Swarzak debacle

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Rays GM (Donavan): I will sort out the Anthony Swarzak issue this evening my time, hopefully there will be minimum effects on others bids. Seems half of the league including myself didn't check the contract offered list, as he had 6 bids. 6 hours ago x

Marlins GM (Mike J): Any objections to saving the headache and just letting it go? just looking out for your extra work. Def oversight on my part as there was quite a few names to bid on and my priority list wasn't short 6 hours ago x

Twins GM (Robert S.): If it were only Swarzak, I'd say don't worry about it, but something like 5 players were awarded that were never nominated and another that was ineligible. I think the best think to do would be to void them all. 5 hours ago x

Twins GM (Robert S.): Priority lists notwithstanding, I'd say void them all and keep all the legal bids as is. Donavan has been through enough. 5 hours ago x

Marlins GM (Mike J): Well I bid higher on both Warren and Kintzler and would have one of them had the had my priority list not specified just one out of that group which 1st listed was Swarzak. I don't fault Donavan as thats gotta be ridiculously taxing and mind numbing 5 hours ago x

Marlins GM (Mike J): Had he realized Swarzak wasn't eligible I would have been winning bidder for one of them. 5 hours ago x

Cubs GM (Beau): ^ I agree that may be a problem 5 hours ago x

Astros GM (Kevin): Swarazak was one of the better pitchers available. Technically it shouldn’t count but common sense says to let the bid stand. Who really didn’t know swarzak was an option? Posting matters more for in season. Just my opinion 5 hours ago x

Royals GM (Mac): Precedent has always been set. If player not posted, all bids are void and even though the winning bid was posted. All other bids were kept quiet and not revealed. Those players were then moved to general FA. Don’t think we should change history 5 hours ago x

Pirates GM (Hollar): I had no idea Swarzak was an option, as I do my bids off of the posted players board. And we have precedent too. Mac is correct here. 5 hours ago x

Marlins GM (Mike J): And the precedent on ignorning Swarzak on my list if he wasn't eligible and moving to the next person on my priority list in that group that I would have won had I not had him on there? I make a mistake and put him at top so that eliminates others bids? 4 hours ago x

Pirates GM (Hollar): Don't know what precedent is there, but I can't see a way around having to honor priority lists. 4 hours ago x

Angels GM (Mike C.): you can't go back and change things because of 1 or 2 mistake bids, their mistake, It happens, you learn from it, I know I have. They can still win those players and drop their lowest player when they throw them out after the draft. 4 hours ago x

Rays GM (Donavan): The precedent on the Swarzak bid (overlook on my behalf), is that I will be working through an amendments to wiining bids that might flow from that change. Hopefully it will only effect 1-2 other players. I will do this whilst you are asleep tonight. 3 hours ago x

Pirates GM (Hollar): We owe you all the things. Or a year off from calculating RP week next offseason. 3 hours ago x

Twins GM (Robert S.): On that note, I like Amy's idea of two tiers for RP at least. I don't know that I'd want to do it for every position, but doing 2 rounds for RPs seems like sanity. 3 hours ago x

Nationals GM (Preston): My thoughts: def need to do two weeks for RP. I'm also unforgiving about making a mistake on the bid and then re-adjusting priority lists. 3 hours ago x

Cubs GM (Beau): League Vote and set a formal precedent? 2 hours ago x

Cubs GM (Beau): There is no real good answer here. 2 hours ago x

Angels GM (Mike C.): Nobody got to change their RFA bids that were illegal and get to "re-bid", seems like a precedent. about an hour ago x

Rangers GM (Victor): Agree with Mike.. about an hour ago x

Rangers GM (Victor): Holy cow.. I agreed with the Angels. Someone take a screen shot. LOL about an hour ago x

Rangers GM (Victor): So are bids going to change? about an hour ago x

Rangers GM (Victor): Or I mean, are winning bids going to change? about an hour ago x

Rangers GM (Victor): Also, in future, if we are discussing issues with bidding or anything that others in the league might want to know about or chime in when they log in, can we just start a thread in appropriate section so the convos dont get lost about an hour ago x

Rangers GM (Victor): Since I just logged in for the first time today, I feel I lost a big chunk of a discussion and my posts are pushing it further away and you cant go back and see previous posts in this chat about an hour ago x

Rangers GM (Victor): and I hope Donovan gets a break or has a good 6 pack after finishing this weeks bids. LOL about an hour ago x

Marlins GM (Mike J): My point wasn't a "re-bid" its that I had higher bid on my player listed on my priority list if I didn't get Swarzak after. I f'd up and bid on a player that wasnt nominated and was just saying it shouldve been ignored and moved onto next player on my list about an hour ago x

Marlins GM (Mike J): Ive made a few newbie mistakes with this my first real offseason trying to build competitiveness to my roster. I live and learn and like I said no matter what place no blame on Donnavan for not noticing that he wasnt nom'd, had to nom the buddy boshers lol about an hour ago x

Angels GM (Mike C.): "anyone can post a FA" if you noticed he wasn't posted, you could have posted him. Its actually in the rules. Putting it on Boras just isn't right. We don't need to enable more drinking nights during the week, next he will be swimming beyond the reef. 43 minutes ago x

Nationals GM (Preston): I think this isn't quite the same as a straight up illegal bid, which is facially illegal. Here, the Swarzak bid clearly isn't acceptable, but his bids on the others I assume were. 39 minutes ago x

Nationals GM (Preston): Nevertheless, in my opinion, the onus is on the team bidding to follow the rules, and I agree that responsibility lies there rather than on Boras, especially in a week Donavan had to review so many bids. I lean toward no fix. 38 minutes ago x

Nationals GM (Preston): I wonder if we can find a way to automate the bidding process, btw. 32 minutes ago x

Twins GM (Robert S.): I think Fantrax can do it, but it's clunky and we'd all have to learn a new system. Plus we might need to input all the existing contracts into fantrax and hold ALL further FA on Fantrax. Not worth it, in my opinion. 24 minutes ago x

Twins GM (Robert S.): Donavan, however may stridently disagree after doing battle with all our bids. 23 minutes ago x

Marlins GM (Mike J): Mike I said it was my fault not boras and that taxing job. I didn’t closely enough compare my targets with who was actually nominated, had I then I would’ve nominated him. Started arranging my bidding last week before nominations.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Fantrax will allow:

multiple bids
multiple priority lists
keep all bids private
automate the winning bids at a deadline we can set



Fantrax will not allow:

player nominations
multiple length of years
variances of salary per year


We could bid on fantrax using average annual salary, while at same time send a list to Boras containing the length and yearly breakdown of the contract which would be used if a team wins the player.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

What I had in mind was more of a Google doc/questionnaire/Doodle poll system that can spit out all the inputs from others. Wouldn't deal with the priority lists but could at least arrange by AAS perhaps.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

A live free agency would be good, 1 player at a time, 2 minutes to submit your offer, after 2 minutes the bids are sorted and winner declared, move on to the next player.

No need for priority lists, bids are still blind.

Could be done using PM system, but would require a non-bidder to read and declare the winners. PM's would need to state players name and AAS in the heading, so the person reading would only need to open in the case of a tie-breaker to see the detail (ie. years offered)

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Jan 28, 2018 19:36:11 GMT -8 Rays GM (Donavan) said:

A live free agency would be good, 1 player at a time, 2 minutes to submit your offer, after 2 minutes the bids are sorted and winner declared, move on to the next player.

No need for priority lists, bids are still blind.

Could be done using PM system, but would require a non-bidder to read and declare the winners. PM's would need to state players name and AAS in the heading, so the person reading would only need to open in the case of a tie-breaker to see the detail (ie. years offered)

Very much against the live system (if I understand it correctly) since it requires people to be on the site at that precise moment for the very limited window.

I don't think our current system is broken; we can find ways to make the sorting easier and automated.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

Jan 28, 2018 19:45:21 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

Jan 28, 2018 19:36:11 GMT -8 Rays GM (Donavan) said:

A live free agency would be good, 1 player at a time, 2 minutes to submit your offer, after 2 minutes the bids are sorted and winner declared, move on to the next player.

No need for priority lists, bids are still blind.

Could be done using PM system, but would require a non-bidder to read and declare the winners. PM's would need to state players name and AAS in the heading, so the person reading would only need to open in the case of a tie-breaker to see the detail (ie. years offered)

Very much against the live system (if I understand it correctly) since it requires people to be on the site at that precise moment for the very limited window.

I don't think our current system is broken; we can find ways to make the sorting easier and automated.

If we could have a time where 30 team owners could be on at close to the same time, I'd agree with you Donavan. However, I don't think a live system is feasible considering time obligation it would require. I agree with PB here.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

Jan 28, 2018 19:27:57 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

What I had in mind was more of a Google doc/questionnaire/Doodle poll system that can spit out all the inputs from others. Wouldn't deal with the priority lists but could at least arrange by AAS perhaps.

Is this a thing?

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

I made a mistake not putting a limit on my Sps last year, no need to change the rules.

People made mistakes on their bids for RFA's, no need to change the rules.

People went over on 7day period for DFA, no need to change the rules

Bidding on players not posted, no need to change the rules.

Going over on payroll or roster limit, 48 hrs to fix it, if not guys get dropped (how its been enforced on me)

The rules are clear, new rules won't stop mistakes, they happen, and will still happen, no matter how many rules you change. Enforce the ones in place and they handle mistakes just fine.


Its starting to look like an actual 30 (active) team league. Every position will have more FA throw outs so get used to shitty players becoming valueable, there are shitty players in MLB. Might as well get used to enforcing rules not changing them, finally.

[Scott Boras (Free Agency)]

The Swarzak issue has been resolved as follows-

Swarzak taken from Marlins, and becomes a free agent

Due to priority listing Marlin's are awarded Brandon Kintzler who was originally awarded to the Tiger's.

Apologies to the Tiger's for the inconvenience caused.

Thank you all for your understanding in this matter.

[Marlins GM (Mike J)]

Thanks Mr. Boras, sorry about the headache, mistakes happen. I had Swarzak atop my 1st priority list followed by Kintzler if not awarded Swarzak which clearly shouldn't have been awarded Swarzak so would have went to Kintzler. Sorry Tigers, my punishment is a sizable overpay... I think the rules just need to be cleaned up as it has been brought up numerous times and COs have stated they will be doing shortly. I talked with Beau about RFA wording earlier in the offseaon. As another mistake I have made this offseason was bidding 8 years on RFA Machado and was high AAS bidder cause the rule stated "7+" so to me that means I could be more. Another owner I talked with also read the rule that way as he said at one point he was contemplating a 10 year deal on Machado and there was a few other over 7 year bids on Machado so at least its nice not to be the only one wrong... This Swarzak instance would just take it saying in rules if player not nominated gets bid on it is voided and moved on to the next person on their priority list is applicable. Or if you so choose a new rule that says you're SOL as it was brought up as to what should happen... Either way is a possibility just should state somewhere that it is the rule. Thanks again to all involved and sorry about the debacle...

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

We are not contemplating changing rules. We have moved on to figuring out a system to better streamline the fa process. If we do find a system, we may change the rules to fit the system.

As far as cleaning up current rules; please make a note of any problems in the suggestions thread. Any and all input will be appreciated.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

From someone who used to have to do bids himself and ran a league, the bidding and processing system we have is a bit antiquated and VERY time consuming at times. During the year, probably during the summer time, here in states, the bids are typically easy. During offseason, first month of season, and near the end of FA bidding nominations, they can be very time consuming and hectic. What we ended up doing is moving the bidding almost entirely to Fantrax.

The bidding is fairly simple and can be picked up easily since we have been using Fantrax now for many years in the league. Its not like were moving to Yahoo or ESPN, and we all would be learning an entirely new system. Fantrax allows priority lists, follows cap rules, and processes all bids 11min after deadline to submit bids passes. All players are immediately added to rosters, so no need to wonder if a player is being picked up. Since a cap is implemented, there is no worries that a team is over cap or not. Fantrax voids bids if winning the player puts a team over the cap.

So there was only 2 things to follow up if bidding on Fantrax was done. One, was submitting contract length to the free agency account. We made the deadline the same as bids, and if no contract length was submitted, player was automatically signed to 1yr contract. Second, was to check the transaction history, and add those players contracts to the spreadsheet after checking the contract length bid. This would however require eliminating back and front loading contracts, or we could keep them but that would be another offseason chore in updating contract values on Fantrax every year, but im sure that might be easier and less time consuming than going thru 800+ bids during RP bidding.

We didnt even worry about having to post players for nominations since if the player was available on waiver wire on Fantrax, he had to be available because of the system. I also do believe, Fantrax was working on adding an option that would let you add contract years versus them all being year to year contracts.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

Also, I was guilty of bidding on Swarzak too. I just did all my bidding based off Fantrax RP available, since it looked like thats what Mike did when he posted all the names, so in the end it was probably Mike's fault anways for NOT posting Swarzak to be bid on. Nice job, Mike. LOL

[Marlins GM (Mike J)]

Lol I know right I am kicking myself believe me considering he was my main target. I'll take the blame right on the chin

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

Wrong Mike I was jabbing at. I meant Angels GM Mike, but yeah its your fault too. LOL. Jk

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

No more owners named Bob or Mike. PB, please write this into this years' rules update.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Jan 29, 2018 13:36:37 GMT -8 Former Twins GM (Robin) said:

No more owners named Bob or Mike. PB, please write this into this years' rules update.

For all of our sakes, please no more Bobs. Rob is ok I guess.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Jan 29, 2018 13:57:54 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

Jan 29, 2018 13:36:37 GMT -8 Former Twins GM (Robin) said:

No more owners named Bob or Mike. PB, please write this into this years' rules update.

For all of our sakes, please no more Bobs. Rob is ok I guess.

Nothing personal, Mets Bob.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Yes of course. I may have been referring to a couple other, now league defunct Bobs.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

Only problem I see with Fantrax FA is that you can't make priority lists as complicated as you can now.

I.e.

I bid on 3 pitching prospects and 3 hitting prospects. I want one pitcher and two hitters. UNLESS I don't win any pitchers, in which case, I want all three hitters, if I win all of them. I'm nearly certain this is impossible to do in Fantrax as stated (you can manipulate the lists, but if you put them all in one big list and say you want 3 of them, you risk winning 2 pitchers and 1 hitter or all 3 pitchers. If you put them in two separate lists, you're stuck with maxes of 1 and 2, no matter whether you win a pitcher or not.