Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Huh? is this drivel your spewing? Seriously? I'm glad YOU seem to think you can 100% ensure the max of what 10 others are going to pay. makes you think you're anywhere near right and can underbid? If the market doesn't raisde your bid, that's the market. Period, plain and simple.

Damn Joe, I'm really not able to comprehend this crap your spewing. High bid sets the market, plain and simple. Anybody can still outbid the high bid within 48 hours, and if they don't, voila tharer's your market price. How have you "deflated" it.

I'm just totally throwing the flag on that line of BS.

Ok, this is pretty simple. I know my max bid of 1850 for Westbrook. I will nickel and dime till the other 10 owners are out. Remember this price is negotiated without the tendering team's input. So what if his market price is higher than the other 10 owners. A very real possibility. Now instead of dealing with just the contract price I can offer picks and or players.

Why would it benefit me to bid 1850 from the start? What if I'd rather have the lower contract price by giving up players or picks? Now IF i was unable to trade players or picks to the tendering team then I would bid my max price because that's all the bargaining chips I have to work with. BUT if I can offer picks and or players in addition to the contract price I've negoiated, guess who gets left out in the cold, Brian Westbrook and his deflated contract. He gains no value from the additional compensation I have given to the tendering team. All he has is his lower contract.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

Good to see BDSC and the Insects carrying the torch for this debate. Keep it up guys - maybe we can keep it alive till the rookie draft!

Somebody's gotta do it. Mike and Brian are slacking.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

We all know RFA doesn't fully compensate, so why stop teams from getting fully compensated? Please address that? Wouldn't you want that oppourtunity?

Now as for having getting comp picks and players..... that's how the system goes. Honestly, I've never liked the comp picks (i'm not sure if I mentioned that in the original thread) as they further devalue the 2nd round picks, picks that were earned by teams.

That's why last year I traded my entire 2005 rookie draft as I saw it merely trading my 2005 1st rounder and 2nd rounder (i thought at that time it would be in the 30+ range) for the 2004 1.5 pick.

Those picks are useless.

Why not tag Bulger higher? Is that his fault? Yes. However, is Bulger worth a 1st round salary? IN jim's opinion no. So he's stuck. What's the best thing for him to do... trade to make up some of that value.

2nd round picks are pretty much useless, back up players. Most 2nd round tenders are STARTERS in the league, so why not attempt to gain fair compensation.

I agree we didn't implement a system that fully compensates teams, but why prevent teams from doing so if the market price hasn't been tampered with?

Since you specifically requested a response, here it is. The initial system was no compensation for losing an RFA. If that were the system today, then I'd feel much better about wheeling and dealing for the matches. In that system, you'd have a mirror of what the NFL does, with the team stealing another teams player having to send compensation. However, what we saw was that not as many players were moving, so we tried to come up with an incentive to let players move. It wasn't about giving equal compensation, it was about getting player movement. Now that system is, in my mind, being exploited. Not only are tendering teams getting compensation from the league (a system who's Achilles heel is devaluing the rest of the draft) but they are muscling more compensation out of other teams. We agree to disagree whether or not that is acceptable. Bottom line, if we got rid of the comp, I'd feel great about wheeling and dealing. If we're going to give free picks, then I don't like the wheeling and dealing. It hurts the league.

2nd round and later picks are worthless? Lets set up two pools of players. Tell me which group you want:

Group 1
Chris Perry
REggie Williams
Justin Fargas
Taylor Jacobs
William Green
Joey Harrington

Group 2
Keary Colbert
JP Losman
Jason Witten
Nate Burleson
Brian Westbrook
Patrick Ramsey

The first group is of course the oh so valuable first rounders. The second group is of course the oh so worthless later rounders. Is there a higher percentage of success in the first round? Of course. Are there players to get in the later rounds? Definitely.

As far as Bulger, if Jim doesn't want to pay the market value for a player he tendered, why does he deserve anything at all? Isn't the main benefit of the RFA tool the ability to match the high bid? Isn't that the purpose of the whole thing? That to me is far more important and basic than the whole compensation issue.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Ok, this is pretty simple. I know my max bid of 1850 for Westbrook. I will nickel and dime till the other 10 owners are out. Remember this price is negotiated without the tendering team's input. So what if his market price is higher than the other 10 owners. A very real possibility. Now instead of dealing with just the contract price I can offer picks and or players.

Why would it benefit me to bid 1850 from the start? What if I'd rather have the lower contract price by giving up players or picks? Now IF i was unable to trade players or picks to the tendering team then I would bid my max price because that's all the bargaining chips I have to work with. BUT if I can offer picks and or players in addition to the contract price I've negoiated, guess who gets left out in the cold, Brian Westbrook and his deflated contract. He gains no value from the additional compensation I have given to the tendering team. All he has is his lower contract.

I see what you're saying, but if you bid lower won't teams still have the oppourtunity to bid above it and keep Westy in play? You guys are mentioning a situation that plays out the reason why we have the RFA trading ban, but there is a BIG DIFFERENCE!

Only the winning bid gets the chance to trade for Westy. Until the bid is won no one can offer the SBDC a trade offer b/c they don't know if they will win Westy. So there is no one dropping out of the bidding.

Of course you'll nickel and dime... but then other teams will bid above it until West reaches whatever the market will pay. You know why? B/c you still have to win the bid in order to trade.

That is the biggest difference.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Since you specifically requested a response, here it is. The initial system was no compensation for losing an RFA. If that were the system today, then I'd feel much better about wheeling and dealing for the matches. In that system, you'd have a mirror of what the NFL does, with the team stealing another teams player having to send compensation. However, what we saw was that not as many players were moving, so we tried to come up with an incentive to let players move. It wasn't about giving equal compensation, it was about getting player movement. Now that system is, in my mind, being exploited. Not only are tendering teams getting compensation from the league (a system who's Achilles heel is devaluing the rest of the draft) but they are muscling more compensation out of other teams. We agree to disagree whether or not that is acceptable. Bottom line, if we got rid of the comp, I'd feel great about wheeling and dealing. If we're going to give free picks, then I don't like the wheeling and dealing. It hurts the league.

2nd round and later picks are worthless? Lets set up two pools of players. Tell me which group you want:

Group 1
Chris Perry
REggie Williams
Justin Fargas
Taylor Jacobs
William Green
Joey Harrington

Group 2
Keary Colbert
JP Losman
Jason Witten
Nate Burleson
Brian Westbrook
Patrick Ramsey

The first group is of course the oh so valuable first rounders. The second group is of course the oh so worthless later rounders. Is there a higher percentage of success in the first round? Of course. Are there players to get in the later rounds? Definitely.

As far as Bulger, if Jim doesn't want to pay the market value for a player he tendered, why does he deserve anything at all? Isn't the main benefit of the RFA tool the ability to match the high bid? Isn't that the purpose of the whole thing? That to me is far more important and basic than the whole compensation issue.

Agreed. The compensation system devalue the lower picks.
Agreed. You can find players in the 2nd round. I can just as easily list 5 studs in the first round and 5 bust in the second. Also please list those taken with the 2nd Round COMPENSATION picks, b/c that's what JIm gets when letting Bulger go.
Agreed. If Jim doesn't want to pay market value he can do two things: let him go or try and strike a deal. If no deal is reached, then he'll obvioulsy let him go. Where's the harm?
Agreed. Right to match is the main purpose. But I what's to stop teams from getting more value if they can?

Also wouldn't the decline to match and other trades INCREASE player movement?

LAST AND MOST IIMPORTANT THING! PLEASE ADDRESS THIS!

Doesn't it take two teams to strike a deal?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Ok, this is pretty simple. I know my max bid of 1850 for Westbrook. I will nickel and dime till the other 10 owners are out. Remember this price is negotiated without the tendering team's input. So what if his market price is higher than the other 10 owners. A very real possibility. Now instead of dealing with just the contract price I can offer picks and or players.

Why would it benefit me to bid 1850 from the start? What if I'd rather have the lower contract price by giving up players or picks? Now IF i was unable to trade players or picks to the tendering team then I would bid my max price because that's all the bargaining chips I have to work with. BUT if I can offer picks and or players in addition to the contract price I've negoiated, guess who gets left out in the cold, Brian Westbrook and his deflated contract. He gains no value from the additional compensation I have given to the tendering team. All he has is his lower contract.

So your saying that the for example, had the Cars come to me and said "hey Mike. I only want to pay 900 for Barlow, how about you give let me have him at that price if nobody raises him and I'll send you a pick?" Right? Thus we could COLLUDE to fix the market, right?

Pretty extreme example but lets play with it. As the tendering team, I either intend to match and want the player to sell as low as possible, or I intend to let him walk and want him to sell as high as possible. Now in your scenario, I'll let him go cheap due to a trade. Here's the problem, 10 other owners need to not view that as cheap. 10 other owners need to say, umm, no thanks, I'm not paying him that. Those 10 other owners ARE the friggen market. Nobody is stopping them from raising or changing the market at ANY point.

Besides, don't you nickle and dime your bids already? I know I do. My goal is to bid the lowest amount that will be high enough to scare the tendering team off. If the other 10 owners want to pay more than they can have the guy. Why overpay if you don't have to.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Agreed. The compensation system devalue the lower picks.

Check

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Agreed. You can find players in the 2nd round. I can just as easily list 5 studs in the first round and 5 bust in the second. Also please list those taken with the 2nd Round COMPENSATION picks, b/c that's what JIm gets when letting Bulger go.

I already conceeded the first round pick suceed at a higher rate, so obviously there are many second round busts. But, since you asked, both Witten and Burleson were 3rd round choices. There are a number of other players who have gone undrafted that have turned into decent players (McMichael, D.Davis), and one year isn't long enough to see who will develop from last years draft. Long list? No, but I only included those picks who have already shown themselves to be solid performers, not the many more who still have potential.

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Agreed. If Jim doesn't want to pay market value he can do two things: let him go or try and strike a deal. If no deal is reached, then he'll obvioulsy let him go. Where's the harm?.

The point we don't agree on is making the deal. Please see my previous post of why I explained I don't agree with that practice as being acceptable.

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Agreed. Right to match is the main purpose. But I what's to stop teams from getting more value if they can.

In my opinion, it would be the rules we passed, the purpose of which (in my opinion, I know we disagree) was partially to restrict this.

[Flaxwless]

At least we agree on those points?

So now what about the idea that it still takes TWO teams to make a trade? No one is holding a gun last I checked.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

At least we agree on those points?

So now what about the idea that it still takes TWO teams to make a trade? No one is holding a gun last I checked.

That's no justification. It only takes two teams to make a collusionary trade, should we allow that if it is not coersed?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

That's no justification. It only takes two teams to make a collusionary trade, should we allow that if it is not coersed?

Okay.

That "two to tangO" is for the past arguement of leverage as it takes two people to agree on a trade, and both would assume each recieves value.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

That's no justification. It only takes two teams to make a collusionary trade, should we allow that if it is not coersed?

Can you please show proof of how coercion was used. Did't Matt already point out in the SAC'D thread that that would require a threat of physicial force and whatnot. Get your words straight here Brian, because I can tell you no threat of force or harm was made.

The only "threat" if you want to call it that was that I was going to keep my player with a match. If anything, I offered Cars and opportunity to still get the player he desired.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Okay.

That "two to tangO" is for the past arguement of leverage as it takes two people to agree on a trade, and both would assume each recieves value.

I'll conceed the point, because even though I have used it as a supporting arguement, the leverage issue is not my biggest contention. Even without the exclusive negotiating rights, I believe my arguement still stands (which, of course we don't agree on).

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Can you please show proof of how coercion was used. Did't Matt already point out in the SAC'D thread that that would require a threat of physicial force and whatnot. Get your words straight here Brian, because I can tell you no threat of force or harm was made.

The only "threat" if you want to call it that was that I was going to keep my player with a match. If anything, I offered Cars and opportunity to still get the player he desired.

My whole point of that post was assuming it was not coerced. OK, so the RFA trade wasn't coerced. Big deal. What if a collusionary trade isn't coerced. Is that ok then?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

My whole point of that post was assuming it was not coerced. OK, so the RFA trade wasn't coerced. Big deal. What if a collusionary trade isn't coerced. Is that ok then?

Are you saying the RFA deal was collusion? Should we go over our definition of that again?

If not, how is collusion relavant as we've got collusion listed as being against the rules, wheras the RFA situation isn't specifically covered (nor should it be IMO).

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Are you saying the RFA deal was collusion? Should we go over our definition of that again?

If not, how is collusion relavant as we've got collusion listed as being against the rules, wheras the RFA situation isn't specifically covered (nor should it be IMO).

Come on Mike, we went over all of this just yesterday. We didn't get any closer to resolution then, so why do you want to do it again?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Come on Mike, we went over all of this just yesterday. We didn't get any closer to resolution then, so why do you want to do it again?

Trust me I don't, but you're the one bringing it all back up.

[Preds]

hey, we just jumped back into the lead for most posts in 1 thread... woo hoo!

[Flaxwless]

OK I'll step out for a bit.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Pretty extreme example but lets play with it. As the tendering team, I either intend to match and want the player to sell as low as possible, or I intend to let him walk and want him to sell as high as possible. Now in your scenario, I'll let him go cheap due to a trade. Here's the problem, 10 other owners need to not view that as cheap. 10 other owners need to say, umm, no thanks, I'm not paying him that. Those 10 other owners ARE the friggen market. Nobody is stopping them from raising or changing the market at ANY point.

Here's where I think we disagree. I think 12 owners set the market, not 11, not 10. Basically if any form of compensation other than CBs goes into determining a player's contract, I think it should be illegal. That's how I feel. I'm curious to know how others feel.

Originally Posted by Preds

Besides, don't you nickle and dime your bids already? I know I do. My goal is to bid the lowest amount that will be high enough to scare the tendering team off. If the other 10 owners want to pay more than they can have the guy. Why overpay if you don't have to.

Yes I totally agree with you here. But what if you wanted to bid the lowest amount that would scare off the other 10 teams and then work a trade with the tendering team to make up the difference between their max price and the RFA price. Dont you agree that depresses RFA prices?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Trust me I don't, but you're the one bringing it all back up.

I'm not trying to bring it up. I said I was done, then Frank asked me specific questions which lead me down the same path. I've answered the questions, and we all remain deadlocked, so once again I am out of this thread until baited back in again.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

hey, we just jumped back into the lead for most posts in 1 thread... woo hoo!

This is why I'm still here! :bag

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Here's where I think we disagree. I think 12 owners set the market, not 11, not 10. Basically if any form of compensation other than CBs goes into determining a player's contract, I think it should be illegal. That's how I feel. I'm curious to know how others feel.



Yes I totally agree with you here. But what if you wanted to bid the lowest amount that would scare off the other 10 teams and then work a trade with the tendering team to make up the difference between their max price and the RFA price. Dont you agree that depresses RFA prices?

No I don't.

There are 12 owners. 10 choose not to stay in the running at whatever price level, leaving you to the final 2 to determine what the market is. They then attempt to set the market, whatever it is, but others can still come in and up the market at any time within 48 hours. Nothing, absolutely nothing stops the other 10 teams from stepping in and upping the bid if they deem it too low.

The market is still being set by all 12 teams IMO.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not trying to bring it up. I said I was done, then Frank asked me specific questions which lead me down the same path. I've answered the questions, and we all remain deadlocked, so once again I am out of this thread until baited back in again.

It's like a bad car wreck, you just can't turn away from it. You'll be back, I know I can't resist for too long lol.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

No I don't.

There are 12 owners. 10 choose not to stay in the running at whatever price level, leaving you to the final 2 to determine what the market is. They then attempt to set the market, whatever it is, but others can still come in and up the market at any time within 48 hours. Nothing, absolutely nothing stops the other 10 teams from stepping in and upping the bid if they deem it too low.

The market is still being set by all 12 teams IMO.

Yes, all 12 teams are involved but the last 2 teams use players and or picks to set that market price. That's the problem I have.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Yes, all 12 teams are involved but the last 2 teams use players and or picks to set that market price. That's the problem I have.

Still disagree big time, the last 2 teams in your scenario can ATTEMPT to deflate the market, but they cannot actually CONTROL it, thus the selling price remains whatever the open market will bear.

I'll also add BTW, that there can only be 11 bidding teams on a RFA, not 12.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

It's like a bad car wreck, you just can't turn away from it. You'll be back, I know I can't resist for too long lol.

I never thought I would tire of debating any topic. I still argue Gore v Bush with my dad. I argue religion with my Baptist brother in law. I argue death penalty with my lawer friend. I'll argue anything with anybody, but I just have no more energy for this one.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Still disagree big time, the last 2 teams in your scenario can ATTEMPT to deflate the market, but they cannot actually CONTROL it, thus the selling price remains whatever the open market will bear.

I'll also add BTW, that there can only be 11 bidding teams on a RFA, not 12.

But the 12th is ultimately involved in the decision to match or decline. By taking extra compensation they are increasing the price of the RFA but not increasing the contract dollars.

[Preds]

Should I just lock this thread and out us out of our misery?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

But the 12th is ultimately involved in the decision to match or decline. By taking extra compensation they are increasing the price of the RFA but not increasing the contract dollars.

AHHHHH! Here's our problem.

Joe views players traded in a delcine as part of the market value.
Mike and I view players traded in a decline as part of the compensation, to make up for the difference between tendering team's value and market value.

Big difference.
Understand both of you?

Now that you know where the other is coming from...

Continue.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

AHHHHH! Here's our problem.

Joe views players traded in a delcine as part of the market value.
Mike and I view players traded in a decline as part of the compensation, to make up for the difference between tendeirng teams value and market value.

Big difference.

Continue.

Good thing it only took me 6 pages to articulate that point. :bag