silentjim wrote:I agree that the rules state this. I just think "Minimum Bids" needed to be treated differently than 250K bids from someone with cap space left.
I think in fairness, coffeeman's 250K bid for two year should outweigh a Minimum bid. There's got to be some penalty for spending all of one's cap space instead of constant advantages.
A minimum bid from a team with no cap space wouldn't technically be a "MATCH" anyway. A match would indicate an identical offer, which this wouldn't be.
No it wouldn't be a match, it would be a winning bid according to the rules. I'd agree that coffeeman's bid should be the one that trumps, but in order for that to be the case we'd need to change a whole part of the rules at a point when those rules have already been acted on, one way or another. I think the easiest thing to do here, for the auction, is just - as gentlemen - agree to not over bid in this case. We'll need to clarify for free agency though. I suppose if a majority of the league is in favour we can go ahead. It'll need to be written up with some clarity though, we need a clear, concise, and accurate set of rules to govern contracts.
For the moment, I'd be ok with voting to add a codicil that specifically makes a two year, 250K offer a winning bid over a minimum offer (from anyone). Call it a basic free agent offer or some such. I do agree that teams spending cap space should have a certain amount of preference shown them over teams that are capped out. Right now they can do that by spending the extra 10K too though, so we could just as easily suggest to coffee that he make his bid for 260K for 2 and not worry about rules amendments. Not changing the rules sounds easiest.
I also think that an open active slot should be a determining factor with minimum bids. It's already in the rules in another place, and I think it makes a lot of sense as a tie breaker.