Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
Ok, this is pretty simple. I know my max bid of 1850 for Westbrook. I will nickel and dime till the other 10 owners are out. Remember this price is negotiated without the tendering team's input. So what if his market price is higher than the other 10 owners. A very real possibility. Now instead of dealing with just the contract price I can offer picks and or players.
Why would it benefit me to bid 1850 from the start? What if I'd rather have the lower contract price by giving up players or picks? Now IF i was unable to trade players or picks to the tendering team then I would bid my max price because that's all the bargaining chips I have to work with. BUT if I can offer picks and or players in addition to the contract price I've negoiated, guess who gets left out in the cold, Brian Westbrook and his deflated contract. He gains no value from the additional compensation I have given to the tendering team. All he has is his lower contract.
|
I see what you're saying, but if you bid lower won't teams still have the oppourtunity to bid above it and keep Westy in play? You guys are mentioning a situation that plays out the reason why we have the RFA trading ban, but there is a BIG DIFFERENCE!
Only the winning bid gets the chance to trade for Westy. Until the bid is won no one can offer the SBDC a trade offer b/c they don't know if they will win Westy. So there is no one dropping out of the bidding.
Of course you'll nickel and dime... but then other teams will bid above it until West reaches whatever the market will pay. You know why? B/c you still have to win the bid in order to trade.
That is the biggest difference.