Bidding over Cap

Pretty simple, just pick the one you want...as of now the paperwork will fall on me/Tom

Can we do an amendment? Not be allowed to bid over with some variance. Not like excessive, but like $20.

Maybe if this fails...I don't think we get enough votes either way because our league is full of people like Roger that can post "I tag Aaron Rodgers" twenty times but pick a multiple choice answer is too much work.

If we amend, I would imagine it would have to be some sort of percentage of the cap, since it changes every year.

I feel like 'multiple choice' in the traditional sense implies more than 2 options. This to me would seem like a "True" or "False" situation.....which is even simpler

So can we vote on this, it passes, propose amendment right after? To get my vote there needs to be some leeway. Strategy and also make it simpler on your end. Strategy in that bidding on 5-6 guys and being 20 points over cap it would be reasonable to assume you would not get 1 of those guys thus remaining bids being under cap. Strategy IS NOT bidding on everyone and being over by 400 and if you even won 25% of your bids you would be over cap.

If you want the amendment I would vote no. If the final vote here is close we'd likely start a revote with the amendment. But based on some complaints I think a stiff cap might be favored.

To put a hard cap on bids would completely change free agency. You would have limitted flexibility to target alternatives options. Consequently, a higher emphasis will be put on top targets resulting in inflation. Roster constructions will become more depth-oriented resulting from the inflation of top-end talent. Due to the timing issue of the current FA model, teams who miss out on their top options could miss out on their depth options as well. This is not the comprehensive FA reform we need. We need to address, cap and roster limitations in addition to a more uniform clock on each player. Vote "We should be allowed to bid over our cap space" and lets start over.

Brandon M wrote:To put a hard cap on bids would completely change free agency. You would have limitted flexibility to target alternatives options. Consequently, a higher emphasis will be put on top targets resulting in inflation. Roster constructions will become more depth-oriented resulting from the inflation of top-end talent. Due to the timing issue of the current FA model, teams who miss out on their top options could miss out on their depth options as well. This is not the comprehensive FA reform we need. We need to address, cap and roster limitations in addition to a more uniform clock on each player. Vote "We should be allowed to bid over our cap space" and lets start over.

In our original auction multiple players went for over 100.  Our cap was only 250.  our cap has more than doubled but the top player's salary is currently 175.  our current model has had deflation of top players as an issue.

BOOM Dan drinks and he knows things

Top players wouldn't be devalued if a few minor league members were active. They have a zillion in cap then don't bid or finally get in near the end

Cat M wrote:Top players wouldn't be devalued if a few minor league members were active. They have a zillion in cap then don't bid or finally get in near the end

I disagree, even when almost everyone used most of our cap we saw a decrease in top earners as a percentage of cap. I think the devaluation of top players is more artificially us saying omg 100 is still so much when as a percentage it is on par with like 40 for the original auction. the devaluation is mostly us being bad at math

I mean we're in lock-step on the effect. I think it's a bit hyperbolic to call deflation an "issue." 100-175 is nearly double as well. It sounds more like a correction to me, since none of us knew what we were doing at first. All of this is to avoid the fact that a change will result in inflation, not overall, but at the top. I guess that'd probably hurt you guys more than me though.

The value of players is set by the market. Whether it's b/c people bid or not is part of that market. It has nothing to do with the hard cap... Stay on topic, boys!

Since I was the deciding vote can I propose an amendment that gives a reasonable flexibility in total bids out there. To make it easier on the commish and for reasons mentioned by me abovr

Yes I'd say a percentage personally

Maybe 10%?

Im with jason... shouldnt be a hard nothing over cap but maybe no more than 50 over cap durring the first week. 25 second week. and 0 the third.

I like 10% but I also like Roger's idea. Because it goes with the ebb and flow of bidding. In the first part of FA there will be more bids out and players contracts less defined. Then you should have started to solidified your roster or at least know a more definite number on what a player will go for.

Example: Someone with $200 cap puts bids on 5 players, 3 high level WR's, 1 RB, and 1 QB. Combination of those players is $250. By Week 2 two of those WR's are now over $100 and the other $60, RB around $30 etc. they obviously can't keep bidding on both WR's and the other players at the same time but. But in the beginning a no flexibility hard cap would be too tedious for Dan/Tom but also too restrictive.

And for those reasons listed above is why you should have voted no. This rule is tedious inexact and not really what was needed. But it passed so can we start an appeal bid and get a more defined rule that is accrptable?

more defined? hard cap is pretty fucking defined...
isn't what we needed? you mean "isn't what i wanted"