Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

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!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

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!

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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.

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)!

[The Knights of Ni]

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.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

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? 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. ;)

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Soap Box Derby Car

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.

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.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

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)!

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!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

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

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!

[Flaxwless]

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

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'd rather be the one being the "fool."

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

[Philadelphia Freedom]

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

[Urza's Ragers]

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

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Urza's Ragers

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

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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.

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.

[Preds]

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,

"hey, I'll stop bidding him up on you if we engineer a trade

or

"hey, as long as the player sells below x price I'll stop bidding him up with team B and you can trade him to me regardless of who the winner is".

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

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.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

I agree with Mike.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

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.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

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.

[Preds]

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

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.

Ding ding! Well said!

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

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

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.

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?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

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.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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?

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.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

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.

[Flaxwless]

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.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

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.

The Swords are with us on this as well.