2013 RULES: Anonymous Bidding

[Ulrich82]

I like the idea in general, but I am more in favor of listing the bidding teams above some threshold. Anonymous bidding might help keep teams from having researched players cherry picked. However, I worry about the results when teams are in a bidding war.

I remember last year in the CFFL there were about 3 CBs on the free agent market. I wanted to sign one of them, but another team was competing with me on all 3. Eventually, it got to the point where I had to weight the benefits of continuing bidding versus letting the other team win in the hopes they would give up their bid on one of the other players. I think in this case, knowing the team you are bidding against is important. In NFL circles, I think team's in a bidding war know who they are up against, or at least that they are competing with one other team.

One fix would be to show the name for bids over 2 million. Another idea would be to list teams anonymously as "team 1" or "team 2" so you know when you are bidding against the same team over and over again. This fix wouldn't help when comparing bids between multiple players, but it at least lets you know if you are still in the general pool of bids or down to one or two teams.

[SD Finz]

I'm definitely in favor of the anonymous bidding. Keeps it a bit more realistic, plus it may help a little bit with people running up bids on certain guys.

[charlie813brown]

I understand the reasons behind anoynomous bidding, but we don't have the resources for inside information like the real NFL. I can't scout other teams and know what they are thinking like the real NFL, the only way I can do that is through seeing what they are bidding on.

Now I get that some owners feel ganged up on, but I really think that is a bigger issue in season, than offseason.

[sportznut]

I understand the reasons behind anoynomous bidding, but we don't have the resources for inside information like the real NFL. I can't scout other teams and know what they are thinking like the real NFL, the only way I can do that is through seeing what they are bidding on.

Now I get that some owners feel ganged up on, but I really think that is a bigger issue in season, than offseason.

I couldn't disagree more. I know for a fact that teams have bid against me in the past only to drive the price up on FAs, or get to the point where I stop bidding. Then that person either stops bidding on the player themselves, or if they win, they have immediately cut said player.

There is nothing realistic about it, and its simply some form of rivalry I guess. Its not good for any individual team or the league as a whole to have this practice continue to happen.

FAs should be bid on solely for the purpose of the teams that are truly interested in those players, not just for spite.

[tino38]

Really do not see a downside to wanting bids kept secret until the winner is revealed. Makes free agency that much more intense. This will make for some interesting contracts and I am all for this.

[charlie813brown]

I understand the reasons behind anoynomous bidding, but we don't have the resources for inside information like the real NFL. I can't scout other teams and know what they are thinking like the real NFL, the only way I can do that is through seeing what they are bidding on.

Now I get that some owners feel ganged up on, but I really think that is a bigger issue in season, than offseason.

I couldn't disagree more. I know for a fact that teams have bid against me in the past only to drive the price up on FAs, or get to the point where I stop bidding. Then that person either stops bidding on the player themselves, or if they win, they have immediately cut said player.

There is nothing realistic about it, and its simply some form of rivalry I guess. Its not good for any individual team or the league as a whole to have this practice continue to happen.

FAs should be bid on solely for the purpose of the teams that are truly interested in those players, not just for spite.

The New England Patriots are doing this right now against Pittsburgh, signing Emmanuel Sanders. Houston Rockets did this with Jeremy Lin and Omir Asik. Driving up the price is part of the sport and it is a part we shouldn't strive to eliminate because we don't like it. This isn't make-believe.

[Onyxgem]

I understand the reasons behind anoynomous bidding, but we don't have the resources for inside information like the real NFL. I can't scout other teams and know what they are thinking like the real NFL, the only way I can do that is through seeing what they are bidding on.

Now I get that some owners feel ganged up on, but I really think that is a bigger issue in season, than offseason.

I couldn't disagree more. I know for a fact that teams have bid against me in the past only to drive the price up on FAs, or get to the point where I stop bidding. Then that person either stops bidding on the player themselves, or if they win, they have immediately cut said player.

There is nothing realistic about it, and its simply some form of rivalry I guess. Its not good for any individual team or the league as a whole to have this practice continue to happen.

FAs should be bid on solely for the purpose of the teams that are truly interested in those players, not just for spite.

The New England Patriots are doing this right now against Pittsburgh, signing Emmanuel Sanders. Houston Rockets did this with Jeremy Lin and Omir Asik. Driving up the price is part of the sport and it is a part we shouldn't strive to eliminate because we don't like it. This isn't make-believe.

The difference here is these teams want these guys, they are not just going to turn around and cut them after signing them.

[sportznut]

I understand the reasons behind anoynomous bidding, but we don't have the resources for inside information like the real NFL. I can't scout other teams and know what they are thinking like the real NFL, the only way I can do that is through seeing what they are bidding on.

Now I get that some owners feel ganged up on, but I really think that is a bigger issue in season, than offseason.

I couldn't disagree more. I know for a fact that teams have bid against me in the past only to drive the price up on FAs, or get to the point where I stop bidding. Then that person either stops bidding on the player themselves, or if they win, they have immediately cut said player.

There is nothing realistic about it, and its simply some form of rivalry I guess. Its not good for any individual team or the league as a whole to have this practice continue to happen.

FAs should be bid on solely for the purpose of the teams that are truly interested in those players, not just for spite.

The New England Patriots are doing this right now against Pittsburgh, signing Emmanuel Sanders. Houston Rockets did this with Jeremy Lin and Omir Asik. Driving up the price is part of the sport and it is a part we shouldn't strive to eliminate because we don't like it. This isn't make-believe.

Umm, actually it is make believe, and real teams with real money don't drive the price up on a guy they have no intention of signing. The reality is IRL, we always hear rumors, but the majority of the time its simply agents trying to get their players more money.

IRL if you were throwing out money foolishly towards players you didn't truly want in order to stick it to another team, you wouldn't be a GM for very long.

We can't simulate every single aspect of FA where a player will go to a better team rather than the highest bidder either, and when you're dealing with MAKE BELIEVE money, you can artificially drive up the price of your rivals with no intention of ever signing the guy. With the option to cut or trade them immediately, there isn't a big enough penalty towards teams using this practice.

You can't give me one good reason why its important to you to know WHO is bidding. If your intent is to sign "x" player, then it doesn't matter who is bidding. Only people with ill intentions wouldn't like this rule.

[RebelFan]

I'm not sure I have a full picture in my mind of how this would look in practice. The 'signing soon' page, it will list players about to sign, but not the bidding teams right?
I'm for it. Digging up young talent to sign cheaply is no fun when some dork on the other end is just sitting there waiting to see what you come up with so he can a) sign away your cheap talent or b) make him so expensive that he's no longer worth it.
I think FA should take place completely in the dark, just like real life NFL. Teams place bids and the highest bidder takes the player.

[Goodell]

I'm not sure I have a full picture in my mind of how this would look in practice. The 'signing soon' page, it will list players about to sign, but not the bidding teams right?

The most efficient way to get that implemented (at least this year with free agency right around the corner) would be to keep most of how it already works the same. The only difference would be:

- On the main list where it would usually highlight a top bid in red under a player's name it would no longer list the team name but just the current highest price.

- On the player bid page where it lists all the previous bids for this player at the bottom it would just not be specific with actual team names but still list out the bid history in dollars (with maybe something like a Team 1, Team 2, Team 1, etc. instead of ATL, ARI, ATL)