Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

The Derby Cars have free'd up a lot of cap space and acquired one of the best emerging stud WR's in the process.

Meanwhile, the Preds are going all or nothing for the gusto with a big 3 triumverate and no depth.

Going to the Derby Cars:
QB Steve McNair (700) - 1 yr
WR Andre Johnson (475) - 3 ys
TE Dallas Clark (121) - 3yrs
2005 Rookie Pick 2.01

and indirectly RFA RB Kevan Barlow (900) - Predators will decline the Match


Going to the Predators:
QB Peyton Manning (1694) - 1 yr
TE Alge Crumpler (230) - 1 yr
WR Johnnie Morton (110) - 1 yr
2005 Rookie Pick 1.01

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

confirmed

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Nathan, I hope you insisted on Mike using lubrication.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Well if I got screwed, let's hope I learn a lesson.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I know I have been questioned about my trades in the past so I will try not to be too "questioning", but other than a solid (not great thus far) WR and cap space what did you get out of this? You could not get (did not want) one of Mike later round one picks as part of this?

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

The way I break down this deal:

Crumpler for D. Clark - Trading Crumpler's production for Clark's potential, but picking up 2 extra contract years in the process. With Pollard leaving the Colts, this may turn out to be a solid move.

1.1 for Andre Johnson - Depends on what you need. I would take Andre over any WR in this year's draft, so not bad IMO. (Though I got an awful lot more out of my 1.1 last year.)

Manning for McNair/Barlow - The only way this deal is fair is to include Barlow as part of the value. I know that's where SBDC was coming from because I'm sure Mike told him he would match otherwise. I guess if sign and trade deals are ruled out, there's nothing like a decline and trade deal! ;)

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

That decline and trade sure goes against the spirit of the rule, but as long as there is other value involved, there's not much to be done about it. However, I would say that if the decline is officially part of the trade (ie, we aren't setting a precedent that a decline it and of itself can be traded for value alone), the rules committee needs to look at that.

As far as the Andre Johnson for the 1.1, I'd disagree that I'd rather have Andre than any of this year's wide receivers. Any number of receivers have to potential to land on the Vikes, which means as far as I would project, superior numbers within two years to Andre Johnson, and his limited potential playing in Houston. Plus, you have the choice of RBs from those landing in good situations.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Actually I was going to match Barlow, that was no bluff, I had even discussed it with Frank (Insects). So my declining Barlow was a complete change of course.

Some history on this deal BTW, I sent Nate a PM telling him I intended to match, but also expressed the possibility of declining if another deal was made. Nate then inquired on AJ's availablity if the 1.1 was involved, I said yea and he came back with the offer including Manning.

Manning is a cap issue more than anything, great player no doubt, but also the most expensive QB in the Frenzy by about 300 cb's.

Parting with AJ was tough for me, I love the kids talent, and he's at a very nice price. Clark was another guy who I didn't intend to let go, but when I shifted my strategy to win now instead of a mix of present/future I asked for Crumpler for cap reasons and he later asked for Clark which I felt was a reasnable counter.

I'll be honest, Nate surprised me when he offered Manning with the 1.1, but I assumed he was looking to free himself of the cap constraints (trust me, with LT I know what it's like to feel hamstrung by 1 position).

All that being said, had Nate pushed me for my 2.1 I likely woulda parted with it, but he never asked ;).

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Decline's happened as part of a couple deals last year as well, but they were never in and of themselves the only part of a deal. In general they went indirectly as part of a package, as this does.

This is no sign and trade where a guy that bidded on a player has athe tendering team match and trade them elsewhere. The winning bidder still gets there guy, the trst of the pacakage just creates a guarentee that'll happen.

Also, the spirit of the rule is to not inhibit open market bidding on a players services. Since anybody can still bid on a guy till he sells this kind of deal cannot hamper that.

FYI, none of these discussions started until after he sold anyhow, so again, the market still dictated the players value, which is the intent of the rule.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

So depending on how many 1 round compensatory picks we have you now have 4 of the first say 20 picks. Yeah, I can see how parting with that last one would not have been a deal breaker...

As long as you both are happy (and I can't imagine that you don't have a chesire cat grin at this point) that's all that counts.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Not to go quid pro quo after the Rogers fiasco but I think this is a slippery slope. Essentially, once the bidding is closed the team with matching abilities can try and extract whatever they want to not match. They also can get a compensatory pick (might not be that big a deal here) for not matching. Not sure what if any actions should be taken to limit this in the future but this actually seems more beneficial than a sign and trade (and therefore more likely to be abused- not saying that it was here) since both teams could potentially benefit within the confines of the system.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I didn't think it was a bluff - and SBDC obviously didn't either.

Freeing up cap space? SBDC took on around $2200 of salary, only giving up around $2000. He already had $2000 worth of cap space available. I don't think that was his motivation. He was after Barlow and Andre - Preds just made him pay alot more for Barlow than the $900 that was tendered.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

The Team that owns a player has 2 options, match or decline. The bidding team hopes they've bid high enough to force a decline or they can sweeten the pot to ensure a decline with another deal.

In the case of Barlow, the 3rd rd comp didn't cut it for me. I was absolutely going to match.

FYI, last year I declined Mason and sent the comp to Jim as part of the deal for Aaron Brooks. It wasn't "officially" part of the package (as this isn't), but if I don't decline on Mason that deal wouldn't have been done. This deal is more complex, but no different.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Actually he took on 1296 and gave up 2034. Barlow's 900 only counts indirectly.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I think it is less of an issue when it is part of a larger deal. There is nothing really stopping you from saying the decline on Barlow wasn't part of the deal. There is no way to police that. My issue is setting a precent that a decline can be negotiated in and of itself and traded for value. Could the Derby Cars have traded you a 2005 rookie pick straight up for your decline? I would strenuously argue no, because you are not giving up value, as you previously have indicated is a strict requirement of a trade. In order for Barlow to have value for you, you would have to match the high bid. If you decline the high bid, the only value to you is the compensatory pick, which you retain, and thus you surrender no value. Again, that is my only issue, and what I want to make sure we are clear on. If this is not clear and not agreed, I'll add it to the list of items for 2006.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I agree getting additional compensation soley for the decline is a bad thing as Team A is being sent value but not DIRECTLY sending value back to Team B.

Indirectly, as part of a package, I see no problem. Straight up though, I'll agree is a no-no.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Just for the record, I went back to the original debate on this subject, and this exact scenario was in my first post on it (that the right to decline or match a player should not be traded for compensation). Of course, that didn't make it into the rule book, as the thread containing the vote to ban RFA trades was horrendously written (by me).

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Right, the rule book states the following:

Barlow was not "traded," though I did agree not to match (which is not indicated in the final rule we adopted, which I'll add were revised many times as the compensation system was developed, thus likely the reason for the omission from your original post).

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

No, the section you've quoted doesn't cover this scenario as written.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I am absolutely shocked. Methinks my classic Priest/Farve for Boston/Griese deal may have competition soon. 1.1 for AJ would have been in Mike's huge favor IMO. Being able to select the top RB and signing him relatively cheaply for 5 years is just too valuable in this type of dynasty league. AJ has already showed the talent but still has a ways to go and has already played out almost half his contract. Toss in Peyton for those other guys! Wowsers. It's still too early to judge this trade but unless Barlow busts out and the 1.1 busts I see this ending up in Mike's favor by alot.

My 2 cents.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Yeah, AJ needs to continue to develop and Barlow needs to play up to last years' expectations for this trade to even out, or even come close.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I thought I mentioned Mike's craftiness in another thread...heehee...

Nice trade there, lets hope both sides get what they want out of the deal this year fantasy wise.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I have a hard time seeing how the decline of Barlow was an indirect part of the package. Preds told SBDC he would match Barlow unless the deal was sweetened (getting more than a compensatory). SBDC would not make the deal unless Barlow was a part of it. During negotiations of the trade, both teams were well aware that Barlow was an integral part of it. I don't think the trade should be turned down, in fact I knew about the trade before it was posted, but if assigning trade value to a match/decline is allowed let's just come out and put it in the rules so everyone can be well aware that the strategy is available to them.

The fact is Peyton/1.1/Crumpler for McNair/A. Johnson/Clark simply doesn't get agreed to by SBDC, I know that firsthand. The decline of Barlow was given value in this trade by both parties, it shouldn't be spun otherwise.

So my point in this has nothing to do with this particular trade. I'm just a bit disappointed that I didn't employ the same strategy while considering to match or decline my RFAs, and if noone has problems, make sure that I get more than just a compensatory pick out of my declined RFAs in the future.
Acquiring the services of RFAs in the future may get awfully expensive...

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

This stratagy doesn't work for RFA's that sell high however, only those that sell at a potential bargain. If the player sells too low, you'd be crazy not to keep the player, whereas if thay sell like Ward did, I'd be crazy to realistically expect any kind of deal with the decline being a part of it.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Just for the record, I would have a problem with it, as stated before. I have an increasing problem with it being included in the "official" trade acknowledgement, no matter how Mike spins it.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I can see the Dodgers point, it's almost like a threat that resign Barlow but not to that degree. Am I totally missing the point?

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Well I'm glad to see that this trade got some activity up and going.


We'll have to wait and see what happens. On paper based off of last years numbers, Mike seems to have the better deal. I feel that some of the potential in AJ, Barlow could help my team this year and beyond. This may completely backfire in my face and if it does, live and learn. I do think that my team as it stands now is better than the team I fielded last year and that was my goal. To improve on a dismal 2004.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

This deal has been slightly revised. As part of the package in this deal, I have offered Nate my 2005 2.1 Rookie Pick with nothing further required of him.

For the record, Nate did not feel this was necessary, and rejected it until I basically insisted he take it (who wouldn't).

I'm doing this because I want peace within the league, and am hopeful this will help. I did not set out to screw Nate (or any team for that matter), I negotiated as I always do (y'all know I'm tough).

That being said, Nate really made the original confines of this deal, the only player I asked for was Crumpler which became a swap for Dallas Clark (and later Morton as a roster filler). My biggest concern was that by taking on Peyton at nearly 1700, I was gonna have major cap issues. This deal will force me to run a short roster of 14 or 15 players and little depth. That's the biggest risk I've taken on here.

Anyhow, I've thrown a peace offering out to those that are hating on Nate and or me, hopefully you guys will understand that both of us were looking out for our best interests while also constructing a deal satisfactory to the other party.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Cool move. Very classy. Wasn't necessary, but I respect that, Mike. Kudos.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Thank you.

Perhaps your exemplary kindness and caring is starting to rub off on me after 4 years! ;)

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I'm not sure how to comment on this recent turn of events. I guess I'll just keep it to a simple kudos for the fair play, but just for future reference, if I even pass my analysis off on a trade and call it uneven, I certainly am not calling for another adjustment to the trade to make it fair.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Well I respect you guys and what the Frenzy is, I don't want to do anything viewed as harmful to the league or that would hurt how owners feel about the league.

Thx for understanding.

Now, can we get back to football and the RFA period? 10 guys still need to have opening bids with just 11 days to go!

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I agree with Brian... I didn't get the sense that the league was wanting to void the deal or force a renegotiation.

And Mike, that's the coolest thing you could have said to me. Thanks.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I agree with Brian. I was in no way seeking any changes to this deal, or any deal I may comment on in the future. My intentions were only to explore and further define the guidelines we are working with. Thanks for showing the goodwill Mike, but know that it wasn't at all necessary. Maybe I'm alone, but I don't think the deal was unfair in the first place. SBDC wanted Barlow and he did what he had to do to get him. His team will be better if guys play the way I think they will.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I don't think anyone was demanding the trade be revised in anyway, but the perception was that it was imbalanced. If that's the case, I'd rather be the one being the "fool."

I value the competitive relationships, rivalries, and friendships we've built in this league far more than any one player or group of players. I know a couple teams (aside from Nate) saw the value on both sides of this deal, but far more weighed in against it, and for them I'd rather show a token of respect for the league, which is why I offered the extra pick. Had Nate pushed for the pick in the original deal I likely woulda given it to him anyhow, but I always work under the presumption of not giving more than is asked of me. ;)

BTW Jim, I actually meant what I said in that earlier statement to you... scary aint it! I think I have learned to enjoy the game and not be totally win or lose at all costs (all that being said, I'm still damn tough and you all know it)!

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I also thank you Mike for the 2.1 pick. I understand everyone wanted to know why I made the trade. All I can say is I did what I felt was best for my team. We'll see if it works out and if not then I may have the 1.1 again next year. I'm just happy to be part of the Frenzy, I have a lot of fun in this league.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Seriously Mike, this is totally unecessary. Like I said before, it is WAY too early to judge this trade. As long as both you and Nate felt that it was a good deal, that's all that really matters. It was far from an extremely unbalancing trade and I hope you didnt take my comment to make it seem like that's what I thought. And if we're all starting to do this, can I get a retroactive "goodwil gesture" from the Undead for Priest? :D Either that or I'm still hoping that one turns out in my favor (Delusion is a very nice state, you should come visit it sometime).

Nice gesture Mike, unecessary but cool. Either that or you couldnt live with yourself with respect to the current trade eh? :bag

The lesson as always, do not take Mike's first offer. or 2nd offer for that matter. ;)

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

My humble advice is that if you're ever interested in trading the 1.1 Rookie pick again, let it be known. ;)



That and dont take Mike's 1st, 2nd, 3rd.....18th offer. :D

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Quick, someone get IT security ASAP. Someone stole Mike's login and is posting this false crap!!

Alright buddy, I dont know who you are but what have you done with the real Mike? Dont make me take you to :jailbird!

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

The funny thing is I never made any of the offers, I expressed an interest in the 1.1 or 1.4, that's it... I countered deals that Nate sent me 1st... so there!

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

yah if yer trading the #1 pick i would advertise it first... that way you get the best offer.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Now that sounds like someone I'd like to deal with! :D

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I agree an easy fix that should placate the masses. Nice work, gents!

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Yeah good work, I didn't think the trade needed to be voided. I thought the issue was something else.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I think the issue was definitely something else. One that should still be addressed IMO. My proposal would be to not allow trades between a team winning an RFA auction and the team holding the rights to that player during the 72 hour decision period. I think its safe to say that any trade between 2 such teams during the 72 hour decision period has the right to match/decline as one of the considerations.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I like the idea. Policing is again the issue. As long as both teams trust each other, there would be nothing to stop the tendering team to decline the match, based on an agreed upon trade that will be anounced after the 72 hour period ends (or whatever time frame we determine).

My proposal would be to be specific in the rules that the rights to decline or match an RFA cannot be used as barter in trade. If it is determined that this has happened, the rules committee or comish, or whatever, can void the trade. This does two things; first, it at least clarifies and eliminates the possibility that a decline will be offered in an of itself in return for a player/pick (my primary concern). Secondly, it should, since most of us are scrupulous (Mike excluded....JUST KIDDING), it would eliminate the tactic of using the matching power as leveredge in a trade.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Can I just ask WHY the option to decline the match as part of another deal is such a bad thing?

The big hang up with sign and trade deals was that they could inhibit a player selling at market value since the market could be somewhat fixed, ya know, or I understood being against that.

However, I don't see how or why we should inhibit a teams ability to match or decline. In the case of Barlow I had every intention to match, he sold at market value (IMO at a very attractive risk/reward price, much like Travis Henry), nothing inhibted the bidding on Barlow by any team. I was going to keep him flat out, but figured heck, if Nate REALLY wants him maybe we could work something out. Who did or does that hurt? The winning team gets their guy, the tendering team lets him go but gets some extra value out of him. I mean really, if anything both sides win. If the tendering team just matches, the winning bidder is just left out in the cold anyhow.

As for the potential that tendering team could hold a guy hostage against the winning bidder, that's part of the game. You have 72 hours to decide if the tendering team is bluffing or is really intending to match. Worse case scario you get beat by a bluff, best case you get the player anyhow on the called bluff.

Again, I just don't see where these types of trades (decline as part of a package) are harmful to the league in any way.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

You have stated numerous times in the Philly/Opihi thread that when a trade occurs, but sides must give up value. Say team A has the right to match or decline an RFA bid on player A. Team B had the high bid. Player A in and of itself holds no value to team A until the decleration is made of wether or not the high bid will be matched or declined. Once matched, the value of the Player A is just that, Player A at the bid contract. If declined, the value is the compensatory pick. If a trade is negotiated to send a draft pick so Team A declines the match, Team A's value (which I see as the compensatory pick once the decline is declared) remains with Team A, and thus Team A gives up no value, yet receives value in trade from team B. That's the way I philosophically look at it anyway.

What's the harm to the league? We have determined a level of compensation for RFAs based on four levels. If we allow trading of compensation to teams to decline a match, then we are adding a level of compensation not previously contemplated.

What's to differentiate the right to match/decline a player from the right to bid on a player? If you can negotiate your right to decline a player, can I negotiate my right to bid on a player? IE, say Team A has player A rfa'd. His 48 hour window is about to close. Say I know from previous conversations that I am confident that Team A will match at this level, can I go to Team A and ask for compensation in exchange for my not raising the high bid? Can you tell me why that would be different? You can say it is anti-competive based on the fact that the salary is affected, but I say your situation is anti-competitive because you are getting more compensation for an RFA than what the league previously determined to be a fair amount.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I agree with Mike.
<script src="chrome://greasemonkey/content/scripts/1102161148673"></script><script src="chrome://greasemonkey/content/scripts/1102237157909"></script>

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Brian makes some good points. I agree with Brian. It seems like a slippery slope argument that if we allow trading of the right to match. Seems like if the team with the right to match wanted to trade that player, he could just have to wait till the RFA no trade period is over. I can see both sides but in i tend to agree with Brian on this one.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

The sticking point here is whether or not a trade can be made between two teams (here, Team A and Team B) with team A only "giving up" their right to match, and receiving something in return from Team B. No other players are traded. This would be against the spirit of the league, IMO. However, if a team wants to include a "not match" provision as part of a multiple player deal, then why not?

This is very different in my opinion. This borders on attempted extortion! Any owner has the right to increase a RFA bid at any point in the RFA period. It behooves the tendering owner NOT to disclose his intention prior to the point of sale. If another team tries to bully me by saying they're going to increase the bid on an RFA, then more power to ya! You run the risk of getting a player at an inflated price. This is not that big of a threat, IMO.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

First off I've stated my support of not trading the "decline" soley for some sort of compensation. However as part of a package deal I have no problem with it.

As for the "value" the player has, it is most likely that if you are gonna extract value out of a pcakage deal on a tendered guy that has sold for a price where the reward outweighs the risk, and you are going to match.

It's hard to extract value in a case where the player sells at a price that supercedes his value, or a guy where it's clear cannot afford to match, or whereby by matching you will be screwing your team with the cap.

A guy like Favre, or Henry, or Barlow, all those guys can easily outearn their contracts. If Jake woulda said hey Mike, I know you really want Favre, but I'm matching... if you REALLY want him however, would you be interested in talking about a package deal? I woulda been all over that. Favre IMO is worth far more than he sold for. Jake got a great deal in matching, but could have gotten different value by declining the match to me and making a package trade.

As for your last scenario, if you're not the winning bidder your not getting or giving any value, your using the threat of extortion. If you want to bid my guy up go for it, maybe your price gets raised, maybe it doesn't and I still match. Maybe you bid the guy too high and I stick you with him. Your scenario isn't nearly as realistic. If you came to me with something like that I'd tell you to go ahead and bid away.

In the Barlow case, the player SOLD at market value. Nothing prohibited him from selling at that value. It's just that IMO, and apparantly that of the Derby Cars, Barlow sold at a price where the reward significantly outwieghs the risk. After he sold I was already intent on matching, I wasn't threatening the Cars telling him give me value or else, I told him hey I'm going to match (and I was), but if you're interested maybe we can work something out and both get what we want / need.

Seriously, I think we're on polar opposites on this one.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Ding ding! Well said!

Funny I was in the midst of writing a similar post on the whole extortion angle Brian pointed to.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Jim, to the first point, I really don't care if it is part of a larger trade. I really don't think there is anyway to police it. I think it should be against the rules to include based on the principal that if you can't trade for it straight up, it should be allowed to be part of a larger package. That is just common sense to me, but I could be in the minority.

I think the second instance is rare. However, I can see something like this coming up. It could happen in a different way. Say a player (like HInes Ward) has reached a point where the tendering team has made it clear they aren't going to match. Of course they could be playing chicked, but what if Team C came in and wanted compensation from Team B (the team with the current high bid) that if they didn't raise, and Team B ended up with the player, then team B owed Team C compensation for not raising. Do you find this more analagous?

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I'm heading out, so I'll respond to the rest later. In the meantime, please let me know why it would be fair to allow the trading of the "decline" as part of a larger package, while it is not fair to trade it straight up. I'm interested in hearing the justification for the differenetiation.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I don't see this happening here. First of all, even if it's "widely known" that Team A will not be matching a player, that doesn't "guarantee" Team B (the current highest bidder) any compensation while Hines Ward is still "on the market". Team C can come in and raise the bid all they want. They do so, however, with the risk that they might get Ward themselves. I can't imagine any owner in THIS league agreeing to "compensate" another team for not bidding up a player. Seriously.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I'd say because the tendering team will ALREADY be getting compensation by not matching. For them to receive FURTHER compensation (without having to give anything else up) would be ludicrous.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

Why? Because tangible assets are being moved as part of the package. The declination is obviously an intangible asset, it does have value, but not tangible physical value. By not matching a guy, I'm giving up that intangible asset that would have had value to me the moment I matched.

Further, by including this intangible asett indirectly as part of a package deal I can ensure that tangible assets are still moved by both parties, not just the "intangible" value.

That's how I can justify it.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

I'm with Jim and Mike here.

We all agree you can't trade anything just for a decline to match.

However, you can make a larger trade with the decline to match an "unofficial" part of the trade.

Like Jim has pointed out, someone can bid on the RFA still and keep him out of the hands.

Now if the tendering team wants to try and extract some more from the bidding team, they do so at risk. If they fail to make a trade, they are let go and the winning team automatically gets the player. If they want the player, they match.

It's up to the bidding team to call the bluff.

Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade
 

The Swords are with us on this as well.