Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Popes
I actually didn't find a specific trade like this when I read the old threads, but I did read all the threads related to the implementation of the ban on trading RFAs. Based on the red flags that you and Brian raised when Brett and I had one of these deals in the works, I put the kibosh on my pending deal. By my reading, I thought this was very much against the spirit, though not the letter, of the rules. I didn't want to be a new guy pushing the limits of my new league.
Now that two of these trades have gone through since (you're right, with no complaints), including one by one of the two flag raisers, I wish Brett and I had gone ahead and done our deal  |
The difference is we are waiting to make the 2nd part of the deal or "2nd trade" AFTER off-season FA. I believe you wanted to trade players before in-season FA.
Honestly, all of the RFAs I have traded (trading away McNabb this year, and trading FOR Westbrook last year) have evolved organically. I had intended to keep McNabb... but it so happened he was a key part of a deal that evolved as talks progressed, same with Westbrook.
I believe that the rule to trade RFAs originally began becuse of deals that involved the RFA owner and a bidder, agreeing to a deal where an owner interested in an RFA would not bid and the RFA tender-er would agree to trade the player to that team after RFA bidding has closed. Which resulted in "price-fixing" or a price not true to market value as one intrested party was removed for the RFA bidding.
So with that said I believe in the current rule, not allowing RFAs to be traded until AFTER OFF-SEASON FA as it eliminates the "price-fixing" that occured earlier.
As for these "pending" or Bloodsucker Deals.... I don't see anythign wrong with them. They are not against the intent of the rule, which is to eliminate "price-fixing" not eliminate the trade viability of RFAs.