RB Arian Foster, Hou - *** SOLD *** to Chi-Town (2775), DECLINED by Opihi

[The Knights of Ni]

2000

[chasmvp19]

2101

[The Knights of Ni]

2200

[chasmvp19]

2252

[The Knights of Ni]

2300

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

SOLD... to Derby Car (2300).
Opihi have 72 hours to match/decline.

[chasmvp19]

Was 2300 a legal bid...2252 plus 50 is not 2300...I guess I should have brought this up earlier...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

This is a very good point. Technically, no. But we know what his intentions were. However, the rules state it must be a 50cb raise. Since I'm involved in this (since Foster is mine), I'm going to ask Burt & Pat to make a ruling. If they're split on their decision, then I'll have someone else break the tie.

[Preds]

My unsolicited 2 cents...

It's a 2cb difference. Foster sat there with a 48cb bid instead of 50 for over 48 hours and nobody said a word or noticed. Had someone noticed they should have spoken up. Further I think it's pretty clear that SBDC intended to increase the bid by 50 not 48.

IMO the winning bid should be increased the 2cb to 2302.

Had this been a larger gap I might have favored invalidating the bid, but we're talking a 4% error here.

[Burt the Butcher]

Good intentions or not, it was not a legal bid. If someone had been over the cap by 2cb, would we let a penalty slide?

I would say the 2300 bid was not legal, and Cards bid is the winning bid.

[Liquid Swords]

In the past someone has spoken up about an illegal bid. I tried going back to find other situations like this (where the clock expired without someone speaking up) and the only one that I could find was on a true last minute bid by Opihi on Jamal Lewis way back in 2006 (http://predsff.com/forums/showthread...ht=illegal+bid). Opihi's illegal bid wasn't accepted; however, it had more to do with being a last minute bid.

This situation is different in that aspect as the bump was made just over an hour over the previous one. That shows clear intentions of interest to me. Sorry about being a thorn in the side, but I think SBDC's bid should be increased to 2302.

[Liquid Swords]

I would also be in favor of giving Cards a 24 hour window to bid a minimum of 2352 and keep Foster active.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

I would also be in favor of giving Cards a 24 hour window to bid a minimum of 2352 and keep Foster active.

I think that's a very fair idea Pat. Make the bid 2302 and give the Cards an opportunity to increase.

[Burt the Butcher]

I don't have a problem with Pat's idea. I think if we rule this way, then we should just write It into the rule that any bump that is below the minimum, is always assumed to be the minimum, then we don't have an issue

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I don't have a problem with Pat's idea. I think if we rule this way, then we should just write It into the rule that any bump that is below the minimum, is always assumed to be the minimum, then we don't have an issue

I think that's a reasonable idea as well.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well, I have an issue with keeping Foster active. The Cards had 48 hours to increase the bid on Foster... OR TO CALL THE BID ILLEGAL. He did this AFTER The 48 hour window had closed. So I'd be willing to allow Nate to agree to 2302 as the WINNING bid, but not to allow the Cards another 24 hours to increase the bid. Seems like that ship has sailed.

When I offered Burt & Pat the chance to make a decision... it was for which would be the winning bid: 2302 (Derby Cars) or 2252 (Chi-Town).

[Burt the Butcher]

But you own his rights so do not want him to go higher. If it were two vets bidding then no slack. But we have newbie involved, so he may not have known the best procedure to handle it.
But if we have to choose, let Nate have the winning bid

[Preds]

I think Burt's suggestion that any invalid bid be bumped to the point of being valid (regardless of hoe under the bid is)is a good one, and this set the precedent for the rules with Foster selling at 1302.

Again, my unsolicited 2 cents.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

If the newbie honestly thought that he COULDN'T bid on Foster, then yes, let him keep bidding then I guess. I figured he didn't WANT to bid anymore, otherwise he would have simply upped the bid before.

What was your thinking Chi-Town (sorry, I don't remember your name)?

[chasmvp19]

I guess I should be honest here...My name is Chuck, for the record...I saw the bid was NOT valid and left it there to possibly win the player at a lower price if no one else bid. I know this helps the original owner potentially. If the bid was valid over mine, I would have bid again. Saturday night I was told that people usually point the invalid bid out IF they see it. We all saw it. I had my own team's best interest in letting the bad bid stand knowing what the rules state. Maybe I was wrong in some regard here...now I know...I will accept what ever ruling you guys decide. I have more to say, but I will bite my tongue here and be a good trooper (fall in line if you will)....

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Chuck, thanks for your honesty. That actually makes it more difficult. As you'll come to know, I'm a spirit-of-the-rules kind of guy, not a letter-of-the-rules kind of Commish. I'm also a guy who likes to give folks the benefit of the doubt, especially when they're new to the league. I know how difficult it is to catch up with ALL of the rules, regulations & practices of the Frenzy.

You mention that "we all saw" the invalid bid. In all honesty, I didn't. I completely missed it, otherwise I would have called it out. So I assumed that you didn't want to bid higher than what Nate had bid, end of story. Now you say that you would have bid higher, but you were hoping to have the player awarded as sold to you at a lower price. In RFA-ville, that's actually working against you, my friend. Owners who tender their RFAs want to keep them at the lowest possible price. So it would make me MORE inclined to match than if the bidding was allowed to continue.

Having said that, I'm going to, once again, back out of ruling here, as Foster is my dog in this fight. SO... now that we know what the intents were here, I put it back in Burt & Pat's corner. I will abide by whatever they decide.

Once more, guys... with feeling!?!

[Preds]

FWIW, I never saw the invalid bid either, so I don't think one can say "we all saw it". I wasn't following Foster's bid closely since I wasn't looking to jump in, much like I don't follow other players too closely if I don't have an interest.

I do appreciate Chuck's honesty in admitting he knew the bid was invalid, and perhaps didn't understand the friendly competitiveness of this league where owners would let that error be known (heck it took me many years to relinquish my overly competitive nature... 6-7 years ago I'd have probably done the same thing as Chuck and argued the bid was invalid). All that said, the Frenzy is a friendly ultra-competitive league these days, and all the better for it.

I still like Pat's idea to allow the bidding to continue, combined with Burt's idea that any under bid be automatically increased to the minimum bid increment from here on forward to eliminate this type of mistake.

In defense of Nate (SBDC), we all get use to bidding in increments of 5's and 0's, so when those oddball 1's and 2's get tossed out there it can make it easy to mistake the next bid increment.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Chuck, thanks for your honesty. That actually makes it more difficult. As you'll come to know, I'm a spirit-of-the-rules kind of guy, not a letter-of-the-rules kind of Commish. I'm also a guy who likes to give folks the benefit of the doubt, especially when they're new to the league. I know how difficult it is to catch up with ALL of the rules, regulations & practices of the Frenzy.

You mention that "we all saw" the invalid bid. In all honesty, I didn't. I completely missed it, otherwise I would have called it out. So I assumed that you didn't want to bid higher than what Nate had bid, end of story. Now you say that you would have bid higher, but you were hoping to have the player awarded as sold to you at a lower price. In RFA-ville, that's actually working against you, my friend. Owners who tender their RFAs want to keep them at the lowest possible price. So it would make me MORE inclined to match than if the bidding was allowed to continue.

Having said that, I'm going to, once again, back out of ruling here, as Foster is my dog in this fight. SO... now that we know what the intents were here, I put it back in Burt & Pat's corner. I will abide by whatever they decide.

Once more, guys... with feeling!?!

Let the bidding continue since this involves new owner, with the understanding that any bid increasing the previous bid, is implied to be a minimum valid bump from this point forward. The rule already implies this, so I think good idea to make it clear.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Bidding is reopened. Current bid is at 2302 (Derby Car).

[The Knights of Ni]

I guess I started some issues over 2 cbs. My bad I should have caught it.

[chasmvp19]

2400

sorry for creating drama...I'll speak up better next time...

[The Knights of Ni]

2600

[chasmvp19]

2775

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

SOLD (for the second time)... to Chi-Town (for the first time) @ 2775.
I have 72 hours to match/decline.

[Burt the Butcher]

Chuck and Jim both online....who will blink first...