Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I dont see how you can argue that trading the "right to match" by itself is illegal but as a larger deal it is legal. Does not compute for me. Either it has value and is tradeable by itself, or it is has value but we as a league specifically said its illegal to trade. Why is it different if its part of a larger deal? That's the part I'm having a hard time understanding.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Maybe just semantics but why does it matter if it "indirectly" included as part of the deal? It was obvisouly a large part of the deal, so why is it only indirectly included?

And why is the "right to match" considered intangible? Seems pretty tangible to me, the right directly affects where the player ends up, so in reality the intangible asset is the player himself. At least that's how I see it.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

This is where I'm at. You cannot trade something that has no value. If you include match/decline as part of trade negotiations, you are giving the decision value that I don't think Frenzy rules support. I truly fail to see the difference between trading a match/decline straight up for something else or including it in a deal. Either way the match/decline weighs in with the same value. As I see it, the eligibility of "Item A" to be traded straight up for compensation of any sort should be the benchmark for inclusion in a trade.

The practical reason I don't like these trades is because of the undo leverage it gives the team holding the RFA. It feels a little heavy-handed to me when you outbid 10 guys in the league, paying the player every cent that the market will bear, and then the RFA owner informs you that you can't have the player unless you are willing to pay higher than market price. Oh yeah, by the way, make your decision quickly because we only have a certain amount of hours left. I don't know, I just think its similar to other aggressive strategies that we've tried to water down a bit in the past.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Looks like Freedom, Dodgers, Mutts, Squirrels and possibly Ragers over here. ;)

Uh oh! There's gonna be a shoot-out at the OK Corral! :D

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

That was exactly my feeling on this whole piece.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Really how does this give the tendering team leverage? Seriously? Say no, maybe that every penny you spent wasn't enough to entice the tendering team to decline. In some cases, the league compensation isn't enough. Travis Henry, Brett Favre, Barlow... all of these guys have too much potential for the relatively low salaries the market sold them at. I wanted Henry, I wanted Favre. One the bids on both. Wish I woulda contacted either Matt or Jake to work a deal truth be told. Had either of them contacted em I would not have felt bullied, or that they had leverage, I woulda seen an opportunity to get the guy I wanted. In the cases of Henry and Favre I hoped I had bid enough, but appaently I didn't as their inherent value outweight the compensation.

As for the leagues division on this, I fully expect a 50/50 split LOL... what else is new. :D

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Well, seeing as the Derby Cars were OK with the deal we made, that makes it 5-5 lol. The Undead and Toxic Waste appear to be the teams to lobby for a vote next year lol.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

This same argument applies just as well to the idea that you should be able to trade match/decline straight up. But regardless, you can't trade match/decline straight up because it has no value. What is the rationale for allowing match/decline to take on value if other players are involved? Whether or not such a trade would benefit both teams involved is not a consideration, IMO.

Edited to add: It seems to me that the leverage held by the RFA owner is obvious, in fact it presents itself as having actual value in such negotiations. I think the issue we are considering is whether we are going to allow owners to use that negotiation tool or not.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Interesting debate we have here.

But i really don't believe it gives the tendeirng team anymore leverage than usual. Let's look at it step by step and see where the leverage is during a RFA transaction.

1. Free Agent is tendered as an RFA
Leverage: tendering team
2. RFA is now placed on open market
Leverage: market, decide the price
3. RFA is sold
Leverage: If the RFA sells lower than tendering team values, leverage: owner.
If the RFA sells higher than the tendeirng team values, leverage: winning bidder.
4. Match/Decline
Leverage: None. Decision based on price and value of RFA placed by owner.

Now where does the leverage come in with a decline part of a larger trade?

If the RFA sells lower than their value the tendering team can: match or let the winning team know they will match the player and offer trade.

By matching they are using their leverage gained, since the market did not take it from him. In offering a trade the tendering team has leverage, but the winning team has a chance to "change" his bid, since obviously the RFA undersold. If no deal is made then the tendering team does what it would have done in the first place, match the RFA b/c it is of value to them. So no additional leverage is gained. Just an oppourtuniy to gain more value.

Now if the RFA sells higher than expected the the tendering team can: decline or offer a trade. The tendering team has leverage but as each hour goes by within the 72 hour timespan, their leverage decreases. If a deal is met, good job by the tendering team. If a deal isn't reached then they'd let the free agent go, as would be. Remeber also, if the 72 hours pass without a match or decline it goes to the WINNING team.

Now the catch here is the winning team will be bombared with offers for a trade. It is then up to the winning team to wait it out. Really, the Mutts mentioned that they would be under pressure b/c of the time, however as each hour passes the leverage shifts from the tendering team to the winning bid. So owners would be just advised to wait it out until the wee hours.

If you think about it, all it really is basically away to trade an RFA before in-season FA. B/C obviously the market did not set the price high enough for the tendering team to outright decline, so basically the tendeirng team is giving the winning team an oppourtunity to get the player, someone they would've gladly rostered, before in-season FA (which when you can trade RFAs). Now if the owner is trying to extract more value than they can either extract some or not, however their leverage goes away each hour. In the end the winning bid would get the team.

I really don't see a problem with this b/c the tendering team cannot trade the right to any team, ONLY the winning bid. So the market has set the value already. All that making the decline part of a larger trade does is allows the winning bid to get a player whom the market price hasn't forced the owner to decline.

With this out in the air, don't expect to win an RFA bid without a trade offer. But all you really have to do is wait 2 days and then you can see if the owner is serious or bluffing.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

On what the Mutts said, I wouldn't be opposed now that I think about it allowing to trade the right to decline straight up for a player and comp.

Seeing as no extra leverage is gained and that time and trading partners are limited.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I agree, and trading an RFA before in-season free agency is against Frenzy rules. Which, according to the Insects explanation, makes this strategy a loophole.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

which is a loophole i wouldn't mind.

We put in the no RFA trades in order to prevent teams from driving down the prices by taking one team out of the bidding, which had an agreement with the tendering team to trade the RFA to them after he has sold.

However, in the way explained the market STILL sets the price and the tendering team has a 72 hour time span to negotiate a trade with ONE TEAM. If you think about it this is similiar to the NFL's RFA policy, except reverse. In the NFL teams will correct/set the market price as they often accept trades for players, b/c teams do not want to pay the draft picks, which they value more. In our league the same prinicple would apply except we are correcting the market price for an RFA that sold too low, by accepting players whihc we value more than the comp pick.

Again, I wouldn't mind making trading for the right to decline OK.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

This was exactly the point I was going to make. This is a base admission that this tactic amounts to finding a loophole in rule we passed last season.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

But the league as a whole has agreed to the compensation for RFAs. If they are bid low to a point you would like to retain them, you have the right to match the undermarket bid, and we have then outlawed the trading of those RFAs until the regular season. If the bid is above market, you are awarded a draft pick compensation that the tendering team willingly assigns.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

The reason we agreed to outlaw this was to keep teams from manipulating the bidding market. That does NOT occur in this situation.

I still see nothing wrong with this sort of deal and stand by it.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

What mike said, we agreed to stop trading b/c of one team dropping out of the bidding b/c of a trade worked out prior to the RFA selling.

In this situation the market has already set the price an dtrading occurs between the tendeirng team and winning team. The winning team DOES NOT have to trade. No one is holding agun to their head, b/c if the team wants to keep the player he will, if he doesn't then he will eventually give in with his trade demands.

And of course it takes two people to trade, so the winning bid would not trade for mor ethan what they thought was fair.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

But please try to get us to understand why you don't support a straight up trade of match/decline for other value. I think that would help clear up alot of this.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I would!

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Does that help?

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Additionally, you are actually hurting the tendering team of getting value out of an underbid on match by making them wait till August 15th. That's an eternity in this marketplace.

The rule is and should be to keep the market from being manipulated. This does NOT IMO in any way manipulate the market. The market sets the price, and the tendering team decides if it's above or below value, if it's below value, they match or seek to obtain what value the player has to them from the winning bid team. Nobody loses in this situation. Nobody. So why do you guys have to be so anal (and we all know I can be anal as well) against something like this? Both teams get what they want.

The more I think about it, the more I'm with Frank, screw it, allow the intangible value of the decline to be traded.

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I don't think we're bickering Mike, just discussing.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Just going back and looking at the original thread, I suggested this exact practice be outlawed (see the second to last paragraph in my post in this thread). Unfortunately no one else responded to my thought on this, but this was definitely my original intention.

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3640

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

ah... good find. at least you've satyed consitent.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Do you know how many posts of yours I've read that have stated to the effect, if a RFA is underbid, obviously the tendering team will just match and get to keep the player? Now you've changed your mind and are concerned with the tendering team getting a fair trade in return for an underbid RFA?

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I don't think I've ever been in favor of limiting a teams ability to trade, so I'm staying consistent as well ;).

Personally I hate the sign / no trade rule till August 15th... that's an eternity in the off-season market as you shape your team and inhibits a teams abilities quite a bit.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I can agree with you there. We had to do something so teams wouldn't attempt to manipulate the RFA market - but I sure wish we wouldn't have had to go down this road.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

So then isn't it a smart business move to attempt to get fair value for an asset?

Again what is wring if the MARKET has set the value already?

In a trade the TENDERING team and WINNING team will take in equal value or else they wouldn't agree to a trade.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

If you place an importance on teams having the ability to trade RFAs. I've always felt the reason for RFAs was to allow teams to retain key players. We introduced compensatory picks so teams get something in return for a player bid above market value, or out of the salary reaches of the tendering team.

Most of the league (I feel justified in saying most since the rule passed on an 8-2 vote) felt the RFA process was being abused, so we took steps to cut down on the wheeling and dealing of RFAs. Obviously out attempts fell just short of successful.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

No, I think the tendering team should have multiple options, match, decline, make the decline part of a package, and f' it, at this point I'm with frank, in essance trade the decline for addtional value to the winning team. There's no gun to anybodies head. Nobody has to make a deal.

Seriously, you guys are stripping the stratagy right out of things and nixing creative thinking and smart team management.

I've wasted enough time on this debate... I'm stepping out of it, there's nothing more I can say that will convince you any other way. Put it up for vote and move on.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Then void the trade.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER 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. :D

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I call it being "crafty." :WinkKiss

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Is that my punishment? ;)

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

LOL, you know I prefer "creative!"

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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. :D

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER 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

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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 ;)

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

It must be frustrating to be so blatently self interested.

































Just kidding!! :WinkKiss

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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).

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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. ;)

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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... ;)

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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. :D

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

:D :wow :laugh:

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

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. :( )