Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Quite simply because we ovewhelmingly voted last year to ban this practice. Regardless of how it is worded, agreeing to decline the match on a player is the exact same result of matching the player and trading him, which is exactly what was banned.

Then void the trade.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

Seriously I'm pretty much sick of the debate. Make a vote, do whatever, but lets stop the bickering, nobodies changing their mind in this it appears.

I don't really think there is a need for a vote until our yearly proposals, adjustments next year. I'm just discussing the issue because I find it interesting. :shadesoff

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Then void the trade.

I've already explained why I'm not going to follow that route (privately at least). Besides, by the strict interpretation of the rules, which I am bound by ethics to do, the window to do that has passed. I wouldn't favor the bending of those rules.

I do of course favor endless debate on the subject.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

I don't really think there is a need for a vote until our yearly proposals, adjustments next year. I'm just discussing the issue because I find it interesting. :shadesoff

I continue to believe you guys are killing true strategic thinking. I'm fine with the whole ban on the sign/trade to another team concept, I conceded to the problems that can cause to the marketplace.

This type of deal does no such thing. It's about getting as muchvalue as you can out of your players. It's smart team management, and outside the box thinking. You can call it a loophole, but I don't agree. It's being a smart GM.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I continue to believe you guys are killing true strategic thinking. I'm fine with the whole sign/trade to another team concept, I conceded to the problems that can cause to the marketplace.

This type of deal does no such thing. It's about getting as muchvalue as you can out of your players. It's smart team management, and outside the box thinking. You can call it a loophole, but I don't agree. It's being a smart GM.

I call it being "crafty." :WinkKiss

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I've already explained why I'm not going to follow that route (privately at least). Besides, by the strict interpretation of the rules, which I am bound by ethics to do, the window to do that has passed. I wouldn't favor the bending of those rules.

I do of course favor endless debate on the subject.

Is that my punishment? ;)

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I call it being "crafty." :WinkKiss

, you know I prefer "creative!"

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Is that my punishment? ;)

It would probably be ruled cruel and unusual by the Supreme Court, but if it is all I have to mete out, then I'll have to do it.

[Preds]

Who gets to be the 100th post on this inane debate?

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

Then void the trade.

As far as I'm concerned, the Preds/SBDC trade is not going to be voided. If we need to stop the discussion in order to keep people calm, then I propose we table this debate until next year's rules proposal period. Keep the peace! :thumbsup

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

As far as I'm concerned, the Preds/SBDC trade is not going to be voided. If we need to stop the discussion in order to keep people calm, then I propose we table this debate until next year's rules proposal period. Keep the peace! :thumbsup

I'm not upset, just getting tired of Brian trying to trap me with my own words ;).

BTW Jake, your the winner of the 100th post in this thread! Your prize... a headache ;)

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Who gets to be the 100th post on this inane debate?

Looks like Jake it the lucky winner of a new monkey!

Has this thread at least surpassed the league name thread for SAC'D yet?

I can agree to table the debate if people are going to get ruffled feathers.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm not upset, just getting tired of Brian trying to trap me with my own words ;).

It must be frustrating to be so blatently self interested.

































Just kidding!! :WinkKiss

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Quite simply because we ovewhelmingly voted last year to ban this practice. Regardless of how it is worded, agreeing to decline the match on a player is the exact same result of matching the player and trading him, which is exactly what was banned.

There's a key difference, the agreement in trading was with the WINNING BID.

In years past a team in the bidding would step out of the bidding (thus less competition creating a lower salary) by agreeing to a trade prior to the RFA selling iwth the tendeirng team.

However in the deals we are talking about.... the winning team has been in the bidding process the whole time.

Please conceed or respond to this thought directly. Mike and i have already replied to your argument that trading the "right to decline" straight up as a viable option, that we are both in agreement with.

You say that we placed the rules to prevent RFA trading, but not directly, we banned RFA trading b/c of the problem of messing with the RFA market value. Which we corrected by not allowing trades of an RFA.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Looks like Jake it the lucky winner of a new monkey!

Has this thread at least surpassed the league name thread for SAC'D yet?

I can agree to table the debate if people are going to get ruffled feathers.

Yes the SAC'd League name thread topped out at 101... this could be a Frenzy record as well! ;)

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

There's a key difference, the agreement in trading was with the WINNING BID.

In years past a team in the bidding would step out of the bidding (thus less competition creating a lower salary) by agreeing to a trade prior to the RFA selling iwth the tendeirng team.

However in the deals we are talking about.... the winning team has been in the bidding process the whole time.

Please conceed or respond to this thought directly. Mike and i have already replied to your argument that trading the "right to decline" straight up as a viable option, that we are both in agreement with.

You say that we placed the rules to prevent RFA trading, but not directly, we banned RFA trading b/c of the problem of messing with the RFA market value. Which we corrected by not allowing trades of an RFA.

I have no problem responding to that thought directy. I appologize if you got the impression I was dodging the issue.

Yes, I will conceed that one concern was the artificial lowering of RFA bids due to anti-free market practices. And yes, I will also conceed that this method does not fall into that realm. However, I will reiterate that this was not the only concern expressed in the original thread.

Also, I am not in general favor of situations that create exclusive negotiation rights for players. That was definitely an unintended consequence created by the poorly written rules (soley my fault).

[Flaxwless]

Ok... just wanted to make sure you saw that side of the issue, that maybe a sticking pint to some.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Ok... just wanted to make sure you saw that side of the issue, that maybe a sticking pint to some.

I do see that side, and I acknowledge that alone was the justification for some people (I don't know how many exactly) for voting in favor of the rule that was passed. The problem arises from the fact that there were other concerns that weren't fully discussed, nor written into the rule, but was part of at least my base thinking. I'm not claiming to be right, and everyone on the other side is wrong. I think both sides have valid opinions, and are fairly judging the situation. Unfortunately with 12 different opinions, there will be plenty of disagreements.

[Flaxwless]

Yah agreed.

We're all debating over the technicalities.... but dont place blame on yourself. You do a great job with the rules. I know i couldnt do it.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Preds

Yes the SAC'd League name thread topped out at 101... this could be a Frenzy record as well! ;)

OK, for shit's and giggles I HAD to see if we've busted a Frenzy record on the number of posts and DING DING DING we have a winner!

The previous high was 97 posts in the 2002-2004 Roster App thread http://predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162

Sorry boys, just needed a little field trip around the baord to ease the concussion building in my brain. ;)

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Yah agreed.

We're all debating over the technicalities.... but dont place blame on yourself. You do a great job with the rules. I know i couldnt do it.

Without a doubt he does... in many ways (not just beating up on his team...) Brian has been a HUGE asset to the league. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

FYI - please don't remind Brian that I've only beaten him once in the regular season... of course there was that playoff game last year as well... ;)

[Flaxwless]

noe lets get off this topic and why does Edge, Barber, and MArtin still not have a bid?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Without a doubt he does... in many ways (not just beating up on his team...) Brian has been a HUGE asset to the league. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

FYI - please don't remind Brian that I've only beaten him once in the regular season... of course there was that playoff game last year as well... ;)

Thanks for the kudos guys. I don't mind taking a buck stops here attitude with this one though, since I was the one that originally raised the concern, but didn't take the steps to include it and make sure everyone else was on board.

And no Mike, I don't need any reminders of our head to head record.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

noe lets get off this topic and why does Edge, Barber, and MArtin still not have a bid?

Maybe because you and I don't have the cap space to get em going on the market ;)

I seriously don't get this RFA market. All the action on the WR's, yet the UFA WR market is pretty deep. Wheras, a realtively weak UFA RB market looms and the RB's have gotten extremely limited play 2/3's in.

Then there are the QB's... I won't even get started on Donovan and Marc.

[Flaxwless]

haha agreed... since Marc can most likely be had with any bididng seing as how jim only has 200cbs in capspace

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

haha agreed... since Marc can most likely be had with any bididng seing as how jim only has 200cbs in capspace

Jim may look tight against the cap, but he has some deadwood to cut off and I'm sure he won't let Bulger go too cheap.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

The only issue I had with this whole thing was to be consistent. I was unable to understand why it was illegal to trade the "right to match" by itself but in a package it's allowed. That's like saying you cant buy just drugs, but if you buy drugs and milk its fine. Made no sense to me. That was my main problem.

When the original issue about trading RFAs was brought up my main intention was to make sure the market value of the RFA was truly reflected. In a scenario where you can trade the right to decline, all this tells me is that the team with the high bid is still willing to give up even more to acquire the services of the RFA in question. So if tendering team offers to let the RFA walk for something (player or pick) he'll decline. I'm not sure why but something about this scenario doesnt add up for me. Although looking at it like this, the true market price would be the contract for this player plus what was traded for him. Seems the tendering team nets the difference between the market price of the RFA and bidding team's true value of the player. If there was no difference then the tendering team would not offer anything in addition to the contract because that's what he perceived to be the true value of the player. The only way this never happens is if the tendering team actually bids the full value (in their opinion) of the player. I would guess that this does not always happen. Personally there's times where I would be willing to go higher on an RFA but go with the lower bid because I'm hoping to get a better contract. Not sure what if anything could/should be done about this.

And I dont agree with you Mike about this taking away strategy from the league. While I dont fault you for trying to squeeze every last cent of value from your players, if we allow this it will become common that all tendering teams will go to the team with the high bid and ask for more. You have nothing to lose by doing so and everything to gain. Not much addition of strategy there IMO.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

And I dont agree with you Mike about this taking away strategy from the league. While I dont fault you for trying to squeeze every last cent of value from your players, if we allow this it will become common that all tendering teams will go to the team with the high bid and ask for more. You have nothing to lose by doing so and everything to gain. Not much addition of strategy there IMO.

And I continue to contend... What is so wrong with that?

If I win the bid on Favre and Jake says "hey I'm matching, but if we make a deal on something I'll let you have him..." I have 2 options, negotiate, or call the bluff (which it very well may or maynot be). What's the problem here?

Now if a player sell ridiculously high as compared to my perceived value of him (Hines Ward comes to mind) do you really think the winning bidder is going to pay more?

After Ward sold, I through a side deal out to Jake that we had discussed earlier for Clarence Moore (I offered my 3.11 FWIW while Jake originally was asking for a 4th). Anyhow he knew I was full of shit on not matching Ward and essentially laughed in my face when I sent him a PM saying "hey Jake, lets pull the trigger on the previous deal we discussed and I'll decline on Ward."

Again, was he hijacked? Nope. Was he bullied? Nope. My only leverage was tying up his cap for 3 days, because if he needed the space he was stuck till I declined or let the match period expire.

Is using time to your advantage going to be next on the Frenzy war crimes hit list?

Flat out these deals with the winning team should totally be allowed IMO.

I went out of my way to not even attempt to hide it, why, because IMO it's a totally legit, strategic move for BOTH parties.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

That's like saying you cant buy just drugs, but if you buy drugs and milk its fine.

:wow

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Seriously... what were we arguing about again? I leave my computer to run to my guitar lesson... attend a community meeting... take my son to soccer... and I've gotta spend 3 hours just catching up on this thread! Yikes.

(Actually, I'm just bitter I wasn't the 100th poster. )