After digesting the discussions, I would like to make this formal proposal for a vote this cycle:
Amend the Rules related to the C Auction as follows:
If the Owner of the C Player declines to match, he receives a refund of the 125K C contract salary + 50% of the high bid. If no one bids on the player, the Owner of the C Player must retain the player for 125K. When the Owner of the "C" player also owns a second team, the owner must publicly declare the ownership interest before making any bids and is prohibited from the following acts: (i) making the first bid on a "C" player; and (ii) making an initial bid on a "C" player after the auctioneer has indicated the imminent close of bidding (such as announcing "going once" or making a similar statement).
I originally supported a complete ban, but feel this is a good compromise designed to increase the integrity of the C auction, while maintaining freedom of action for owners with two teams. This proposal prevents the practice of using a second team to "protect" marginal C players and also prevents "pumping" at the end of auctions. To be clear, a second team is free to join the bidding, just must do so early to avoid the appearance of shenanigans.
I see no reason why it should not be in effect for 2022 -- since everyone has adamantly denied using a second team to either "backstop" or "pump" a C player, having the rule go into effect immediately should not effect anyone's strategy.
Well, whether you can or cannot use your second team to "pump" the price of players on whom the bidding is petering out is something that only impacts the running of the auction itself, and shouldn't impact anything anyone has done prior to that.
But, regarding the other part of the rule, I would say that knowing whether your second team is or is not allowed to bid $150K on a player owned by your first team certainly could impact whether you choose to put that player on the C contract in the first place. Offhand I don't know whether it would impact any of my own guys, I'd have to go back and take another look at that, but I can certainly imagine where it could.
BTW, I have reviewed the discussion, and I'm not sure I see where anyone, much less everyone, has denied doing this. What I see in the thread is that people, at least two of whom are 2-team owners themselves, have expressed the opinion that it does in fact happen.
I read the prior discussion as people saying "this has been done... but by others, not me." But maybe I read it wrong. Eric *perhaps* admitted this, but also noted, "My other team has sometimes refused to help though. I still get why people might see this as an unfair advantage." Tom noted that sometimes his second team legitimately wants the player, but added it caused him to "raise a slight eyebrow occasionally... when a very marginal guy gets put on a C and the only bid is the $150 from the co-owned team." Travis, like Eric, did not explicitly say he did this, but acknowledged the problem of "putting crappy players on c knowing you have a 'cushion' with your other team bidding on them if they get no bid."
Regardless, at best "backstopping" gives an unfair advantage to owners with two teams, and at worst it's unseemly and something lawyers would call "playing fast and loose within the rules." Where anyone falls on that continuum should not matter to the view that this is a needed rule change. I suppose the best way to address decisions for this year would be to empower the Commissioner to allow owners to pull players out of the C auction if the rule passes. (Bonus: will make the C auction run quicker!)
I think most would agree that what I have described as "pumping" is a form of shill bidding and is unethical even if not strictly prohibited by the rules as currently written. The Commissioner even wrote, "there is some fuzziness in motivations" regarding this practice. And it's worth noting that the proposal does not stop anyone from bidding on a player owned by his second team, it just requires disclosure and early engagement.
There have certainly been times when I bought a player from one of my teams with the other for 150K- not that I knew or even expected it would be the only bid, but I certainly knew such a thing was possible. I never felt guilty about it because number one, the rest of the league voted on the practice years ago and made an explicit decision that it was going to remain legal, and number two, I wouldn't do it if the "getting" team didn't have a legit use for the player. But of course, it is convenient when you make the decision to put a player on C that there's at least one team out there who definitely wants the guy, something a one-team owner can't ever know for sure.
If the rule passes, of course, then the opposite will be true- There are at least three players who Springfield put on C who have no role on 2022 Springfield but 2022 Sewell could absolutely use them, but I can't know for sure that someone else will bid 150K first. Whether I would have chosen to release any of them outright if this rule were in place is something I would have to think about, but stuff like this is why we normally vote on such things a year ahead of time.
