RFA Tenders

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I would like to propose that once an RFA is bid upon that they no longer count against the tendering teams' cap. However, any RFA's will count against the tendering team's cap until they are bid upon.

[Flaxwless]

I voted to keep as is as I see it as part of the game and strategy, but I think this is one battle I don't really care about.

I know it sucks not having cap space when you have an RFA that's not bid on, but that's part of the trade off to SECURE the right to match or earn compensation.

However, I think the bigger problem is that the tender levels start a bit high IMO. I'm not sure if everyone agrees but I think the 1st round tenders need to be dropped about 200

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Not seeing a way to update the poll but as Jim mentioned in the other thread a third could be:

The RFA tender does not count against the tendering team's cap if the tendering owner agrees NOT TO MATCH a tendered RFA player.

[Burt the Butcher]

I would definitely be against that option...I don't like people declaring their intentions before the bidding even starts...it heavily influences the bidding..in fact, I think that should be a separate rule vote, whether that should be allowed at all...

[zdravko27]

This may be a stupid newbie question - but which way does it influence the bidding, upwards or downwards?

On the one hand, you probably want to disincentivize the owner from matching, which would require you to bid a little higher than normal. If you know the owner isn't matching, you probably would bid lower than you would have otherwise. On the other hand, with ALL owners knowing there won't be a match, the player becomes more enticing to bid on relative to other players, thus spurring more of a bidding competition, thus ultimately raising the bid higher than what it might have been without the no-match announcement. I can see both scenarios happening just as easily, so I am wondering what is the presumed outcome?

Another possibly dumb newbie question - why is it considered wrong to influence the bidding?

[Burt the Butcher]

Definitely not a stupid question....I have no idea which way it would influence it, but if you know what the outcome of the Match/Decline decision would be, how can it not have an influence on your bidding?

But I would think it would tend to make prices lower, since the person bidding knows they are going to win the bid, why bid it up higher than necessary? There are several people who will bid a player up, only because the player is too low, and they don't want the team who owns the RFA rights to get a good deal on that player...but if you know the team will not match, why would you bid it up, other than to stick it to another team bidding? Maybe it would end up being the same...

Another thing it does, it influences who you may go after....say you like Jennings and Wayne equally...are you going to bid on Wayne, know he will most likely be matches, or on Jennings, knowing he is not going to be matched...

I just think it's unfair to influence the bidding in any way, and this definitely influences it

[Burt the Butcher]

Another thing I think causes issue with declaring your intentions before a player sells...look at the situation for Swords right now...he has winning bid on Fitz..he also owns RFA rights on Wayne....he has to decide what to do with Wayne before I make my decision on Fitz....if I had already said I was not going to match Fitz, that makes his decision much more clear...now, he can take a chance on letting Wayne go, and hoping I decline Fitz...or match Wayne, thinking no way I let Fitz go...it's all part of the game and strategy of why I love this style of FF play...

OK, I'll step off my now..aren't you glad you asked?

out...

[Flaxwless]

I don't think announcing your intentions is wrong as long as the RFA tender still counts against your cap.

[Urza's Ragers]

I'm definitely against announcing your intentions...Burt nailed it, it defintely influences the strategy.

[Burt the Butcher]

I am confused...from the wording by Matt in post, it sounds like we want to change the rules, but in the vote option wording, it sounds like Yes vote keeps rules the same...which way is it?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

A yes vote keeps the rules the same.

[Burt the Butcher]

OK, well I need to change my Vote to yes then...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Did someone sticky this so we can revisit it?

[Burt the Butcher]

Not sure why it came up..maybe one of the new teams voted on it, thinking it was a new poll?