DEAL VOIDED ('06 picks not yet tradeable) - Charles Rogers gets to go to Hawaii

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

Now to "modify" the deal, Matt is in a sense trading back the conditional "asset" he received and you are sending him additional compensation in some form to aquire that back and then resend it however you wish.

This is getting more and more murky... so let's say October rolls around, and Matt and I decide to solidify the deal. If we want to agree on a 2nd round pick, can he "trade back" the conditional compensation offer and we both agree to a 2nd rounder? Or are you saying that I'd have to throw in something else (like we swap kickers or something)?

The original trade was a no-lose proposition for me, precisely because of the possibility of not having to give up anything, if he lived up to his injury history. Then I agreed to a 4th round pick, and we're okay on that language... but I hadn't thought about the restrictions on the picks aspect... and now if there's going to be a problem with solidifying the spirit of the trade in mid-season, then that's something new altogether.

I might need to spend more time pondering this...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

This is getting more and more murky... so let's say October rolls around, and Matt and I decide to solidify the deal. If we want to agree on a 2nd round pick, can he "trade back" the conditional compensation offer and we both agree to a 2nd rounder? Or are you saying that I'd have to throw in something else (like we swap kickers or something)?

The original trade was a no-lose proposition for me, precisely because of the possibility of not having to give up anything, if he lived up to his injury history. Then I agreed to a 4th round pick, and we're okay on that language... but I hadn't thought about the restrictions on the picks aspect... and now if there's going to be a problem with solidifying the spirit of the trade in mid-season, then that's something new altogether.

I might need to spend more time pondering this...

FYI, I rsearched what happened in the Pennington deal, in April of 2002 the Freedom sent Pennington to the Dodgers for a conditional pick (rounds 1-3).

After Brian realized how restricted this made things, they made a new trade where Matt sent Brian his 3rd round pick in 2003 (and the conditional aspect of the previous Pennington deal) and Brian sent his 2003 2nd to Matt, in essance freeing up Brian's 1st and 3rd.

So yes, a tangible asset was traded on both ends to modify the Pennington deal.

All that being said Jim, I'm not so certain you should be able to back out of this deal now that you've agreed on the compensation in the 4th already, in fairness to Matt I think it should be up to him to decide if he'll allow you an "out" on this (which I would guess he would reluctantly do).

I'm not trying to talk anyone in or out of the deal, I just want to make sure the terms and consequences of the deal are clear to all parties. There is a small element of risk in this to you, with the bigger negative being the restrictions it places on your inability to inculde your 2006 draft class in future trade discussions until the 2005 season comes to a close.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

Yes, I'm saying you can't modify the original deal after the fact without new tangible "assets" being involved.

The deal is what it is, it's a conditional deal based on performance, and as such, that will be how it plays out.

Now to "modify" the deal, Matt is in a sense trading back the conditional "asset" he received and you are sending him additional compensation in some form to acquire that back and then resend it however you wish.

If I'm following - if Opihi and Freedom wish to finalize this deal prior to the end of the upcoming season, Opihi will essentially have to give up a player (because his draft picks can't be traded) for the ability to declare the deal finalized with a specific pick. In other words, Rogers goes to the islands now and no Opihi picks can be traded until April 2006 unless a player is sent from Opihi's roster to Philadelphia. Sound right?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

If I'm following - if Opihi and Freedom wish to finalize this deal prior to the end of the upcoming season, Opihi will essentially have to give up a player (because his draft picks can't be traded) for the ability to declare the deal finalized with a specific pick. In other words, Rogers goes to the islands now and no Opihi picks can be traded until April 2006 unless a player is sent from Opihi's roster to Philadelphia. Sound right?

Well, not necessarily, in the Pennington deal, Matt sent Brian his (Philly's) 2003 3rd (plus the Pennington conditional clause) while Brian resent just a 2nd round pick. I think a similar arrangement between Matt and Jim would be acceptable where Matt sends a lower pick and Jim solidifies his deal to a specific earlier pick.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

All that being said Jim, I'm not so certain you should be able to back out of this deal now that you've agreed on the compensation in the 4th already, in fairness to Matt I think it should be up to him to decide if he'll allow you an "out" on this (which I would guess he would reluctantly do).

I'm not trying to back out of the deal... it's just that this has morphed into something that's much different from the original intent.

The way you've been explaining it today, I'm thinking the mid-year tweaking doesn't sound very plausible...

OH WELL... I didn't trade any of my 2005 picks last year... let's just say that I'm going to keep that same strategy this year, and not have to worry about having restricted access to my picks in mid year! lol

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

FYI, I rsearched what happened in the Pennington deal, in April of 2002 the Freedom sent Pennington to the Dodgers for a conditional pick (rounds 1-3).

After Brian realized how restricted this made things, they made a new trade where Matt sent Brian his 3rd round pick in 2003 (and the conditional aspect of the previous Pennington deal) and Brian sent his 2003 2nd to Matt, in essance freeing up Brian's 1st and 3rd.

So yes, a tangible asset was traded on both ends to modify the Pennington deal.

All that being said Jim, I'm not so certain you should be able to back out of this deal now that you've agreed on the compensation in the 4th already, in fairness to Matt I think it should be up to him to decide if he'll allow you an "out" on this (which I would guess he would reluctantly do).

I'm not trying to talk anyone in or out of the deal, I just want to make sure the terms and consequences of the deal are clear to all parties. There is a small element of risk in this to you, with the bigger negative being the restrictions it places on your inability to inculde your 2006 draft class in future trade discussions until the 2005 season comes to a close.

I'm now seeing an entirely new angle on this old deal. I followed and agreed with your explanation of modification of conditional deals:

Now to "modify" the deal, Matt is in a sense trading back the conditional "asset" he received and you are sending him additional compensation in some form to acquire that back and then resend it however you wish.

Additional compensation should be sent to acquire the conditional "asset". It doesn't seem to me that Freedom received any additional compensation for the conditional asset, in fact he sent a 3rd round pick to Brian. If Opihi is thought to be filling Brian's shoes in the previous Pennington deal - the prescedent would say that he can just agree on a specific pick mid-season as long as the Freedom are willing (for some reason) to give him a draft pick in addition to Rogers.

Wow, this seems crazy?!

Edited to say: Maybe more to the point, how do you acquire the right to take back conditional draft picks with a draft pick that is already tied up in that conditional pick umbrella? As long as someone else owns conditional rights to all your draft picks, you can't trade them - isn't that why Mike explained that they would have to be acquired back before a specific pick could be agreed on?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Well, not necessarily, in the Pennington deal, Matt sent Brian his (Philly's) 2003 3rd (plus the Pennington conditional clause) while Brian resent just a 2nd round pick. I think a similar arrangement between Matt and Jim would be acceptable where Matt sends a lower pick and Jim solidifies his deal to a specific earlier pick.

Mike, this is where I disagree with you. While in my and Matts trade, there was additional compensation allowed, I don't think it was necessary to facilitate the new deal. The compromise we reached just happened to have new value involved, but that was only to make things fair. If say before the season starts, both teams decide that a straight up 3rd round is fair, I would think they would be able to modify the trade to remove the condition, and just make it a 3rd rounder (or whatever).

Do we have a trade back rule (too busy to look it up right now)? Couldn't they just trade Rogers back for the conditional picks, and re-trade Rogers for a 3rd rounder?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

I'm now seeing an entirely new angle on this old deal. I followed and agreed with your explanation of modification of conditional deals:

Additional compensation should be sent to acquire the conditional "asset". It doesn't seem to me that Freedom received any additional compensation for the conditional asset, in fact he sent a 3rd round pick to Brian. If Opihi is thought to be filling Brian's shoes in the previous Pennington deal - the prescedent would say that he can just agree on a specific pick mid-season as long as the Freedom are willing (for some reason) to give him a draft pick in addition to Rogers.

Wow, this seems crazy?!

Edited to say: Maybe more to the point, how do you acquire the right to take back conditional draft picks with a draft pick that is already tied up in that conditional pick umbrella? As long as someone else owns conditional rights to all your draft picks, you can't trade them - isn't that why Mike explained that they would have to be acquired back before a specific pick could be agreed on?

Matt sent Brian a 3rd (and Pennington from the previous deal) and guarenteed the return of a 2nd (wheras before he could have gotten a 1-3 back). Remember these deals were both done before the season and before Vinny T got hurt and Chad emerged. Still, I think Matt did this to free up some of the restrictions Brian had unknowngly placed himself under. Matt could have stuck with the original deal, but by agreeing to send the 3rd Matt mitigated his risk from the original deal and guarenteed his compensation.

Now in the case of this new deal, it may be Jim that wants to guarentee the pick and has to send Matt something for Matt to want to guarentee it while Matt sends Jim back some lessor form of comp as well (as he did in the Pennington deal), or it could be Matt wanteing to secure the pick and offers up more to guarentee a 1st or something.

This could work both ways. But yes, it is far more complex than originally planned I'm sure!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Mike, this is where I disagree with you. While in my and Matts trade, there was additional compensation allowed, I don't think it was necessary to facilitate the new deal. The compromise we reached just happened to have new value involved, but that was only to make things fair. If say before the season starts, both teams decide that a straight up 3rd round is fair, I would think they would be able to modify the trade to remove the condition, and just make it a 3rd rounder (or whatever).

Do we have a trade back rule (too busy to look it up right now)? Couldn't they just trade Rogers back for the conditional picks, and re-trade Rogers for a 3rd rounder?

Ah shit this is confusing me as well. BTW, our trade rules are ridiculously vague and unspecific. No, there is no clause on trade-backs, and there isn't even a difinition of what a trade is or isn't (it's all implied... a bad thing). We need to clarify this language for 2006 IMO, but rely on past precedent for 2005.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Maybe this is a good time for our league to explore this potential spider-web... I'm not usually one in favor of an identical trade back.

Now, if the original trade was for a conditional 1st-4th pick based on performance... why isn't it acceptible to "settle" on compensation prior to the end of the season IF BOTH TEAMS AGREE without there being any further compensation? We both would have to agree to it. If that didn't happen, then we'd just wait until the end of the season and see how the compensation pick gets sorted out.

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why "further compensation" would be needed, since it doesn't alter the spirit of the original deal.

If that can't happen... then I'm all in favor of a "trade back" in order to make a mid-year cementing of this.

And I'm now in the same boat that Brian was... "unknowingly" placed restrictions on myself! lol

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Maybe this is a good time for our league to explore this potential spider-web... I'm not usually one in favor of an identical trade back.

Now, if the original trade was for a conditional 1st-4th pick based on performance... why isn't it acceptible to "settle" on compensation prior to the end of the season IF BOTH TEAMS AGREE without there being any further compensation? We both would have to agree to it. If that didn't happen, then we'd just wait until the end of the season and see how the compensation pick gets sorted out.

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why "further compensation" would be needed, since it doesn't alter the spirit of the original deal.

If that can't happen... then I'm all in favor of a "trade back" in order to make a mid-year cementing of this.

And I'm now in the same boat that Brian was... "unknowingly" placed restrictions on myself! lol

IMO, the problem is that past precedent (2002 Pennington deal) involved compensation on both ends (which is implied with all trades) to modify the original deal 2 months later.

[Preds]

Guys, there is another major problem with this deal that I didn't think about until this morning.

We're still in the 2004 season until tommorrow (April 1st), thus Jim cannot trade away picks in the 2006 draft. The rules state:

http://frenzy.predsff.com/2004/Feedi...Rookie%20Draft

Teams will be allowed to trade future draft picks up to 1 season in advance, therefore you can trade picks for the 2003 season in 2002,however, you could not trade picks for the 2004 season.

Thus, to trade picks in 2006 we'd have to be in the 2005 season which doesn't occur until tommorrow.

Now normally you could just delay the deal a couple days to get around this, but not in this case. If this deal is dealayed past today Charlie Rogers will no longer be able to be placed on the DS by Jim under the 2005 rules we've adopted.

I'm forced to void this deal unless you both can come up with new terms since the picks involved aren't yet tradeable. Sorry guys... and we had some good debate on the subject too!

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I understand the rules but I am not sure why (at least in respect to trading picks) we don't work on a calendar year. Meaning we are in 2005 and thus 2006 picks are tradable.

In fact Mike when you made your offer we were discussing 2006 conditional picks if I remember correctly. In this case (especially after all of the interest this has stirred) I am having a very hard time seeing how this would negatively impact the league to allow this deal to take place.

Could we not just use the baseball term (occasionally seen it with football trades as well) future considerations. Meaning Rogers goes to Jim tonight for future considerations and tomorrow (at midnight) the future considerations become the conditional picks we have finally hammered out. I am certainly not trying to break or bend the rules here but this seems to be a pretty equitable solution all the way around.

I think we are in agreement that the deal is neither collusionary or one-sided and there is no mention of prohibiting deal for future consideration (at least that I saw). Especially in light of all of the discussion that has taken place I think the future considerations options should be acceptable here.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I understand the rules but I am not sure why (at least in respect to trading picks) we don't work on a calendar year. Meaning we are in 2005 and thus 2006 picks are tradable.

In fact Mike when you made your offer we were discussing 2006 conditional picks if I remember correctly. In this case (especially after all of the interest this has stirred) I am having a very hard time seeing how this would negatively impact the league to allow this deal to take place.

Could we not just use the baseball term (occasionally seen it with football trades as well) future considerations. Meaning Rogers goes to Jim tonight for future considerations and tomorrow (at midnight) the future considerations become the conditional picks we have finally hammered out. I am certainly not trying to break or bend the rules here but this seems to be a pretty equitable solution all the way around.

I think we are in agreement that the deal is neither collusionary or one-sided and there is no mention of prohibiting deal for future consideration (at least that I saw). Especially in light of all of the discussion that has taken place I think the future considerations options should be acceptable here.

No Matt, I offered you my 3rd round pick this year, or either Samie Parker or Jericho Cotchery. I never offered 2006 picks, and definately had no interest in conditional picks if you recall. BTW, I am not stating this to try to interfere with your deal (I personally never had more interest in him than stated above, and at this point would excuse myself from any interest in him anyhow for integrety sake), I'm just going by what the rules of the Frenzy are in regards to the trading of draft picks.

We do not work on calendar years in the Frenzy, never have. We have specific dates and deadlines for the start and end of each season. April 1st starts the new season, March 31st ends the previous season.

Until tonight at midnight we're still on the 2004 season and the Soft Cap period (which is why the soft cap hit to release players is only 10% against 2005 and the other 10% hit disappears at midnight tonight for the 2004 season).

2006 Draft picks cannot be traded until April 1st, and after tonight Rogers would not be eligible to be sent down to the Taxi Squad since the 2005 rules kick in and there is no provision for that.

BTW, I think this whole debate brought up some big issues with the definitions of our trading rules (which are very weak and sketchy)... IMO we need to establish some firm ground rules for the 2006 season, and go by past precedent for this one. Also, I'm not a fan of Future Considerations, they're banned in the CDL (with good reason), and IMO they should be banned here as well. Future Considerations are impossible to place tangible value to, and can be viewed and or abused in a collusionary way (FYI, I'm not in any way saying your doing this, and in fact believe there is nothing of the sort in your deal), however, every league I've ever been in has banned them).

As for the conditional aspect of your deal, it's not outlawed in the rules (though IMO it should be), and I did not rule against it (I ruled against the 4th clause which would give back zero compensation). Personally I don't like the conditional aspect of trades because
1. it makes a mess out of tracking picks
2. it ties up trading uptions which can potentially effect multiple teams in the league as draft picks (especially late ones) are often used as the sweetener to push a deal over the top.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

No Matt, I offered you my 3rd round pick this year, or either Samie Parker or Jericho Cotchery. I never offered 2006 picks, and definately had no interest in conditional picks

I apologize I have had conditional picks on the brain and just linked your offer to my other discussions. I still think we are in agreement that the deal is neither collusionary or one-sided and there is no mention of prohibiting deal for future consideration (at least that I saw). Especially in light of all of the discussion that has taken place I think the future considerations options should be (could be) acceptable to the league here.

[Preds]

You're still missing the point that the '06 picks cannot be traded unil the 2005 season has begun. This is not a legal deal today. Tommorrow it will be, but Jim cannot place Rogers on his TS tommorrow.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I apologize I have had conditional picks on the brain and just linked your offer to my other discussions. I still think we are in agreement that the deal is neither collusionary or one-sided and there is no mention of prohibiting deal for future consideration (at least that I saw). Especially in light of all of the discussion that has taken place I think the future considerations options should be (could be) acceptable to the league here.

I'll repeat what I posted above on Future Considerations for clarity sake...

I'm not a fan of Future Considerations, they're banned in the CDL (with good reason), and IMO they should be banned here as well. Future Considerations are impossible to place tangible value to, and can be viewed and or abused in a collusionary way (FYI, I'm not in any way saying your doing this, and in fact believe there is nothing of the sort in your deal), however, every league I've ever been in has banned them).

As for the conditional aspect of your deal, it's not outlawed in the rules (though IMO it should be), and I did not rule against it (I ruled against the 4th clause which would give back zero compensation). Personally I don't like the conditional aspect of trades because
1. it makes a mess out of tracking picks
2. it ties up trading uptions which can potentially effect multiple teams in the league as draft picks (especially late ones) are often used as the sweetener to push a deal over the top.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Wow, what a mess. I'm not a fan of future considerations myself, but as it is since we don't have it outlawed in our rules, I'd be leaning towards allowing it in this circumstances, since this whole trade situation is fu-barred. We definitely need to address the trading rules for 2006. I can really go either way on this issue so I'll defer to the stronger opinions.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Preds

You're still missing the point that the '06 picks cannot be traded unil the 2005 season has begun. This is not a legal deal today. Tommorrow it will be, but Jim cannot place Rogers on his TS tommorrow.

everyone is overlooking this glaring problem...

The rest of the debate is mute, but improtant for us to keep in mind so we can establish much clearer ground rules for trading in 2006.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

You're still missing the point that the '06 picks cannot be traded unil the 2005 season has begun. This is not a legal deal today. Tommorrow it will be, but Jim cannot place Rogers on his TS tommorrow.

Okay, I am still not seeing how the future considerations option can be eliminated (at this point, though based on your comments I can see it as part of the next set of rules enahncements). If Jim is amenable then Rogers is traded today for future considerations. Tomorrow those considerations become the conditional pick structure that we have hammered out.

Rogers goes on the DS appropriately today and tomorrow the 2006 picks are tradable. In this specific case this stays well within the rules and satisfies the intent of the original deal.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay, I am still not seeing how the future considerations option can be eliminated (at this point, though based on your comments I can see it as part of the next set of rules enahncements). If Jim is amenable then Rogers is traded today for future considerations. Tomorrow those considerations become the conditional pick structure that we have hammered out.

Rogers goes on the DS appropriately today and tomorrow the 2006 picks are tradable. In this specific case this stays well within the rules and satisfies the intent of the original deal.

I do not at all like it, we've never allowed "Future Considerations" before, and I'm against allowing it now as a clear loophole around the rules (which BTW IS collusion IMO).

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I do not at all like it, we've never allowed "Future Considerations" before, and I'm against allowing it now as a clear loophole around the rules (which BTW IS collusion IMO).

I am really struggling as to how this harms the league as this point. The collusionary aspect is a little hard to swallow since this trade is not being done to harm anyone and in fact the entire league has been weighing in on it (to the tune of close to 50 messages).

My local league has the following definition of collusion, “A pre-meditated conspiracy by an owner or owners to gain an unfair advantage, which undermines the competitive quality of the league."

This not pre-meditated (since the entire league is weighing in) and neither of us is gaining an unfair advantage that would undermine the competitive quality of the league.

As for the loophole discussion, if you consider it a loophole it is still there and as we have said many times (I usually feel that I end up on the short end of these discussions) the rules are our best effort and can be updated and modified to reflect the will of the league.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I am really struggling as to how this harms the league as this point. The collusionary aspect is a little hard to swallow since this trade is not being done to harm anyone and in fact the entire league has been weighing in on it (to the tune of close to 50 messages).

My local league has the following definition of collusion, “A pre-meditated conspiracy by an owner or owners to gain an unfair advantage, which undermines the competitive quality of the league."

This not pre-meditated (since the entire league is weighing in) and neither of us is gaining an unfair advantage that would undermine the competitive quality of the league.

As for the loophole discussion, if you consider it a loophole it is still there and as we have said many times (I usually feel that I end up on the short end of these discussions) the rules are our best effort and can be updated and modified to reflect the will of the league.

I'm going to go down swing on this one... sorry... others can shut me up, but I just don't like the crafty way your trying to get around the latest problem. And collusionis also defined as an attempt by one or more teams to get around the rules, which in this case you would be doing.

The rules are clear on this, you cannot trade 2006 picks until April 1. How can you trade "future considerations" that are in essance going to be rolled back on a trade made in the previous year? You are clearly making a trade in 2005 that is dependent on a deal done in the 2004 season. Not gonna cut it IMO.

If Jim wants Rogers, he needs to trade you something else today. You can trade for whatever else you want back after April 1st, but you could not (IMO again) trade back value tommorrow that will be dependent on what Rogers does or doesn't do in 2005.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I'm going to go down swing on this one... sorry... others can shut me up, but I just don't like the crafty way your trying to get around the latest problem.

I have to be honest I don't like being accused of being crafty, particularily when it seems pretty unfounded since I am only reacting (in an open forum no less) to the situation that has developed. That being said I am not sure that the rules as they are currently written allow you to stop this trade. I know there are others on the rules committee and I think they (and the other owners) can see that nothing shady is happening here. We are operating within the rules (as they are written for both this year and next year) and have developed an equitable trade that benefits both Jim and I and causes no harm to anyone else in the league.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

everyone is overlooking this glaring problem...

The rest of the debate is mute, but improtant for us to keep in mind so we can establish much clearer ground rules for trading in 2006.

Not overlooking it Mike. The Devil's Advocate in me would just remind you there is nothing in the league rules to prohibit the trading of future considerations. That's why the debate is still valid.

However, while I was on the fence, leaning towards Matt's side in allowing future considerations, Mike's most recent post touching on the topic of the issue that the future considerations wraps around a following season, I'm leaning the other way now. Obviously, we have reasons for disallowing the trading of picks more that one year in advance. Since the future considerations are obviously known to be just that, I'd say this trade violates the spirit of that rule. Also, since in other cases the future considerations might not be known, or made public, I'd say we'd have to disallow them altogether.

Sorry Matt, I'd like to see something get worked out, but I don't like the precedent this would set.

[Preds]

Matt, how can you base a trade on "future considerations" that are going to be clearly dependent on a trade made in the previous season (albeit by 1 day).

I will vote this deal down based on the fact that Rogers is already on Jim's team for as you say "future considerations" and you cannot after April 1 now make those "considerations" dependent on his production. Rogers would no longer be your commoddity at that point, and making considerations around it is bogus.

Go ahead, convince Brian or Jake, I think it's BS and am standing up aginst this one.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I have to be honest I don't like being accused of being crafty, particularily when it seems pretty unfounded since I am only reacting (in an open forum no less) to the situation that has developed. That being said I am not sure that the rules as they are currently written allow you to stop this trade. I know there are others on the rules committee and I think they (and the other owners) can see that nothing shady is happening here. We are operating within the rules (as they are written for both this year and next year) and have developed an equitable trade that benefits both Jim and I and causes no harm to anyone else in the league.

Matt, just for the record, the rules state:

"Trades between teams are unlimited. Trades will be subject to a 24 hour review period by the rules committee, who by majority vote can overturn a trade if they feel it is if appears to be extremely one-sided or collusionary. The league can overturn the rules committee's vote with a 2/3's majority vote from the entire league."

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Thanks, Brian. That was the part of the rules that I figured should (after all that has transpired since yesterday) allow this to get done. I think we are all in agreement that it is neither one-sided nor collusionary since Jim and I both happy and we are not creating/breaking the rules but operating within them as they currently stand.

As for the precendent issue we can always solidify these rules for the 2006 edition but nothing nefarious is happening here and everyone has been privy to the inner workings of the deal since yesterday.

Since it seems like this deal is going to fall apart based on your postings and Mike’s and I have been offered another deal (involving a 2005 pick) I will not be heart broken to come up on the short end (again). However, I really don’t see how the rules as they are currently written (for 2004 and/2005 allow this deal to be stopped).

[Preds]

BTW, I want it known that I personally don't care about who gets or gives up what for Rogers, although I have had issues with a couple of the terms:

1. the no compensation issue (which was clearified to an acceptable level of comp)
2. the conditional aspect (which I stated was not against the rules, but I felt should be addressed for the future for vairous reasons, however, I never stated the deal should be struck because of this clause)

Up until this morning, I was fine with letting this deal go through based on the revision that was made (and opnely stated I thought Matt got max value out of Rogers which was great for him), however, while reviewing the rules for the RFA period this morning I realized that this deal involved picks more than one season in the future (since we're still in the 2004 season until 11:59pm), thus it is NOT a legal deal.

Which brings us to Matt's attempts to now trade Rogers to Jim for "Future Considerations"

The aspect of future considerations is not specified for, or against in the rules, however, we have never had them involved in any trade in the past 4 seasons, and I feel it was inherently impled within the spirit of rules that they were not allowed. We've never had to address "future considerations" before, and a precident judgement would have to be made if the 2 teams try to invoke this deal based on them now (which I am obviously against allowing personally).

For all the mess that this deal has been (much of which I mucked up), I think it is a beneficial thread to the league for us to invoke clear language in this section of the rules for 2006, however for 2005 I feel we need to rely on past precident, which in this case is that future conisderations have never been traded before and sholdn't be traded now (again IMO).

Finally, if "future considerations" were to be allowed, I do not think they could in turn reflect back on and be depoendent upon a player involved in a previous deal across 2 seasons. If Rogers gets traded he's traded. I don't hink you can then make a 2nd trade that is now dependent on the production of the 1st.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I think part of the problem is we have two different viewpoints of the rules. One view point is that if something is not disallowed in the rules, then it must be allowable. The other viewpoint is that if something is not allowable in the rules, it should be disallowed (at least without a precedent). With as comprehensive as our rules are, I'd be inclined to go with the ladder. Regardless, if Matt got an offer for a 2005 pick, I think that is the best possible alternative, and hopefully that would resolve the situation with no hurt feelings, or shortchanged parties.