular minors prospect who has been in the player pool for a long period of time, any owner can claim them with the hidden bids. It's not really unfair to handle those signings in Fantrax using the hidden bids (processed a couple times a week). I'm not saying disable all July 2 signings from hidden bids forever. Maybe we have a month period (July 2 - August 2) each year where any players signed prior to July 2 of that season cannot be blind bid on (can only be bid on in the forums). However, if an international signing isn't posted on the forums between July 2 and August 2, he becomes eligible to be bid on in Fantrax (hidden bids). That would ensure that the big named international prospects can be bid on fairly and by anyone who wants to do so. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Mar 6, 2017 12:10:29 GMT -5
To clarify, my vote will probably change to no if July 2 signings aren't excluded Well then why do this at all? I fail to see the distinction between the two. Both are high risk free agents that require research. You fail to differentiate, 190+ players being dumped into the player pool at the same time on one day compared to others being available, to all teams for an unspecified amount of time? Hmm ok - got it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 12:17:21 GMT -5
Is there a setting in Fantrax that make the bids and bidding team blind, but not the players with bids ending 48 hours after initial bid regardless if there is another bid or not? Also is turning off any notification feature to league owners that a bid has been made plausible? It will force participation/monitoring and at least bi-weekly check in and without knowing others bids, it might force someone to bid say $150k initially instead of $50k. I think this will weed out those that piggy back and only participate when they've been notified. This is exclusive of the J2 folks for me.
I'm just thinking out loud because this is my first dynasty league. I'll have a learning curve just like the rest of the newbies
|
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Mar 6, 2017 12:34:47 GMT -5
Team 1: Researches for Minors that are available during free agency attempting to improve their farm (while not trading or spending a lot of cash) posts player for auction..
Team 2: sits on hands all season long until players are posted for auction, once player is posted, looks into player and now bids accordingly after the player being brought to light . Wins said player after not even knowing they existed and now improves team for no other reason than Team 1 posting the player and not willing to spend as much as Team 2.
This is the last thing I'll say regarding this, because it's a pretty cut and dry process for wanting to change it. if someone can't see where there might be a slight issue with what's posted above then, I'm not sure what to say... its not a big deal it was a reccomendation for rewarding teams that put in the time, if it's too much work to get it done, scrap it and let's keep it like it is. We will make it either way. The way the rules set up free agency, you can't blame teams for using the rule to their advantage. Why wouldn't you go after a player your division rival posted? Makes too much sense not too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 12:59:46 GMT -5
I understood from the get go your reasoning. The condescending layout of this last post was unnecessary if directed at me. I'm placing my vote as NO until the J2 stuff is figured out.
|
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Mar 6, 2017 13:09:48 GMT -5
I understood from the get go your reasoning. The condescending layout of this last post was unnecessary if directed at me. I'm placing my vote as NO until the J2 stuff is figured out. Lol, woah there fella. My post had nothing to do with what you posted. |
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Mar 6, 2017 13:17:11 GMT -5
The July 2nd issue can be resolved by having waivers once a week (Sunday evenings?), particularly since no minor league pickup is of urgency. That would allow everyone the opportunity to bid accordingly, and for the July 2nd guys we can say that they would only be available by July 10th onwards (the nearest Sunday evening on or after July 10th), to allow for owners to do their research and submit bids accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Mar 6, 2017 13:21:17 GMT -5
Well then why do this at all? I fail to see the distinction between the two. Both are high risk free agents that require research. You fail to differentiate, 190+ players being dumped into the player pool at the same time on one day compared to others being available, to all teams for an unspecified amount of time? Hmm ok - got it! Dude. There is absolutely no problem with having 190+ players added to the pool at once. You have a set budget, you bid, you win or you lose and you move on. It's up to you. Having them open to open bids changes zip, particularly for a guy who's been all up in arms about doing so much research and having players poached. Seems to me that you may be more angry about having to bid more money on these guys than you otherwise would have liked if it were open bidding.....am I right? To me, this is an outstanding way to keep everyone checking in and making solid bids on solid players, which is what this rule change was all about, right? |
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Mar 6, 2017 13:33:19 GMT -5
Dude. There is absolutely no problem with having 190+ players added to the pool at once. You have a set budget, you bid, you win or you lose and you move on. It's up to you. Having them open to open bids changes zip, particularly for a guy who's been all up in arms about doing so much research and having players poached. Seems to me that you may be more angry about having to bid more money on these guys than you otherwise would have liked if it were open bidding.....am I right? To me, this is an outstanding way to keep everyone checking in and making solid bids on solid players, which is what this rule change was all about, right? Matt I have no idea what you are even talking about.. where did I say there was a problem adding that many guys to the player pool? You said you failed to distinguish how there was a difference between J2 and regular season free agency. I said that there is a clear distinction between dumping 190 players in the player pool. And yes it is frustrating to find a prospect and have someone bid you up almost every time.. thats why 4 teams voiced their opinion on the matter. Im changing my vote to no as I don't want the J2 process to change. Just scrap it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 13:43:52 GMT -5
Voted No until J2 is addressed. I like Ryan's suggestion, at least as something to build upon.
|
|
