1.1 moves to Predators in stunning move...

[Cheezy]

After a lengthy and heated negotiation over the 1.1 pick in the 2007 SAC'D Rookie Draft, the Clan and Predators have arrived at an agreement.

Part A
The Clan sends 2007 1.1, 3.1 to the Predators.
The Predators send 1.11, 2.6 to the Clan.
Effective immediately.

Part B
The Clan sends RB Lamont Jordan and TE Tony Gonzalez to the Predators.
The Predators send RB Shaun Alexander and WR Chris Chambers to the Clan.
Effective at the beginning of In-Season Free Agency in August.

Predators to confirm.

[Preds]

Confirmed... will comment this on a bit, but ADRIAN PETERSON is about to join the Preds!

[Cheezy]

Originally Posted by Preds

Confirmed... will comment this on a bit, but ADRIAN PETERSON is about to join the Preds!

liarYou told me you wanted to move up to grab Calvin Johnson!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Cheezy

liarYou told me you wanted to move up to grab Calvin Johnson!

We all know I smokescreened Lynch, but it's VERY hard to pass on AP, particualrly in SACD with renegotiable contracts and whatnot. Longterm, Peterson is the better play, and by giving up Alexander, I think it's clear I'm looking at the longterm picture, not the short term.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Cheezy

liarYou told me you wanted to move up to grab Calvin Johnson!

And he told everyone else he would take Lynch 1.1 if he had it....why does anyone ever believe anything preds says when it comes to tactics?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Cheezy

liarYou told me you wanted to move up to grab Calvin Johnson!

Rule #1 - Never believe anything out of Mike's mouth

Rule #2 - Never tell him your true intentions

[Cheezy]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

And he told everyone else he would take Lynch 1.1 if he had it....why does anyone ever believe anything preds says when it comes to tactics?

:Shrug Interesting, seeing as how it didn't matter to me who was going with the pick, as neither one would be there at 1.11 anyhow. And all of the PM were about Lynch. I actually thought the Peterson comment was tongue in cheek after how much you've been on about Lynch, hence my CJ2 post.

[Cheezy]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Rule #1 - Never believe anything out of Mike's mouth

Rule #2 - Never tell him your true intentions

Nah, my CJ2 comment was a tongue in cheek response to what I thought was a tongue in cheek Peterson comment.
I honestly don't care who goes 1.1 between the RB's. Though Lynch was the assumption.

Right about now, I'm just looking at a backfield of Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, and Warrick Dunn. Not too shabby.
:bling

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Cheezy

:Shrug Interesting, seeing as how it didn't matter to me who was going with the pick, as neither one would be there at 1.11 anyhow. And all of the PM were about Lynch. I actually thought the Peterson comment was tongue in cheek after how much you've been on about Lynch, hence my CJ2 post.

And the Peterson post in his acceptance of this trade may just be another ploy to confuse others......seeing how he hasn't even posted his pick yet....you just never know with with mr santalucia!!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Cheezy

:Shrug Interesting, seeing as how it didn't matter to me who was going with the pick, as neither one would be there at 1.11 anyhow. And all of the PM were about Lynch. I actually thought the Peterson comment was tongue in cheek after how much you've been on about Lynch, hence my CJ2 post.

Lynch may be a better short term play, but Peterson is by far the longterm play, especially when you consider that SACD contracts can be renegotiated. That tips the scales heavily in AP's favor.

Now were this Frenzy, with just the rookie contract, well then I'd have gone Lynch, but not in SACD.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

Lynch may be a better short term play, but Peterson is by far the longterm play, especially when you consider that SACD contracts can be renegotiated. THat tips the sclaes heavily in AP's favor.

Now were this Frenzy, with just the rookie contract, well then I'd have gone Lynch, but not in SACD.

So get on with it and go!!:BS

[Nittany Dodgers]

Yeah, does this mean we'll see a pick today, Mr. 4 hour time limit proposer?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Yeah, does this mean we'll see a pick today, Mr. 4 hour time limit proposer?

, working another deal,... I still have 3+ hours. ;)

[Cheezy]

Since Chambers and Alexander are RFA, I reneg in August, right?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

, working another deal,... I still have 3+ hours. ;)

Whatever. Next time you propose a rule, try living up to the spirit of it first before you push it on the masses.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Cheezy

Since Chambers and Alexander are RFA, I reneg in August, right?

They can't even be traded until then, so to answer you're question, right.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Cheezy

Since Chambers and Alexander are RFA, I reneg in August, right?

There is no reneg necessary, I'll name years on the RFA's just as you will, prior to the trade, just tell me what you prefer prior.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Okay, so I will bite and post what I almost posted a few weeks ago (maybe it was just a week who knows) when Frank made a deal (this may have been in the Frenzy again not sure). Anyhow, what is the point of forcing these deals to wait until August? Is it just to lock up the cap space for a few months? I know that there were reasons (or at least a reason) for this provision but I am honestly wondering what the point is.

Can someone remind me please? TIA.

BTW, Mike make your stinkin' pick.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay, so I will bite and post what I almost posted a few weeks ago (maybe it was just a week who knows) when Frank made a deal (this may have been in the Frenzy again not sure). Anyhow, what is the point of forcing these deals to wait until August? Is it just to lock up the cap space for a few months? I know that there were reasons (or at least a reason) for this provision but I am honestly wondering what the point is.

Can someone remind me please? TIA.

BTW, Mike make your stinkin' pick.

Well, I don't like these trades for one. I can't remember if we had addressed these before or not. And I believe Mike even advised a team in the Frenzy that a trade of this sort would raise a red flag among owners, but I'd let him speak for himself there.

The fact that you've got to keep these players on your own roster for the summer, and have room for their contracts, I guess is the only deterent to trading the RFAs. I have no problem with putting stricter standards in place to make it harder for teams to trade these players. I think in the Frenzy, with generally tighter cap situations, that piece of it is usually enough to make it difficult to make a trade like this, but in SAC'D, where there is usually more cap room to play with, I think this might not be enough of a hindrance.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Well, I don't like these trades for one. I can't remember if we had addressed these before or not. And I believe Mike even advised a team in the Frenzy that a trade of this sort would raise a red flag among owners, but I'd let him speak for himself there.

The fact that you've got to keep these players on your own roster for the summer, and have room for their contracts, I guess is the only deterent to trading the RFAs. I have no problem with putting stricter standards in place to make it harder for teams to trade these players. I think in the Frenzy, with generally tighter cap situations, that piece of it is usually enough to make it difficult to make a trade like this, but in SAC'D, where there is usually more cap room to play with, I think this might not be enough of a hindrance.

Actually it's a rule thing....RFA's can't be traded until August 31. So they have to keep that part of it seperate...has nothing to do with cap space...unless the other part of the trade makes one team go over

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Actually it's a rule thing....RFA's can't be traded until August 31. So they have to keep that part of it seperate...has nothing to do with cap space...unless the other part of the trade makes one team go over

I know it's a rule thing. Don't take this as snotty as it sounds, but I wrote the rule for Frenzy and it carried over for SAC'D, so I know what the rule was.

The original intention of the rule was to prevent a bunch of schenanegins that were going on with RFAs, so we prohibited them from being traded until 8/15. In the Frenzy, since the rosters and caps are tighter, these kind of delayed action trades aren't as possibly, since here, Mike has to keep SA on his roster until 8/15 (or 8/31, whatever it is). In the Frenzy, that would make it difficult for a team to operate over the summer, but here in SAC'D, teams generally have more room to maneuver so this is not as much of a hindrance. If teams don't mind that and like the way things playout, then whatever, but this is not the way things were originally intended to operate (at least in my opinion).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Well, I don't like these trades for one. I can't remember if we had addressed these before or not. And I believe Mike even advised a team in the Frenzy that a trade of this sort would raise a red flag among owners, but I'd let him speak for himself there.

The fact that you've got to keep these players on your own roster for the summer, and have room for their contracts, I guess is the only deterent to trading the RFAs. I have no problem with putting stricter standards in place to make it harder for teams to trade these players. I think in the Frenzy, with generally tighter cap situations, that piece of it is usually enough to make it difficult to make a trade like this, but in SAC'D, where there is usually more cap room to play with, I think this might not be enough of a hindrance.

Yup I stand by what I said prior, but I also told Jason that I believe Frank had done a deal in SACD similar to what he had in mind, and for him to look it up, as nothing was said last year.

Frank and Brett did another deal with the pending part B this year, so he's now done 2 of these deals, and nobody raised a stink on either, thus why can't I follow suit? Seriously?

FTR, I can see the argument both ways, the fact that these players remain on your roster for the duration of the off-season IS a hinderance. For example, I'd love to have Jordan and cut him and use his cap space on the UFA WR's, however, I couldn't afford to with my limited cap space, so now I have to figure out a way to work with what I have at the moment, and come the in-season period I'm going to have a couple thousand I could have used now to play with but only limited options left. Further, teams are fully tied to roster requirements, salary cap, contract years, you name it until the deal is finalized on the execution date, so whats to say we just don't announce Part B till then? Just being more open about it now.

Finally, you placed the ban on trading RFA's because of me, and personally I still think it's too restrictive. Frank's found a legit way to deal with the restriction, while staying within the rules.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Yup I stand by what I said prior, but I also told Jason that I believe Frank had done a deal in SACD similar to what he had in mind, and for him to look it up, as nothing was said last year.

Frank and Brett did another deal with the pending part B this year, so he's now done 2 of these deals, and nobody raised a stink on either, thus why can't I follow suit? Seriously?

FTR, I can see the argument both ways, the fact that these players remain on your roster for the duration of the off-season IS a hinderance. For example, I'd love to have Jordan and cut him and use his cap space on the UFA WR's, however, I couldn't afford to with my limited cap space, so now I have to figure out a way to work with what I have at the moment, and come the in-season period I'm going to have a couple thousand I could have used now to play with but only limited options left. Further, teams are fully tied to roster requirements, salary cap, contract years, you name it until the deal is finalized on the execution date, so whats to say we just don't announce Part B till then? Just being more open about it now.

Finally, you placed the ban on trading RFA's because of me, and personally I still think it's too restrictive. Frank's found a legit way to deal with the restriction, while staying within the rules.

You say legit, I say loophole. I dealt with a guy in my local league that did nothing but try to find loopholes year in and year out. But I'm fine if teams want to operate like this. I acknowledge other teams have done this, and I'm not saying this trade should be voided or anything like that. I'm just voicing my opinion, and if others agree with me then we can look at revising the rules to get rid of these trades. If I'm in the minority, it won't be the first time, and we'll do nothing.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I know it's a rule thing. Don't take this as snotty as it sounds, but I wrote the rule for Frenzy and it carried over for SAC'D, so I know what the rule was.

The original intention of the rule was to prevent a bunch of schenanegins that were going on with RFAs, so we prohibited them from being traded until 8/15. In the Frenzy, since the rosters and caps are tighter, these kind of delayed action trades aren't as possibly, since here, Mike has to keep SA on his roster until 8/15 (or 8/31, whatever it is). In the Frenzy, that would make it difficult for a team to operate over the summer, but here in SAC'D, teams generally have more room to maneuver so this is not as much of a hindrance. If teams don't mind that and like the way things playout, then whatever, but this is not the way things were originally intended to operate (at least in my opinion).

Now that I reread your post, I see what you were trying to say (and it didn't sound too snotty). I guess I would have to agree with you, and I have been involved in this type of trade. Not sure what the original intent behind the rule was, but there seems to be a loophole if the intent was to discourage keeping RFA's for the sole purpose of trading them away.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Preds

Yup I stand by what I said prior, but I also told Jason that I believe Frank had done a deal in SACD similar to what he had in mind, and for him to look it up, as nothing was said last year.

Frank and Brett did another deal with the pending part B this year, so he's now done 2 of these deals, and nobody raised a stink on either, thus why can't I follow suit? Seriously?

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

[Preds]

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

I watched carefully for a reaction to Frank's recent trade, and nobody said a peep. It's at least the 2nd time that type of trade has gone done in SACD, with no objections. With that being the case, I see no reason why I can't become involved in a similar deal as I have (particularly since I've never been in favor of the RFA trading ban anyhow, it was put in place because of my trades since it was felt it could hinder the RFA market, but here in these cases, the RFA market went through completely unimpeded).

Further Jason, I told you it may raise red flags with some, but that it was completely up to you. I never said no, don't do it.

[Flaxwless]

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.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Preds

Further Jason, I told you it may raise red flags with some, but that it was completely up to you. I never said no, don't do it.

I totally understand that. I never thought you were saying that you had a problem with it, but that others might.

And I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to do it now. I'm just lamenting that, since it's clearly OK, I wish I hadn't been so tentative about not wanting to rock the boat. I should have gone ahead and done it.

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

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.

Interesting, but I'm not sure this distinction makes any difference. Yes, we had some players moving now and some moving post-off-season FA (the RFA players). Are you suggesting this kind of trade is only OK if the first half only involves draft picks?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

Interesting, but I'm not sure this distinction makes any difference. Yes, we had some players moving now and some moving post-off-season FA (the RFA players). Are you suggesting this kind of trade is only OK if the first half only involves draft picks?

Oh that's cool then. I guess I just remembered it wrong.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Yeah, does this mean we'll see a pick today, Mr. 4 hour time limit proposer?

FYI... I picked well within my self imposed 4 hour window. ;)