MLB/team shilling?

[BVC]

I won quite a few items from MLB Auctions this year, but my last experience led me to believe there might be some shilling going on, either by MLB or by one or more of MLB teams. Specifically, I was offered an item at my high bid, that I was supposedly the underbidder on. Checking the bidder history, I recognized the winner as someone who bids a lot and never wins. Now he wins and I end up getting offered his item. I argued that he looked to be a shiller and his bids should be removed - the Washington Nationals agreed to my price.

Still, it smells bad. I haven't bid with MLB Auctions since.

[sportsnbikes]

I wouldn't be surprised if this practice exists. Maybe not by all teams but by some.

[dnrapp]

I won quite a few items from MLB Auctions this year, but my last experience led me to believe there might be some shilling going on, either by MLB or by one or more of MLB teams. Specifically, I was offered an item at my high bid, that I was supposedly the underbidder on. Checking the bidder history, I recognized the winner as someone who bids a lot and never wins. Now he wins and I end up getting offered his item. I argued that he looked to be a shiller and his bids should be removed - the Washington Nationals agreed to my price.

Still, it smells bad. I haven't bid with MLB Auctions since.

To me it looks like the high bidder didn't pay so the MLB team could live with your bid and just made you the winning bidder.

[BVC]

That is certainly factually true. But the question was whether or not the winning bidder was a shill for MLB or a team.

[commando]

When a high bidder does not pay, I believe the second-highest bidder should have the option of winning the item, but at the price he would have paid BEFORE all of the bids placed by the non-paying winner (or shill in some cases). If you would have won an item for $500 before the non-payer bid it up to $800, why do you now have to pay $750? I'll take it for the $500, which is probably closer to the true auction value.

[rufusandherschel]

I won quite a few items from MLB Auctions this year, but my last experience led me to believe there might be some shilling going on, either by MLB or by one or more of MLB teams. Specifically, I was offered an item at my high bid, that I was supposedly the underbidder on. Checking the bidder history, I recognized the winner as someone who bids a lot and never wins. Now he wins and I end up getting offered his item. I argued that he looked to be a shiller and his bids should be removed - the Washington Nationals agreed to my price.

Still, it smells bad. I haven't bid with MLB Auctions since.

As I understand, MLB Auctions is/are essentially a 'collection' of individual MLB team auctions. So, in essence, when bidding on an item, the bidder is dealing with the MLB team of which the item represents.

If my understanding of the workings of MLB and/or Team Auctions is correct, shill bidding calls into question the integrity of the specific team in question, and would seriously doubt that that/any team would (want to) risk the possibility of being accused of such a practice.

Just my opinion.

[ndevlin]

As I understand, MLB Auctions is/are essentially a 'collection' of individual MLB team auctions. So, in essence, when bidding on an item, the bidder is dealing with the MLB team of which the item represents.

If my understanding of the workings of MLB and/or Team Auctions is correct, shill bidding calls into question the integrity of the specific team in question, and would seriously doubt that that/any team would (want to) risk the possibility of being accused of such a practice.

Just my opinion.

I agree that they wouldn't want to risk doing that. But, let's say they did bid up their own items-- what's the difference between that and the other auction houses we bid on that are able to bid up their own auctions?

You are correct, teams work directly with MLB auctions, so when you see an item that is from the Royals for example, they are the ones that took the photo of the item and are the ones auctioning it off. But you have to be careful-- some items on their have nothing to do with the actual team. For example- when you see a Rangers item on there, it's actually Fanatics. If you were to call the Rangers about an item they have up for auction, they will have no idea what you are talking about, because it's Fanactics. So it can be a bit tricky. Not all MLB auction items are directly linked to the teams themselves, but a lot are. Hopefully that makes sense.

[BVC]

As I understand, MLB Auctions is/are essentially a 'collection' of individual MLB team auctions. So, in essence, when bidding on an item, the bidder is dealing with the MLB team of which the item represents.

If my understanding of the workings of MLB and/or Team Auctions is correct, shill bidding calls into question the integrity of the specific team in question, and would seriously doubt that that/any team would (want to) risk the possibility of being accused of such a practice.

Just my opinion.

That's the way I understand it as well - MLB made the offer to me, but when I countered that the possible sheller's bids should be removed, they had to go back to the Nationals to get agreement.

There could be many reasons for a specific team to shill - the person in charge might have questionable ethics or might feel that shilling is 'normal' for auctions. If he gets higher bids than other teams for similar items, it might mean a pay raise for him. Or it might not be a shiller - could just be someone who loves to play the game, but doesn't want to pay.

[BVC]

-- what's the difference between that and the other auction houses we bid on that are able to bid up their own auctions?

Transparency. Both are wrong, but AH's can get away with it because you can't track shillers (MLB provides bidder i.d.'s). Whether a team is shilling or not, it's in their best interest to ban the bidders who appear to be shills, and to let their customers know what they've done.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

When a high bidder does not pay, I believe the second-highest bidder should have the option of winning the item, but at the price he would have paid BEFORE all of the bids placed by the non-paying winner (or shill in some cases). If you would have won an item for $500 before the non-payer bid it up to $800, why do you now have to pay $750? I'll take it for the $500, which is probably closer to the true auction value.

I disagree. What if a third party were interested in purchasing the item at $600 but didn't get a chance to bid due to the winner and under-bidder having bids placed at $750 and $800.

I think the under-bidder should be given the option to purchase at their top losing bid or the item should be relisted.