ardilla wrote:It is better for the league to have shorter contracts in general, especially on tiny contracts when these players could blow up this year and be in demand next season.
An amendment is coming to solve the auction situation, other rules that help balance the league don't need to be changed. Higher average value always wins, 50K raise is tiny if you really want that player.
Everyone has to stop thinking what's best for themselves and needs to start thinking about what's best for all. How is it better for the league to have shorter contracts? We've already established that offers less than 5 million can be for 1 or 2 years in length. If that player blows up, then so be it. Isn't that kind of the point of an auction draft? To get a good player for less money? It's all part of the strategy involved.
I really do feel like everyone who spent all or most of their money are now trying to modify the rules' meaning a bit so that either they can have access to more player, or so that the teams with money can't capitalize on having money available at the end of the draft.
I've said it now a hundred times, but I think its completely ridiculous that the minimum bids that are being used for teams over the cap can have the same value as those 250K bids for teams with cap room. It doesn't make any sense. 10K or 50K might seem small, but that's because you're not spending it. The fact that people over the cap were allowed to offer minimum bids while the draft was still ongoing was absurd in the first place, but because it already happened and its to late be undone, doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
I know I'm ranting big time, but I pride myself on thinking as unbiased as possible, but I am starting to question whether others are really trying to better the league or their own teams. This isn't directed at you at all Ardilla, just in general.