Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade

[Preds]

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

[The Knights of Ni]

confirmed

[Nittany Dodgers]

Nathan, I hope you insisted on Mike using lubrication.

[The Knights of Ni]

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

[Philadelphia Freedom]

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?

[Mutts]

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! ;)

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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! ;)

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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! ;)

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 ;).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

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.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

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

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.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

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 thse discussions started until after he sold anyhow, so again, the market still dictated the players value, which is the intent of the rule.

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.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

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 ;).

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.

[Preds]

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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.

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

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

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

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).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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).

Right, the rule book states the following:

RFA's cannot be traded prior to the start of in-season free agency (August 15^th). The team winning the rights to the RFA (either the tendering team if they decide to match, or the highest bidding team if the tendering team declines to match) cannot trade that player until the start of in-season free agency has begun.

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).

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Right, the rule book states the following:

[/font]

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

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

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.

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.

[Urza's Ragers]

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.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

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...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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...

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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...

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.

[Urza's Ragers]

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?

[The Knights of Ni]

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.

[Preds]

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.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

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

Thank you.

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