|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Feb 5, 2015 13:48:26 GMT -5
As currently worded, the match option rule isn't clear.
Current rule: 17. Match Options: The owner of a minor league player with an expiring contract will have the right to match the highest bid made for that player during the following season's bid rounds and retain the player on those contract terms. The high bidder whose bid was matched will receive compensation of the matching team's first round pick in that year's minor league draft. Each team may exercise match options only twice per year. If the matching team's first round pick has already been forfeited for an earlier match option, than the high bidder will get the second round pick. Match options will not come into play until the 2015 baseball season - the oldest minor league contracts in this league expire after the 2014 season.
Proposed change: 17. Match Options: The owner of minor league players with an expiring contracts will have the option to match the highest bid for up to two of those players during the next season's bid rounds and retain the players on the matched contract terms. The high bidder on the most expensive player whose bid was negated by the match option will receive compensation of the matching owner's first round pick in that year's minor league draft. The high bidder on the second matched player will receive the matching owner's second round pick in the minor league draft. Owners without a first or second round pick cannot exercise match options. Owners without a first round pick can only exercise one match option, giving up a second round pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Here 4 Beer on Feb 9, 2015 15:47:19 GMT -5
Sounds fine to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Feb 10, 2015 13:14:48 GMT -5
Can you explain what the difference is between the two?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Feb 10, 2015 13:46:07 GMT -5
In the original wording, there was no way to tell which matched bid got the 1st round pick and which got the 2nd round pick. In other words, how do you decide which match was first - the change makes it the highest-price player that deserves the 1st round compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4th St Clubhouse on Feb 11, 2015 0:24:40 GMT -5
Sounds good.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4th St Clubhouse on Feb 11, 2015 1:12:39 GMT -5
I need a clarification on this rule. This doesn't have anything to do with the change.
1. If I don't even bid on my rookie with an expiring contract and someone else does, I still have the opportunity to come in and match the bid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Feb 11, 2015 13:02:46 GMT -5
You have to at least make a bid on the player. If you don't, it basically gives you a one or two extra bids.
Mike, on the off chance that the salary/years are the same on the two match options, it should be written in that the tie-breaker is priority. Obviously, the higher of the two gives up the better pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Feb 11, 2015 13:52:25 GMT -5
Ron - Dean is right. You have to submit a bid on any expiring rookies that you want to keep, even if it's a minimum bid at lowest priority.
In other words, no matter how many expiring rookies a team has, each team only gets 15 bids in the first bid round.
Dean - your point is also right on the tie-breaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn Cobesters on Feb 11, 2015 14:27:11 GMT -5
I thought you had to list that you are using the match option next to the player on the bidding list and you can only do it twice.
Of course you can still bid enough to win the bid and avoid having to give up the rookie draft pick.
Checked and it was never specified in this league but in the H2H league this league was based on you have to list the match options you are using.
Here's an example of a submitted 1st round bid list:
1. Babe Ruth 9/4
2. Barry Bonds 2/3
3. Mike Piazza 5/3
4. Bobby Bonilla 3/5
5. Homer Bush 1/4
6. Roger Clemens 8/2
7. Nolan Ryan 1/5
8. Mickey Mantle 7/3
9. Ricky Henderson 6/5
10. Walt Weiss 1/3
11. Joe Carter 6/4
12. Mitch Williams 2/2
13. John Kruk 4/2
14. Sammy Sosa 4/3 (team match option 1)
15. Roger Maris 3/5 (team match option 2)
Think we should do the same here rather than letting owners make bids on expiring rookie contracts and then deciding which 1 or 2 they will use after bidding results are known.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4th St Clubhouse on Feb 11, 2015 16:43:46 GMT -5
Mike, I agree you should have to bid and I would agree with something like the bid list above. It should be noted in the rule somehow that the player must be on your bid list. As currently written, there is nothing saying you must have bid on the player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Feb 11, 2015 19:20:47 GMT -5
Understand, Ron - I think where the rule needs updating is on the guidelines for the bid round. Would be easy to insert there that you have to include in your bids any expired rookies that you intend to match or re-sign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 22:41:19 GMT -5
i like the changed rule myself...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Feb 14, 2015 16:18:51 GMT -5
I thought you had to list that you are using the match option next to the player on the bidding list and you can only do it twice. Of course you can still bid enough to win the bid and avoid having to give up the rookie draft pick. Checked and it was never specified in this league but in the H2H league this league was based on you have to list the match options you are using. Here's an example of a submitted 1st round bid list: 1. Babe Ruth 9/4 2. Barry Bonds 2/3 3. Mike Piazza 5/3 4. Bobby Bonilla 3/5 5. Homer Bush 1/4 6. Roger Clemens 8/2 7. Nolan Ryan 1/5 8. Mickey Mantle 7/3 9. Ricky Henderson 6/5 10. Walt Weiss 1/3 11. Joe Carter 6/4 12. Mitch Williams 2/2 13. John Kruk 4/2 14. Sammy Sosa 4/3 (team match option 1) 15. Roger Maris 3/5 (team match option 2) Think we should do the same here rather than letting owners make bids on expiring rookie contracts and then deciding which 1 or 2 they will use after bidding results are known. Just focused on this comment. I don't like the idea of committing in advance to which players you are going to match. If a team has four expired rookies that they want to try to keep, the owner will submit bids on all four. There's no way for him to know in advance which of those players will attract heavy bid interest and which won't. I think that making the owner declare his two match options in advance is an unnecessary liability, and that the spirit of the rule is that you get to see the bids before you have to decide whether to match or not. Just my two cents. (BTW - I don't have any match options this year, so this doesn't affect my bidding at all.) Any other thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by 4th St Clubhouse on Feb 14, 2015 19:52:18 GMT -5
Your comments make sense. I think I am totally agreed to the proposed change as written.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Feb 16, 2015 10:33:58 GMT -5
I thought you had to list that you are using the match option next to the player on the bidding list and you can only do it twice. Of course you can still bid enough to win the bid and avoid having to give up the rookie draft pick. Checked and it was never specified in this league but in the H2H league this league was based on you have to list the match options you are using. Here's an example of a submitted 1st round bid list: 1. Babe Ruth 9/4 2. Barry Bonds 2/3 3. Mike Piazza 5/3 4. Bobby Bonilla 3/5 5. Homer Bush 1/4 6. Roger Clemens 8/2 7. Nolan Ryan 1/5 8. Mickey Mantle 7/3 9. Ricky Henderson 6/5 10. Walt Weiss 1/3 11. Joe Carter 6/4 12. Mitch Williams 2/2 13. John Kruk 4/2 14. Sammy Sosa 4/3 (team match option 1) 15. Roger Maris 3/5 (team match option 2) Think we should do the same here rather than letting owners make bids on expiring rookie contracts and then deciding which 1 or 2 they will use after bidding results are known. Just focused on this comment. I don't like the idea of committing in advance to which players you are going to match. If a team has four expired rookies that they want to try to keep, the owner will submit bids on all four. There's no way for him to know in advance which of those players will attract heavy bid interest and which won't. I think that making the owner declare his two match options in advance is an unnecessary liability, and that the spirit of the rule is that you get to see the bids before you have to decide whether to match or not. Just my two cents. (BTW - I don't have any match options this year, so this doesn't affect my bidding at all.) Any other thoughts? So, if you bid on more than two players you have the match option on, you get to pick which one or two you want to match after winning bids are announced, without having to announce the match players ahead of time? Makes sense to me. |
|
