New League Rule Proposals

[Steamboat]

Hulk, this is not really about Rex Burkhead. This is about the underlying issue of preventing manipulation v. freedom to transact.

Todd, what are your manipulation concerns? You haven't spelled those out. Maybe we would sympathize with you if we understood your concerns.

And, just for the sake of maintaining my brother's and my rule amendment suggestion, you would not need to freeze assets. In fact, to simplify things, scrap the post-bid selection idea. Just stick to the ability to use all current and future year picks to bid on players, provided the current year picks are used first. Once again, this upholds the key underlying concern of offering specific compensation and includes adequate safeguards to deter manipulation. Further, in future years when, as you contend, more players will be bid on, more people would bid on players and we would have a more competitive bidding process, which is good for all.

Finally, we still need a discussion on Section X and conflicts of interest.

Let's try to avoid the point-counterpoint argumentative approach. The issues here are: (1) what are the concerns associated with manipulation; (2) what are the benefits to allowing freedom to bid with all current and future picks; (3) can we have a user/commissioner friendly system that provides more freedoms and prevents manipulation; and (4) do all the guys want to implement something like this?

[Beefcake]

I'm not going to comment on the Burkhead debacle, mainly because I didn't follow the issue completely. But I will say a few things.

1) Macho did not change the rules unilaterally to benefit himself. I can confirm that he altered the rule to align it with the GDW and TDL, as it was intended. I wholeheartedly understand the issue that some of you are not in those leagues, so the understanding of the intended rule is lost in translation and probably did provide an unintended unfair advantage being the first year of RFAA in this league.

2) Because I didn't follow the Burkhead issue I'm not sure of the ramifications or if it would matter at all, but perhaps the Bukrhead auction should just be redone? Just a thought.

**3) The real reason for this post...hold on, let me see if this will even save on my work computer...

Ok it saved:

This is a rule that was originally in the TDL and it has just been carried over without thought to change it.  It absolutely gives an unfair advantage to certain teams.  Example:  In the GDW I have the 1.02 and 1.04 pick.  If I wanted to bid on a 1st round tagged player, I can't.  My draft picks are too good and I'm not allowed to offer up my 2019 1st.  Whereas, there are teams with no current year 1st rounder, being able to place bids using their 2019 1st.  That is inherently unfair.  In this league I have the 2.01 and the 3.01.  I'm essentially unable to bid on any 2nd or 3rd round player, because the 2.01 and 3.01 are worth more, but there are many teams that are able to offer a 2019 pick.  So I'm competing with teams offering low 2019 3rd rounders, when I am forced to offer up the 2018 3.01.  It's not fair.

I propose the following:

If a team doesn't have a current year pick in the same round as the tagged player, that team must offer the next best draft pick they have available in the current year.  If a team doesn't have any draft picks better than the tagged player in the current year, then they may offer up a draft pick in a future year with the following penalty:  Compensatory draft pick must be 1 round higher and a monetary penalty equal to the cost of the tag.

Example:

Cris Carter is a 3rd round tagged player that starts at $30.
Team A bids $35 and offers a 2018 3.12
Team B doesn't have a 2018 3rd, but does have a 2018 2.08, so he bids $40 and offers the 2.08.
Team C doesn't have a 2018 3rd or a 2018 2nd, but does have a 2018 1.10.  So he bids $45 and offers the 1.10 as compensation.
Team D doesn't have a 2018 3rd, 2nd or 1st rounder.  However he does have all his 2019 picks.  He bids $50 and offers his 2019 2nd (which is 1 round higher than the current 3rd tag) and must take a $30 cap hit (price of the tag) if he wins the bid.

This gives everyone the ability to bid on virtually any player, but the added draft pick rounds and the cap hit level the playing field.

[Steamboat]

Beefcake, I do not believe your suggestion resolves the underlying issue. Further, I would not want to see this implemented, primarily because the bidder must determine if the pick is worth more or less than the player up for bid. There is nothing inherently unfair about this. It is a matter of simple valuation.

Ultimately, the concerns Rock brought up are about maximizing asset/pick value during the bidding process. Macho has concerns the maximization of pick value, as proposed by us (Steamboat), would lead to manipulation. Once we determine how the system can be manipulated, we can determine if our idea would resolve the concerns.

[Beefcake]

I'd like to also suggest being able to use compensation from current auctions to be able to be used in other auctions. That sound weird, but essentially, If I tag a 3rd rounder, and that player gets bid on, I should be able to use that compensation in another auction (even if the auction on my player hasn't ended yet).

If I give a 3rd round tag to Cris Carter, and Team B makes a bid on Carter offering the 3.06 as compensation. I should immediately be able to use that 3.06 on another player (Troy Aikman), as I know with 100% certainty that I will be acquiring enough compensation to bid on Aikman. It's true that another team may offer different compensation that the 3.06, but I'll be getting compensation nonetheless.

To that point, it would be unfair to change compensation after the auction has ended if another team made a bid on Carter and offered the 3.14. It makes a difference to the matching team, to decide on whether to match or not. I also don't want to get into a game where we wait for one auction to close, before another can start. So it is up to the team making the bid, to make a NEW bid with the NEW compensation, if it changes. That would essentially reset the 24 hour clock, but keep things fair and up to date.

Example:

Team A places a 3rd round tag on Carter.
Team B bids on Carter and offers 3.01 as compensation.
Team A knows he won't match, so they make a bid on Aikman and offer the 3.01
The team owning Aikman (Team C) decides not to match because he likes the 3.01 more.
Within that 24 hour window, Team D bids on Carter offering the 3.14.
It is the responsibility of Team B to rebid (increasing his own bid by $1) with the new 3.14 compensation, thus resetting the 24 hour clock.
Team C doesn't like the 3.14 compensation and now can match.

[Beefcake]

Apr 13, 2018 15:03:49 GMT Steamboat said:

Beefcake, I do not believe your suggestion resolves the underlying issue. Further, I would not want to see this implemented, primarily because the bidder must determine if the pick is worth more or less than the player up for bid. There is nothing inherently unfair about this. It is a matter of simple valuation.

Ultimately, the concerns Rock brought up are about maximizing asset/pick value during the bidding process. Macho has concerns the maximization of pick value, as proposed by us (Steamboat), would lead to manipulation. Once we determine how the system can be manipulated, we can determine if our idea would resolve the concerns.

I wasn't done typing.  Read my post above this one. 

[Beefcake]

Apr 13, 2018 15:03:49 GMT Steamboat said:

Beefcake, I do not believe your suggestion resolves the underlying issue. Further, I would not want to see this implemented, primarily because the bidder must determine if the pick is worth more or less than the player up for bid. There is nothing inherently unfair about this. It is a matter of simple valuation.

What does this mean, anyhow?  The whole point of the RFAA process is to determine if compensation is worth more or less than the player up for bid.

[The Rock]

I agree with Beefcake in the unfair ability for one team to use next year's picks. That's my main issue with all this. It should just be very simple, if team A has no 2018 picks and can use their 2019 picks then I should be able to offer those picks as well. Not after I am done bidding on all other players and all auctions are closed and I have missed out on the ability to bid. We are also assuming we all agree that a 2019 pick holds less value than a 2018 pick and sometimes that just isn't the case. In my opinion, Beefcake's example above, he should be able to offer his 2019 picks instead of his 1.2, etc.

So I am asking for a simple solution. Open up all picks or take away the ability to offer future picks evenly. Don't give someone with no picks this year an advantage over someone who does have picks. Allow the owner of the player in the auction to make a decision based on the pick proposed. If that's a 2019 pick, then so be it.

I am not asking for the ability to use the same pick over and over as compensation in case one bid doesn't go through. I'm just saying it's like buying a house, I have to show I have the money in the bank before bidding on a house. If I have money in the bank to pay for the player, I should be able to bid.

Thanks as always to Matt for the excellent input. You're like the dodobird that stops in and sqwaks and drops a turd and flies away. Bye dodo

[Beefcake]

Ahhh, got it. I didn't read the Burkhead thread. Now I did.

The easiest thing to do it just to remove the ability to offer future picks as compensation. It's probably the only solution, as it is going to get very messy relying on 14 teams to not fuck things up, when compensation keeps getting altered and bidding on multiple players. It's inevitable that some team is going to win a bid on a player with the wrong compensation. The compensation they actually have is going to be worse, which then the original team that didn't match the bid, would have matched the bid. And then that team is going to say that if he matched that bid, he never would have bid on a different player of the same position, and the dominoes will continue to fall.

Eliminate all future picks as compensation. I'm all for it. And if a team doesn't have a 3rd rounder this year, they can still bid as long as the compensation is better (2nd rounder).

[Hulkamania]

My point is this PIERCE your making this a way bigger deal than it is or needs to be!!

[Beefcake]

Apr 13, 2018 16:12:40 GMT Hulkamania said:

My point is this PIERCE your making this a way bigger deal than it is or needs to be!!

In all seriousness, I disagree.  It's an issue.

[Hulkamania]

There is a fucking novel in this thread im not sure any issue requires all that. If you guys would just trade away your picks and bid dollars like i did you wohldnt have this problem! But whatever obviously i can't stay away long enough not to read this shit or chime in with my nonsense.

[Macho Man]

There is absolutely no consideration being given to the fact that the RFAA is a manually operated and monitored auction. The proposals being made make this quite clear. I've stated my concerns regarding the manipulation twice, but I'll try to explain it again: A team who doesn't want to give up 3.01, or in The Rock's case 3.03 (which he made it clear he did not want to do), for a tagged player can bid 3.01 on a different player he believe he is unlikely to get with his minimum bid, in this case $26. Then he could immediately places his 2019 3rd Round pick on the player he did not want to use his 3.01 on. Then, if and when he is outbid or matched on the player for which he bid his 3.01, he could then save 3.01 for the draft in the current year. This would result in the team losing his 2019 3rd Pick, but retaining his 3.01.

To Beefcake's point regarding the unfairness of having to give up 2.01 and someone else can give up 2.14. (1) I feel bad for you; (2) It's a fantasy football league with a made up auction.. it's not perfect; and (3) AGAIN, everyone knows the players in the RFAA prior to it's commencement. If you knew you wanted to bid on a 2nd round tagged player you have the ability to trade 2.01 back and acquire ADDITIONAL assets and still get the RFAA player in the auction. The person with 2.14 does not have this ability.

Here is an idea - Starting next year no future picks can be used in the RFAA. This will resolve the issue. If you opt to trade your picks that is your decision, and if you are unable to participate in the RFAA then that is your fault. Being able to bid using future picks is a luxury and it's purpose was to encourage additional participation, but it's certainly not a necessity.

[The Rock]

Apr 13, 2018 16:11:49 GMT Beefcake said:

Ahhh, got it. I didn't read the Burkhead thread. Now I did.

The easiest thing to do it just to remove the ability to offer future picks as compensation. It's probably the only solution, as it is going to get very messy relying on 14 teams to not fuck things up, when compensation keeps getting altered and bidding on multiple players. It's inevitable that some team is going to win a bid on a player with the wrong compensation. The compensation they actually have is going to be worse, which then the original team that didn't match the bid, would have matched the bid. And then that team is going to say that if he matched that bid, he never would have bid on a different player of the same position, and the dominoes will continue to fall.

Eliminate all future picks as compensation. I'm all for it. And if a team doesn't have a 3rd rounder this year, they can still bid as long as the compensation is better (2nd rounder).

Either way is fine I believe. 

1) Open up all picks to be traded as long as it is stated which pick you are offering.  There are penalties in place already for bidding without proper compensation available. I think that's enough to keep every owner honest and diligent about making proper bids

OR

2) Close the ability to offer future picks for ALL.  I personally don't like this option.

I also do not believe Macho did anything wrong or intentional to benefit himself.  Sometimes he has to act as owner and commish and I am fine with how he handles this so long as he doesn't power trip and start handing out sanctions lol. 

Matt, nothing to see here. This is all way over your head so your contribution as head badger is accepted. 

[Macho Man]

I wrote my post without knowledge of the previous few posts. Good, it seems like everyone is onboard with the idea that future picks will no longer be used in the RFAA.

[The Rock]

Apr 13, 2018 16:39:18 GMT Macho Man said:

I wrote my post without knowledge of the previous few posts. Good, it seems like everyone is onboard with the idea that future picks will no longer be used in the RFAA.

This should be a vote or discussion....not a statement and end of story. We can table it for now and get on to the season though