New Auction Format Loophole...

Two things that we need to discuss, one of which is a clear loophole, around the new auction format. 

As a remember, starting this year each team will receive a number, we'll go around the room, one by one, with each person naming a player to be auctioned off.  We'll snake draft it (meaning the #16 guy in round one is #1 in round 2, etc.) so that everybody gets a fair number of names to throw out during the course of the auction.  However in discussions with folks two areas of concern have come up. 

1) Star Player's being "opened up" - in past years this wasn't really a concern unless one of these guys landed in a position & team that was at the very end of the auction.  However this year, if you had say Drew Brees at $55 under contract for one more season, you could wait until the very end of the auction, when maybe the most money left was say $60, and you could then open up Brees, resign him at $61 and lock up a great player for another 3+ (really 6) years.  If you timed it right, just about everybody in the PAFFL could do this effectively ending the availability of stars each year. 

So what I propose is we hold a pre-auction period where teams may 'open up' any existing contract that has one more year remaining.  This will provide teams the same opportunity but eliminate the opportunity to resign stars at under market value.  Does anybody have an issue with this?

2) Naming a player starts the bidding at $1 - In an effort to ensure we run a smooth and efficient auction, I propose that we enact a rule that when you announce a player for auction, the 'naming team' officially starts the bidding at $1.  This does two things:  It eliminates teams throwing out random, bluff names that they don't intend on taking & it gives some inherent value to being able to 'start the bidding' on younger or lesser known guys since you get the first bid in at $1. 

The first rule is a necessity, without we'll have choas at the auction and bitterness.  So its sort of mandatory that we do something with it.  The second one is more debateable but given how we're jumping into this new format w/o much discussion, I think its healthy that we tweak it a little to ensure its smooth and fair, and doesn't get too out of hand. 

Comments

[ebf]

I agree with the $1 minimum bid, or conversely no money, no play.

As for the 'opened up' players: at first thought i would say get rid of the rule. No more 'opened up' players. It seems likely 'opened up' players would generally go below market anyways

In order to ensure accuracy and fairness it would be useful to write policy aimed at complete transparency. Specifically, Cuts, holdovers and 'opened up' players should be disclosed before the auction begins.

just some thoughts....

[Beavercats]

I'm supportive of that, I think transparency will lead to good things across the board.

[ebf]

how did the 'opened up' rule come to be? ive never understood why paffl has it. is it supposed to emulate some real NFL situation or rule?

[NT]

Let's say it's my turn in the auction rotation to throw out a name, and I select Joseph Addai (not knowing whether Short Bus is holding him over) and Short Bus announces that he's indeed being held over for $80, do I then get to throw out another player, or does Addai count as my turn?

[todd2006]

either (a) all holdovers are announced at the beginning or (b) the decision to hold someone over happens when their name is called out by you or another owner.

(ps. addai's rights are available)