WR Kevin Curtis PHI - SOLD - to Insects for 605 * Matched (duh) by Popes *

[Flaxwless]

500

Let's try my luck with WRs.

[Preds]

505

[Flaxwless]

510

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

525

[smsmith40]

540

[Flaxwless]

550

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

555

[Flaxwless]

560

[Nittany Dodgers]

600

Sorry for the late bump, but that is too cheap for Curtis.

[Flaxwless]

605

[Nittany Dodgers]

72 hour clock is ticking for the Popes.

[Popes]

Popes gladly match.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Gee... NEVER saw that coming!

[Nittany Dodgers]

I would have liked to have bumped him higher, but I just couldn't risk the decline. I don't have room for him.

Of course, there are plenty of teams with room to bid, but I guess they didn't feel he was worth it. Of course, looking at what Chambers and Stallworth went for, I don't see why people weren't jumping on this one with the same gusto.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Not sure why not. I think this will be one of the best RFA retainees... especially given the salary value!

[Popes]

Karma! I screwed up and gave the Dodgers a bargain (Gonzo), so the FF gods let me get a bargain here.

Wait, they're supposed to be punishing me, not rewarding me. Hmmmmm.

[Flaxwless]

I like Curtis but at the time of the bid I didn't have much wiggle room with Steve Smith on my roster. I was hoping someone would bid up on him, so I could make a real bid.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

that's why we have PMs... shoot me a PM next time and I'll oblige!

[Popes]

Getting into the grey area with that kind of action...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Then make a post inthe public RFA commentary saying now that you've traded away Steve Smith you can make a much more competative bid... if someone else would bump your current bid.

That's fair & above the board.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Popes

Getting into the grey area with that kind of action...

Not really, all bids are binding, and what if the other team never follows through. I have no problem with a team asking another to bump a bid.

It's happened in the past and will happen again in the future... is it a loophole to "bids can't be changed" rule? Yeah, but a very very minor one. Again, who's to say the team making the request of another to bump absolutely has to or actually will increase their original bid. The team making the bump is making a binding bid, and as such takes on some risk if it's not a guy they really want.

[Popes]

Hmmm, Mike I could swear those were the exact words you said to me over IM on the issue ("kind of a grey area"). Could be my faulty memory though; it wouldn't be the first time.

Regardless, by grey area, I mean: nothing technically (rules-wise) wrong with it, but against the spirit of the rule, which I think is the same thing you're saying. It happens and will happen again, but I can very much understand someone frowning on it (cue Brian's entry to the conversation ;)).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Popes

Hmmm, Mike I could swear those were the exact words you said to me over IM on the issue ("kind of a grey area"). Could be my faulty memory though; it wouldn't be the first time.

Regardless, by grey area, I mean: nothing technically (rules-wise) wrong with it, but against the spirit of the rule, which I think is the same thing you're saying. It happens and will happen again, but I can very much understand someone frowning on it (cue Brian's entry to the conversation ;)).

I probably did, but I also probably said I don't have a problem with it, that it's happened in the past and will happen again in the future. I don't think it's that uncommon to be honest.

[Amish]

C'mon Popes, you did it on Shockey that backfired for me !

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'll take the cue and enter the conversation. I definitely think this kind of this would be a gray area. To me, though, it is only gray because we can't really legislate against it, though to me it is unquestionable something that should not go on. We specifically have a rule in place stating a team cannot raise their own bid, nor can they retract a bid once placed. That, to me, means this league wants teams to make bids they are willing to honor, be it too high, or too low. Mike says this is only a "minor" loophole, but I see it as a major one. Why major? Because in my mind it is collusionary. Normally, my opinion is that this league should operate as 12 independant teams working for their own personal self interest, not in planned coordination with another team against another team.

The only time I think teams should work together with each other is in a trade. In a trade, the spirit of competitiveness and fair trade a protected by each team working for their own self interest. The only teams that can be harmed are the ones agreeing to make a trade.

Here, we have a third team who is being harmed by two teams working together to artificially (yes, artificially) inflate the market value of a player.

Here we have a player, where 11 teams were unwilling, or unable to make a bid higher than 605, until one team traded a player, freeing up cap room. Unfortunately, that player had the high bid. There were still 10 teams unwilling or unable to make a higher bid. If we want that one team to increase their own bid, why don't we just allow it to happen? We could easily adopt a rule stating a team can raise their own RFA bid if we all think that would be a fair practice. I would think it would be rejected almost universally, and we would all see the flaw in a system like that. Working under the assumption that is true, why then would we support a system that in effect allows that to happen?

By the league not addressing this type of situation in the rules, I see it as a tacit consent that it be allowed. I disagree that it should be allowed, and while I doubt there is support to outlaw it on the surface, I want to at least go on record to say I think it is a anti-competitive and anti-fair play pratice.

[Popes]

Yeah Joel, and I should have stuck with my initial reaction, which was not to do it. I don't think you'll see me do it again. I'm just glad it backfired on you ;)

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'll take the cue and enter the conversation. I definitely think this kind of this would be a gray area. To me, though, it is only gray because we can't really legislate against it, though to me it is unquestionable something that should not go on. We specifically have a rule in place stating a team cannot raise their own bid, nor can they retract a bid once placed. That, to me, means this league wants teams to make bids they are willing to honor, be it too high, or too low. Mike says this is only a "minor" loophole, but I see it as a major one. Why major? Because in my mind it is collusionary. Normally, my opinion is that this league should operate as 12 independant teams working for their own personal self interest, not in planned coordination with another team against another team.

The only time I think teams should work together with each other is in a trade. In a trade, the spirit of competitiveness and fair trade a protected by each team working for their own self interest. The only teams that can be harmed are the ones agreeing to make a trade.

Here, we have a third team who is being harmed by two teams working together to artificially (yes, artificially) inflate the market value of a player.

Here we have a player, where 11 teams were unwilling, or unable to make a bid higher than 605, until one team traded a player, freeing up cap room. Unfortunately, that player had the high bid. There were still 10 teams unwilling or unable to make a higher bid. If we want that one team to increase their own bid, why don't we just allow it to happen? We could easily adopt a rule stating a team can raise their own RFA bid if we all think that would be a fair practice. I would think it would be rejected almost universally, and we would all see the flaw in a system like that. Working under the assumption that is true, why then would we support a system that in effect allows that to happen?

By the league not addressing this type of situation in the rules, I see it as a tacit consent that it be allowed. I disagree that it should be allowed, and while I doubt there is support to outlaw it on the surface, I want to at least go on record to say I think it is a anti-competitive and anti-fair play pratice.

There's the Brian we all know and love!

;)