NFFC Message Boards

Who should get a free agent when two owners bid the same amount?

The team that is lower in the standings is awarded this player under the current system. I am going to assume this is to keep the league as competitive as possible by awarding this player to the team that needs him the most to compete. This is easy to understand and seems to make sense.

Ask yourself this question: Why is the team that is higher in the standings penalized for doing well? Shouldn't that owner be awarded the player for being the better owner?

Most of up put a lot of time and effort into our teams and that should be something that we reward, not penalize.

I've been drafting teams with the NFFC for the past 10 years and it seems that there is at least one bid in one league every year, that is the same as another owner. This year it happened in week 6 with Odell Beckham and I did not win $$ in the league as a direct result of this rule. I shouldn't feel like I am at a disadvantage because I am doing better than another team.

Sal Cataldo

While I totally understand your logic, Sal, I am going to assume it is the same reason he Super Bowl champion doesn't get the first pick in the draft the next year. Like you said, it keeps some balance.

If it was a team that outbid you that really didn't care about their team, that sucks. However, just like owners who don't consistently out lineups in...there isnt much you can do.

scataldo201 wrote:Who should get a free agent when two owners bid the same amount?

The team that is lower in the standings is awarded this player under the current system. I am going to assume this is to keep the league as competitive as possible by awarding this player to the team that needs him the most to compete. This is easy to understand and seems to make sense.

Ask yourself this question: Why is the team that is higher in the standings penalized for doing well? Shouldn't that owner be awarded the player for being the better owner?

Most of up put a lot of time and effort into our teams and that should be something that we reward, not penalize.

I've been drafting teams with the NFFC for the past 10 years and it seems that there is at least one bid in one league every year, that is the same as another owner. This year it happened in week 6 with Odell Beckham and I did not win $$ in the league as a direct result of this rule. I shouldn't feel like I am at a disadvantage because I am doing better than another team.

Sal Cataldo

Nah I don't think this change should be made...in the NFL and MLB the worst teams always get 1st shot at players placed on waivers..it does help keep the balance and shouldn't be different here. Not often players tie with bids anyways..u just had the bad misfortune of it happening with Odell Beckham Jr. I bid way more than most on him a week before his 1st game...nobody else even placed a bid in my league.

The difference is that the Super Bowl champ actually won something!

This is such a rare occurrence that it's something that most people don't give much thought. It sucked seeing a team that isn't doing as well win the player just because I was higher in the standings. Shouldn't the player go to the team that is performing better considering we haven't won anything yet AND we are all trying to win a grand prize?

Nah I don't think this change should be made...in the NFL and MLB the worst teams always get 1st shot at players placed on waivers..it does help keep the balance and shouldn't be different here. Not often players tie with bids anyways..u just had the bad misfortune of it happening with Odell Beckham Jr. I bid way more than most on him a week before his 1st game...nobody else even placed a bid in my league.

Nobody cares if you or me had Beckham on our teams. I brought my situation up to illustrate the fact that this is something that does happen and it deserves some thought. I don't value the rationale that we should do something JUST because others are doing it.

Every dollar that is overspent is a dollar that is wasted. Why would anyone want to spend $75 on a player that they could have had for $1?

Managing your FAAB budget properly is an important part of this game. Consistently overspending in the beginning of the season doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Now I know that you are probably going to say that you saw something special in Beckham and that's why you only overspent on him. My point is that there are times that owners place the same bid on a player and we should think about the rule we currently have.

scataldo201 wrote:The difference is that the Super Bowl champ actually won something!

This is such a rare occurrence that it's something that most people don't give much thought. It sucked seeing a team that isn't doing as well win the player just because I was higher in the standings. Shouldn't the player go to the team that is performing better considering we haven't won anything yet AND we are all trying to win a grand prize?

I still don't follow u...plenty teams in NFL and MLB that don't win championships who also miss out on having top priority waiver claims because they have better record at the time of claim.

scataldo201 wrote:

Nah I don't think this change should be made...in the NFL and MLB the worst teams always get 1st shot at players placed on waivers..it does help keep the balance and shouldn't be different here. Not often players tie with bids anyways..u just had the bad misfortune of it happening with Odell Beckham Jr. I bid way more than most on him a week before his 1st game...nobody else even placed a bid in my league.

Nobody cares if you or me had Beckham on our teams. I brought my situation up to illustrate the fact that this is something that does happen and it deserves some thought. I don't value the rationale that we should do something JUST because others are doing it.

Every dollar that is overspent is a dollar that is wasted. Why would anyone want to spend $75 on a player that they could have had for $1?

Managing your FAAB budget properly is an important part of this game. Consistently overspending in the beginning of the season doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Now I know that you are probably going to say that you saw something special in Beckham and that's why you only overspent on him. My point is that there are times that owners place the same bid on a player and we should think about the rule we currently have.

It does happen and u just happened to be on the short end of the stick. I bet if u had made a huge waiver claim for say somebody like Josh Gordon..and u lost the tiebreaker to the team with worse record...and so u had to settle for ur conditional bid that happened to be Odell Beckham Jr..and went on to win championship u would NOT be making this thread.

scataldo201 wrote: Every dollar that is overspent is a dollar that is wasted. Why would anyone want to spend $75 on a player that they could have had for $1?

I have never agreed with this first statement. If you want the player, you bid to win him. If you win him, congratulations. It isn't a dollar "wasted". It was additional dollars securing a guy you wanted.

Our new reigning champ John Pausma jokingly told me today that he overbid on Beckham when he won him with a bid of $57 when there was no runner up bid. I said, no, you actually severely underbid him because he was worth $999.

As for the narrow point of the thread, I can't think of a better way to break a tie in bidding than worse team gets the player.

You ask for a change, but you don't suggest a solution in your initial post.

It does happen and u just happened to be on the short end of the stick. I bet if u had made a huge waiver claim for say somebody like Josh Gordon..and u lost the tiebreaker to the team with worse record...and so u had to settle for ur conditional bid that happened to be Odell Beckham Jr..and went on to win championship u would NOT be making this thread.

You are right. I wouldn't have started this thread if those exact circumstances occurred. My experience as an owner would have been different and it wouldn't have caused me to question a rule that rarely effects the outcome of a league.

You ask for a change, but you don't suggest a solution in your initial post.

This can't be a serious lol.