I know the time for rule changes is long past, but I want to get this out on the table while it's fresh on my mind.
Occasionally (but usually at least once or twice each year), a situation comes up in the C auction when a player is owned by an owner with two teams. If there is no bid, the owner has two choices. He can keep the player on the original team and pay 125K, or he can have his other team make a bid of 150K. If he makes the bid, then the original team gets the 125K back plus half of the 150K. So the other team pays 150K but the original team gets back half of that, so the net outlay is only 75K.
In addition, even when there are other bidders, any time an owner of two teams makes a bid on a C player, the net result is moving a player from the roster of one owned team to the roster of the other owned team. Competitive bidding situations are somewhat less troubling ethically, but the appearance of self-collusion is still present.
The rules governing trades between teams owned by the same owner are very clear:
"Trades can only be made between managers in good standing. Trades may not be made, directly or indirectly, between teams owned by the same manager. Managers who own 2 teams must ensure that each trade stands on its own merits (i.e., Team C cannot overpay so that Team D gets the player(s) it needs)."
I would therefore submit two possibilities for a possible rule change proposal for discussion:
Strict: Managers who own 2 teams may not bid in the C auction on any player owned by one of the manager's teams.
Weak: Managers who own 2 teams may not open the bidding in the C auction on any player owned by one of the manager's teams. If another manager opens the bidding, then any manager may make competitive bids.
This rule was voted on not too long ago and lost. I don't remember who submitted the rule, but it was voted down. I know I voted against it, one it is only 75K and two if the player is going for 150K I doubt the talent level of the player warrants me caring. I have two teams and my goal is to get both of them to the playoffs every year.
I'm trying to think of a circumstance in which I bought one of my other teams' players on a C auction. I'm sure it's happened, and I suspect it has happened with a 150 bid, but as both teams have consistently maintained 1M plus balances, I kind of laugh at the suggestion that such a bid was placed just to move a little money from one team to another.
Going back 3 years, I see only 3 instances in which a player was acquired by the same GM at a 150 bid--SPR to SOS (McLemore), HOU to FTW (Quintero), and BUD to PET (D'amico). At the time, Petty was short nearly 100 starts, and needed to acquire lots of them. It later managed to buy Towers, Riley, and it then drafted Mitre and Vogelsong to cover the need, so it wound up with no use for D'amico and punted him for 5k before the waiver draft, so it could pick up Johjima and a spare bat. Oh, yeah, and Buda had to pick up Todd Van Poppel to then fill its rotation.
Now, do you really think I went through all that just to move a few ARBA bucks from one team to another?
Nevertheless, I concede the point that there is room for abuse. All things considered, if one team has a need at a position, and there are two equally sucky guys available on a C, I can easily see myself being drawn to favor bidding 150K on the guy my other team has posted. However, the strong option proposed puts the multiple team manager at an unnecessary disadvantage. For example, if I can't get the moon and stars for A-rod in a trade next year, and I place him on a C, it's kind of silly to prohibit Petty from competing in the auction, which will likely exceed 2M, barring a meteor crashing on the guy between now and next February.
Furthermore, one team often has a player of biddable value to the other team. Petty would have been very interested in obtaining Mr. Bellhorn at 150K, while Buda had no use for him. I had mentioned 2b surplus to the league during the trade period, and received no offers. Buda didn't want him, Petty had a use for him, and the two teams couldn't directly trade junk for junk (Fick, maybe?). Only options--FA or C, and I don't see the need to penalize Buda from the opportunity to realize a little $ on the C market, just because there is a sense that the whole thing is set up to let the two teams combined save 75K.
Therefore, might I suggest then an even more limited solution--
If a two-team GM places a player on a C contract, and that player is awarded to that GM's other team at 150K, then the posting team does not receive the 75K compensation.
Rationale: This removes any incentive for a two-team GM to target his posting team's players over other teams' players for the cheap fix. Once the bidding has become competitive, there is really no advantage to a two-team GM, as the posting team is already guaranteed some $ (and this assumes he is more interested in making money than removing seniority). There is no advantage to the other team in bidding the guy up beyond the market price, as it risks buying a player at an amount above his worth. I just don't see anyone involving one team in bidding a player up a little higher to get an extra 20k for his posting team, when the risk is that the bidding team might be stuck with a player it didn't really want or need. or have to take it at a higher price than he considers that player to be worth.
In general I am against any rule that restricts movement of players. THe roster limits appear more and more stringent to me every year. In fact I would like to see roster sizes expanded. THis has also been voted on and defeated recently. In my old age I've become more conservative in my views and believe less government is better, including ARBA governemnt.
Further supporting Don's point that the $150K winning bid to the 2nd team is a very rare occurence, one of his 3 examples is an error. SOS (mine) picked up the great Mark McLemore from Springfield, owned by Kevin. I have only bid on players from my other team when I legitimately wanted them. There were certainly a few SUR guys who I would have liked to get on SOS, but was thwarted by others who wanted them more. I did end up spending some money to get Klesko from Laramie to SOS a couple years ago.
However, I am still torn on whether owners should really be able to bid on players from their other team. It does feel a little dirty and even if one doesn't win the bidding there is an advantage gained from driving it up if it turns out to be a 2-team battle. On the other hand, I do see Tom's point that we shouldn't cut off another path of player movement. The fact is that there's no real impact on the league unless the bidding goes quite high and there's only one other team bidding. What difference does it really make if one team takes a player for $150K or even $200K when every other team had an opportunity to get that player if they wanted them?
As for the question of whether people should even be allowed to have 2 teams, we have traditionally had trouble finding good managers. I took on SOS when there were no other alternatives. I would be willing to give them up again if we had a good replacement ready to go. Of course, I would be very reluctant to give them up now after I've invested so much time and energy into them through the offseason. I certainly don't think that it makes any sense to outlaw 2-team ownership and end up with orphan teams or people who don't really run their teams. I'm not aware of anyone who has been waiting to take on an ARBA team. Doug came into the picture last season and we were able to accomodate him in the offseason.
As for the trading issue, I've certainly found some people more easy to trade with than others. However, I think that I've at least tried with everyone at some point. My teams have combined for 11 trades this year (so far) and had 12 last year, 15 in 2004, and 15 in 2003. Those deals involved 14 of the 19 current managers who are not me. So I've been rather active in my 2-team era, which is the main reason why I'd rather get back to having 1 team again in the not too distant future.
