|
Post by bbozorth on Feb 16, 2015 23:33:07 GMT -5
The rule does not require the bid by the original owner. I agree with that. The modified rule only addresses the compensation for using the option, which is what is being voted on. That is what I agree to.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Feb 17, 2015 0:07:39 GMT -5
It's true that the Match Option rule doesn't address whether or not expiring rookies need to be on the bid list, but this is one of common sense. Every year, teams will have different numbers of expired rookie contracts; eg, this year one team has 11 while another team has only 3. If the expired rookies aren't required on the bid list, this means that one team will be able to choose from among 26 different players via bid/match options, while the other team will only have access to 18. What is fair about that?
The bid rules state that you can bid on up to 15 players in the first round and sign any of them where you are the successful bidder and can afford the salary. It's clear that the expectation is that each team will have access to 15 available players in round one, 10 players in round two. Trying to expand the access to players is outside of the bid rules, and, as shown above, creates an unfair advantage for some teams.
|
|