Change to Bid Cash

I replied with this in another thread but I figured it was sort of a new idea that to make it on its own.

I'd like to see the following implemented.

1st place: $10 MiLB Cash
2nd place: $11 MiLB Cash
3rd place: $12 MiLB Cash
4th place: $13 MiLB Cash
5th place: $14 MiLB Cash
6th place: $15 MiLB Cash
7th-9th: $20 MiLB Cash
10th-15th: $25 MiLB Cash
16th-20th: $30 MiLB Cash

Also, maximum of $10 future bid cash would be tradable in the prior year and you can not trade for more than what you started the season allotted.


This is not an incentive to finish poorly. This is to balance the power. rich teams get richer spending huge amounts of bid cash and trading for more. I'm a prime example of this. This would shift some balance back to some of the rebuilding teams.

I'd also like to see us come up with a penalty for not using bid cash... There's no reason rebuilding teams shouldn't be spending this to help rebuild or trade it to help rebuild.

I wrote why I think this is a bad idea, and here is another one.

How about you let the bottom teams weight the rule changes intended to help them!

Let's be sure motives and intentions are good.

I think this one would help the bottom teams, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an argument as to how this could actually help the top tier teams to be honest.

Although for me, I'd add more money to the pool than detract money, because then essentially it becomes a 10 person roster limit for the top tier teams as well if you go down to $10. I'd rather the weaker teams get more money over 30, than reducing under 30.

The King Maker wrote:

I think this one would help the bottom teams, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an argument as to how this could actually help the top tier teams to be honest.  

Although for me, I'd add more money to the pool than detract money, because then essentially it becomes a 10 person roster limit for the top tier teams as well if you go down to $10.  I'd rather the weaker teams get more money over 30, than reducing under 30.  

I just think that waters down things even more. So if you start with 1st place getting $30, then you say they can only trade for what they allotted. Makes no sense. If it's $10. It makes them make a decision, they could trade for another $10 to have $20 and make a stab at a high priced bid or divy it up and try to hit a home run that way. I believe my proposal would be a huge noon to non-playoff teams. You have to think of what's best for the league. Because honestly this would hurt the way I operate as much as anyone out there.

Also this wouldn't take effect until 2015. As some bid cash has already changed hands this year.

I like the bidding system quite a bit, but if we are discussing changes, I have another one I'd propose.

You must make your own bid at some point and can not continually poach other owners time spent. Maybe a 3:1 type deal. I don't want to punish teams, but I also get irritated personally when I spend time to figure out how to help my team to have someone who never does research swoop in.

Maybe you can only bid on 3 other managers bids before having to post one on your own?

I know, most wont like it, but it bugs me a bunch. If you look back, its really only a handful of owners who make bids and try to help their teams, yet they get rolled sometimes with idle owners sitting on cash. It is something else to consider if we determine to adjust bidding dollars.

I like the way it is… making this too complicating...

bryanmurphy9 wrote:

The King Maker wrote:

I think this one would help the bottom teams, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an argument as to how this could actually help the top tier teams to be honest.  

Although for me, I'd add more money to the pool than detract money, because then essentially it becomes a 10 person roster limit for the top tier teams as well if you go down to $10.  I'd rather the weaker teams get more money over 30, than reducing under 30.  

I just think that waters down things even more. So if you start with 1st place getting $30, then you say they can only trade for what they allotted. Makes no sense. If it's $10. It makes them make a decision, they could trade for another $10 to have $20 and make a stab at a high priced bid or divy it up and try to hit a home run that way. I believe my proposal would be a huge noon to non-playoff teams. You have to think of what's best for the league. Because honestly this would hurt the way I operate as much as anyone out there.

Also this wouldn't take effect until 2015. As some bid cash has already changed hands this year.

Yeah, but then this would become more about restricting the top teams than trying to give the bottom teams an advantage though. It accomplishes the goal, but in a far more restrictive manner because this then becomes a move limit rather than a change to bidding money. I want something that gives lower tiered teams a better chance to get their players or a player they want, rather than restricting moves and having less people bid on overall because half the teams don't have enough money to bid on someone.

It also gives incentive to the lower tiered to teams to be active in bidding, because they can actually outbid people rather than just staying on their money because there aren't as many bids going on. By reducing money, we'd lose activity in the bidding process.

The King Maker wrote:

bryanmurphy9 wrote:

The King Maker wrote:

I think this one would help the bottom teams, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an argument as to how this could actually help the top tier teams to be honest.  

Although for me, I'd add more money to the pool than detract money, because then essentially it becomes a 10 person roster limit for the top tier teams as well if you go down to $10.  I'd rather the weaker teams get more money over 30, than reducing under 30.  

I just think that waters down things even more. So if you start with 1st place getting $30, then you say they can only trade for what they allotted. Makes no sense. If it's $10. It makes them make a decision, they could trade for another $10 to have $20 and make a stab at a high priced bid or divy it up and try to hit a home run that way. I believe my proposal would be a huge noon to non-playoff teams. You have to think of what's best for the league. Because honestly this would hurt the way I operate as much as anyone out there.

Also this wouldn't take effect until 2015. As some bid cash has already changed hands this year.

Yeah, but then this would become more about restricting the top teams than trying to give the bottom teams an advantage though.  It accomplishes the goal, but in a far more restrictive manner because this then becomes a move limit rather than a change to bidding money.  I want something that gives lower tiered teams a better chance to get their players or a player they want, rather than restricting moves and having less people bid on overall because half the teams don't have enough money to bid on someone.  

It also gives incentive to the lower tiered to teams to be active in bidding, because they can actually outbid people rather than just staying on their money because there aren't as many bids going on.  By reducing money, we'd lose activity in the bidding process.  

It would make guys think twice about how they spend their bidding dollars, it would not reduce the amount of guys bid upon. Under my proposal it would be required to spend your cash or trade it.. All 20 teams. Hell we've gone years where 4-5 teams have all their cash left and we wonder why a few minor league rosters lay in ruin and we have guys jumping ship. Yea, you wouldn't have crazy bids like Osuna going for $45 that one year. But you'd have a more controlled, balanced bidding atmosphere. I believe this would be a huge win for the entire league. Some say too complicated, I really believe that's just guys that don't want to lose the bid cash. It's just a scale. A scale that would provide balance and not allow teams like myself, you, and Team Bud to dominate the bids year in and year out.

Yeah, but we can't really force people to use their money though, because it's easy to circumvent that rule, by just dumping money into a trade that otherwise wouldn't have necessitated an infusion of bidding money and get around the mandatory spending.

I agree that it works, I just don't agree with the means to get there, because it's by restriction more-so than expansion. Considering most guys go for $2+ in bidding, this would limit any contender to be around 5 moves max per year without factoring in trading. That's too restrictive IMO. I'd rather people atleast be able to bid on an average of 10 players but the lower tiered teams have a better shot at outbidding them. If we can accomplish the same goal on a 30-60 money scale, what's the gain of going to 10-30? Wouldn't that be additional invasion to restrict moves?

Since this isn't going in this year, might as well try some other ideas as well.

How about Bid matching based on standings at the time of bid? Lower ranked team only has to match the highest bid to get someone and not outbid?

So I would be up with changing the milb dollar allocation to start the year off, having less money for the top tier teams to spend reduces their ability to make multiple high end bids without having to give up something for it.

1st-4th - $15
5th-8th - $18
9th-12th - $21
13th-16th - $25
17th-20th - $30

As for any of the other ideas on limiting the max cash, bids, trading of cash, etc. that just seems to go way too far. If managers fail to value their cash wisely, that is their own fault. As much as I would like (and have tried) to point out stupidity and stop it from happening, it is merely a personal opinion and I prefer owners to have the freedom to do want they want with their team.

The only downside is trying to find replacement owners for teams that have been destroyed when we do have a league fee. But until we enforce a way to give a new owner a free year, I don't see how that issue is going to be fixed.