No, actually your logic is dodgy and makes no sense. You say that I bid, and you match, and then we're somehow both 'matching'. I'm sorry, but not only isn't that what matching means, it makes no logical sense in english. There's no logical way to get from the rules as you wrote them to the conclusion you draw from them. No. Logical. Way.
[editors note - you can stop reading now if you feel like passing on the logic exercise
In order to 'match' there has to be something to match. What are you 'matching' with the second bid? That's right, the first bid. The pre-exisiting bid. When you say 'to match' it means the act of matching, which implies there is something to match, which specifically implies that there is a pre-existing bid. You use 'match' as a verb, with all the lovely logical causality that entails, and you assume by using it that way that there's a bid in place. That first bid isn't 'matching' - it's being matched. See the following..
-team can't match other team's offer to unrestricted free agent in both average salary and contract length, if it's able to outbid it. only situation where repeating existing offer is permitted is if team can't outbid the current offer under cap rules. if 2 or more teams have same amount of cap free and bid it all on a player, that player is awarded to a team that comes out as a winner of a roto mini-league based on last year's numbers.
Those two highlighted phrases are the key ones. Here's the logic..
team can't match [existing bid to] ... if it's able to outbid [that existing bid]. You can't even make that statement without a bid in place, and it logically and inevitably only applies to bids make subsequently to the first one. There's no way to take that statement and make it apply, logically, to the first bid without completely re-writing it. In short, it does not logically apply.
The rule as written does allow capped out teams to make a min offer subsequent to an initial min offer, but doesn't say anything about how to resolve the tie, because the rules for tie breaks only apply to two capped out teams. So there's no remedy in the rules.
Here's the rest...
-when a free agent receives more then one contract offer, he is awarded to a team based on next 3 criteria
1) he is awarded to a team that offers the highest average salary
2) if he receives two or more offers with same average salaries, he is awarded to team depending on offered contract length
-if the average salary is between 25% and 100% of the maximum he is awarded to a team that offers the longest contract
-if the average salary is lower then 25% of the maximum he is awarded to a team that offers the shortest contract
-maximum salary increases/decreases during the auction are limited to 10%
team a has 4M free and bids 3M on a player x. team b has 3M free and bids it all on player x. in order to get the player team a now has outbid team b's offer, otherwise player x signs with team b.
This entire section refers to contracts of a different sort than those matching in both years and salary. It refers to contracts of unequal average salary, and contracts of equal average salary but unequal length. That's all it covers.
Then there's the example. That part says what you want, but it's not logically or grammatically connected to anything else in this section, or any other part of the rules. It might make sense if there was an entirely new "3" that the example could refer to, a "3" that deals with contracts matching in both average salary and length, but there isn't. So it's a completely wasted paragraph that means absolutely nothing. Logically means absolutely nothing.
If you like I can completely expand and parse this section of the rules for you. You can see it with full logical apparatus if you like. It still won't say what you want. It's not written clearly enough to do so. And since a whole league full of native English readers managed to miss your version of the facts, I'm kind of surprised you;re so adamant that it all makes perfect sense. Personally, I'm tired of typing about this - you're just wrong, get over it. Not only did no one read your facts as you see them, no one agreed with the intent either. Not a single person agreed that min bids from capped teams should auto-win. 13 managers replied, no one agreed, all but 2 specifically disagreed .
So no, you position does not stand.