Fenris-77 wrote: Nene wrote:
Fenris-77 wrote:Kal's not the only guy near or at the cap. I'm 450K away, and I don't think there's any issues with my team. It's not just about Kal, who's only the most extreme example. You can't base this decision on just what you think specifically of Kal's draft strategy.
You might be near the cap, but you have more than 4 players.
That's the point - I'll be capped out quite soon, but you can't point your finger at me and say "you drafted like crap anyway, so who cares". I'll still be in the same boat, and I really don't think the fact that I drafted a decent team up until now, while some guys have held back, should have any impact on minimum bids (as far as treating mine substantially different form anyone else's goes). I'm just trying to stress that the question isn't about any one GM and where he's at, it's about what's balanced and fair for everyone.
Whether the team sucks or not. The owner with cap space budgeted his/her money for a purpose. So they could drop the hammer late and control the auction at some point.
Owners with little cap space bought big name, big production & consistency. Using the hammer early therefore not saving an auction lifeline. But based on the rules there are small exceptions like now.
Remember Fenris(we) is debating 2 things. The actual verbiage of the rule. And the situation.
Third party minimum bids? I believe someone mentioned it as being not allowed. Are we clear on this?
Team A(with cap space) 250k
Team B(no cap space) 250k
Team c(no cap space) 250k
Team d(no cap space) 250k
How will this play out? Team d is the lead bid?