Mutts Trade 3.11 to Amish
 

Amish Send Javon Walker (1100) IR to Mutts for Alge Crumpler (798), Marcus Pollard (100), 3.11 (2008) and 4.11 (2008).

Amish immediately cuts Pollard to remain below roster size (100 salary - 10 bucks 2007 / 10 bucks 2008). Both teams are under cap and roster size after the drop.

Another deal to follow on April 1st.

Jake to confirm.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Confirmed.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Jake,

When you made this trade, you already had 2 players on the IR: DJ Hackett (968/1) and Ronnie Brown (999/2). That would have meant Javon Walker moves to active duty with a 2200 salary. I don't believe you had that much cap room... even with trading Crumpler & Pollard. Or did I miss something?

(Sorry, I'm not trying to cause trouble... just trying to update the roster app!)

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

I have Hackett on his active roster. I'm not sure when that was done, though.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

I might have found the problem. Timeline:

Onto IR 9-29-07: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11444

Back from IR 11-21-07: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11848

??? Brian's spreadsheet showing him on active roster: dated 12-6-07 (at least the copy I have)

Back to IR: 12-7-07: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11895

If true and he ended the season on IR, then it sounds like Mutts have some penalties coming.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Oops, bad news kids. If my calculations above are correct, then the dreaded trade reversal has reared its ugly head again. If Mutts didn't get under the cap within 24 hours of this trade due to Walker having to go to his active roster, then the trade is reversed. As of now, we still don't have a new rule in place of it (more bitching about that from me in the Rules thread: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12003).

They can probably re-execute this deal to keep things clean on Joel's side, but on Jake's side, the problem is that we declared RFAs two days ago and Walker wasn't on his team at that point.

Before pointing out how unfair this is (and it is), I'll note the irony that Jake is one of the three teams that has not voted on a replacement rule to get rid of this rule, despite being online since the poll has been posted.

We don't have anything in our rules to decide what happens to Jake's RFAs, so Commish has to make a call on this one.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

That's what I'm afraid of. I'm keeping track of the updated roster app here at my house... but I stopped short of processing this trade, and the subsequent RFA declarations by both teams.

Waiting to find out how to proceed.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Unless there is objection from the rules committee, here's what I think needs to happen. Per the rules, and the precedent set, the trade is going to be reversed. The release of player(s) by the Amish are also reversed so they go back to the Mutts.

Also, since the RFA deadline has passed, there will be no adjustments to tendered RFAs. This only affects Jake as Walker was one of his tendered RFAs.

Jake will also be assessed a 440 cb penalty (220 to 2007 and 220 to 2008). If this puts Jake over the current cap, he'll need to take action to get under within 24 hours.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

No objection. This sucks, but it is what it is. We are responsible for our own teams (as I learned the hard way with Coles).

Now let's get that trade penalty rule fixed so the solution doesn't need be to be so draconian next time!

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

I have to go tutor right now and will look at this tonight ... blows ...

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

I know I am not in this league, but this seems unfair to Amish....was he supposed to check Mutts roster to make sure they were able to make the trade? So Amish now loses out on Walker, since I guess that means he is cut loose to UFA pool?

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

You're preaching to the choir, my friend. Long story short: most of us hate this rule. We're inches away from abolishing it. You're right, he's not supposed to check Mutts roster, which is why the rule sucks so bad - it punishes the other team who did nothing wrong.

The good news is, Walker doesn't really affect him. He goes back onto his squad and he still wouldn't have tagged him as an RFA anyway, because he has 3 better guys. His contract expires April 1 and he'll be gone.

The main way Joel get screwed is that he loses out on whatever he traded Walker for (some low draft picks plus maybe some unknown compensation they planned to do on April 1), because obviously Mutts will not re-execute this deal.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Tonight I'll update the roster app accordingly... then hopefully will be able to post it online at the "secret location" (wink, wink!). Just stay tuned.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

OK quite a few questions here. This is before I check my app because now it is ALL screwed up with "other" things I have put in there.

1. I hope that getting Walker back doesn't screw up my cap ... I'll have to check that.

2. Since the trade happened plenty before the RFA period and it was JUST reported it seems that this should be retro to the day and Mutts and I not penalized for not meeting the deadlines so we could re-execute the trade if needed. It just doesn't seem right if things aren't currently updated in the apps (not accusing anyone) for everyone to trade with each other. Are we just "trusting" people when we trade ...

3. Just let me know what I have to do but talk about a headache for all parties involved. I know it's the rules so so be it ...

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

The rule is that everything is returned to the way it was before the trade happens. I would assume that you were compliant before the trade, so you should still be compliant when the trade is reversed.

:soap:
Popes and I were talking about this today, and obviously this is extremely unfair to you (Amish). Either modification currently waiting for votes would be better. Under option 2 both parties to the trade should be monitoring their own roster and their trading partner's roster for compliance after the trade - then neither party can complain if a trade is reversed for noncompliance. Under option 3, Walker would simply have been cut from Mutts and your team would be unaffected, because your team was in compliance. With the rule as it is now you are essentially trusting your trading partners to get their team in compliance after a trade.
Whatever resolution is reached in this case will be no better than the least of the evils. I'm just a newbie, so I'll leave the rest of the commentary in the capable hands of the Commish/rules committee. Bottom line - let's get on that poll and get this rule changed!

:train:

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

I'm no commish (nor the Rules Guy)... but here's my "veteran" responses:
1. Looking at the roster app... I think you might be over... having received Torry Holt (1/1900) in a trade with me on 3/14... and Harrison (1/1900) from the Popes on 3/15. According to my old app (and it's not 100% official), you'd be $1800 over the cap.

2. It sounds like an excuse, but it's always been the policy in this league that owners are responsible for keeping their own rosters current. Therefore, until the proposed rules change is passed, there is no "retro" grace period. It was the responsibility of Jake to know what he had available.

3. I've always been in favor of grace when it comes to rules... I'd be in favor of making a cap penalty for Jake becuase of his not knowing his roster at the time of the trade... and not executing a penalty on Joel. But that's just me. (You'd still need to get under the cap, prior to the start of the RFA period).

What a pain!

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Not always the case... Take the trades I did with Opihi and Popes. I had to O.K both within 24 hours otherwise I would have been screwed and both owners returned players because I had that 24 hour window to complete the trade with the other team. I like Brian's suggestion of 3-way trades to eliminate the limbo period.

We'll figure it out but I really think it should be back-date it so we could retrade the trade with the cap penalties being applied to Mutts with him keeping Walker as a RFA.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

FYI I traded AWAY Harrison and should be 100 UNDER the cap. Joel

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

That's right. My mistake. So yes, you should be 100 under the cap!

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Cool, Thanks ...

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

And yet, you did not vote for Brian's suggestion. If that's what you really prefer, change your vote to it and we'll have ourselves a majority and a new rule!

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Yes, I understand that, and I wasn't clear in my earlier post. I only meant to address the situation at hand which involved only 2 teams, where nobody was counting on a subsequent trade to get compliant. In this case, reversal should never leave anyone out of compliance, so long as everyone was compliant to start with. The subsequent penalties however are another matter...

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

What? Which one did I vote for then? If that is the case, I'm switching my vote ...

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

There is one other way Joel doesn't take a "penalty".

Mutts step up and still offers to re-execute the trade now, even though it doesn't help him anymore. That's exactly what Brian did last year when he offered to re-execute his trade with Brett (since he was in the wrong), even though Caddy got hurt that weekend and Brian could no longer afford (RB-corps-wise) to make the trade.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

That's really the only solution. We are not going to go back in time and re-do everything from that point. Does that suck? Yes, but that's why we need to change the rule (it now looks like it has passed). However, the former trade rule has been an issue twice now, and we're going to implement the rule the same way each time.

For instance, last year, a sunday of games passed before there was resolution. Would it have been fair to go back in time and execute the trade and then adjust games based on the new fixed trade? No, that would not have been fair, just like we're not going to go back in time here.

The trade is reversed, Joel was in compliance before the trade and should be after the reversal. The deal sucks, but now it is fixed and we shouldn't have this issue in the future.

This is a complex league with complex rules and complex roster requirements. One person (or a couple of people) cannot handle the responsibilty of making sure everyone's roster is accurate 100%. That is why everyone is responsible for their own rosters and responsible to the other owners when things go wrong.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Sounds good ... not mad here as it didn't affect me as much as it did to you last year but still stinks as I could have worked another deal for Walker at the time.

So a quick question. What happens if by chance over the break again that a deal like this happens where the IR goofs up the trade from one person's end. Does the trade still go through and that person has to make additional cuts?

I guess I totally lose on Walker AND the picks I picked up then huh?

I agree 100% with not retro-ing the trade as that just makes a mess, I was just a little bummed the other night.

Mutts - If you want to swing a smaller deal let me know ... thanks!


The Amish
Joel

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

No adjustment needed... Jake is officially 5cbs under the cap.

THIS CASE IS CLOSED!

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Under the new rule, the trade never happens. If both sides aren't compliant by what's posted in the thread (no 24 hour cushion to get compliant), then the trade doesn't execute. If it isn't caught until later, it will still have never happened.

In the case of this fiasco (a perfect storm where 4 balls had to drop for this to happen), the outcome would be essentially the same: the trade never happened and you'd only get the valid RFAs from when you posted them (i.e. no Walker).

The new rule doesn't prevent this screwup or my screwup, it prevents the kind we had last year (where someone knows they aren't compliant and they don't fix it in 24 hours). However, the new rule will still help lessen the frequency of even this kind of screw-up, because both owners will have the burden of checking everything (5 balls will have to drop for this to happen, not 4). It wouldn't have helped in your case, but it would have helped in the Coles trade, where Avengers would have added up my years and caught what I missed.

Also note, there are no cap penalties under the new rule, because you never went over because you never executed the trade.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

Wow - sorry about all that guys. I started a new job Wednesday (establishing a new legal aid clinic for people in poverty) and completely missed this one. I'm glad I'm under the cap with the penalty. As for the trade, I'd be happy to re-execute Amish. Its my fault, and I don't have plans for the TEs I gave up.

Sorry again guys.

Re: Mutts and Amish Wheelin' and Dealin'
 

I guess that is why I orginally voted for the 3rd option. I was looking at it as if the trade goes through and you were in compliance, things are well and good for you but there are still consequences for the offending team. Like in this case, I'm SOL now because of Jake's oversight (and my assuming he was in "compliance") Under option #3, I would still have received the picks that I wanted and he would have lost Javon not me and the picks. But oh well...

At least in the other situations that occured, (Brian's last year and Jason's this year) time was on the side for correction not a major deadline like RFA time.

So still under the new rule, errors are going to happen, there are just no penalities because the trade will never occur. But if it doesn't get "caught" right away, time will still go by until it is reversed. That is why I thought the 3rd one is better because if you know YOU are in compliance, you know you are good.

I don't know about everyone else but I don't put EVERYONE's acquistitions every day they happen into the roster app. Now, I feel that I HAVE to just to make sure.

Just ramblings from someone sittin' on the couch watching some MAJOR NCAA basketball!

Joel