Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I dont see how you can argue that trading the "right to match" by itself is illegal but as a larger deal it is legal. Does not compute for me. Either it has value and is tradeable by itself, or it is has value but we as a league specifically said its illegal to trade. Why is it different if its part of a larger deal? That's the part I'm having a hard time understanding.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally Posted by Preds

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.

Maybe just semantics but why does it matter if it "indirectly" included as part of the deal? It was obvisouly a large part of the deal, so why is it only indirectly included?

And why is the "right to match" considered intangible? Seems pretty tangible to me, the right directly affects where the player ends up, so in reality the intangible asset is the player himself. At least that's how I see it.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

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.

This is where I'm at. You cannot trade something that has no value. If you include match/decline as part of trade negotiations, you are giving the decision value that I don't think Frenzy rules support. I truly fail to see the difference between trading a match/decline straight up for something else or including it in a deal. Either way the match/decline weighs in with the same value. As I see it, the eligibility of "Item A" to be traded straight up for compensation of any sort should be the benchmark for inclusion in a trade.

The practical reason I don't like these trades is because of the undo leverage it gives the team holding the RFA. It feels a little heavy-handed to me when you outbid 10 guys in the league, paying the player every cent that the market will bear, and then the RFA owner informs you that you can't have the player unless you are willing to pay higher than market price. Oh yeah, by the way, make your decision quickly because we only have a certain amount of hours left. I don't know, I just think its similar to other aggressive strategies that we've tried to water down a bit in the past.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

The Swords are with us on this as well.

Looks like Freedom, Dodgers, Mutts, Squirrels and possibly Ragers over here. ;)

Uh oh! There's gonna be a shoot-out at the OK Corral!

[Urza's Ragers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

The practical reason I don't like these trades is because of the undo leverage it gives the team holding the RFA. It feels a little heavy-handed to me when you outbid 11 guys in the league, paying the player every cent that the market will bear, and then the RFA owner informs you that you can't have the player unless you are willing to pay higher than market price. Oh yeah, by the way, make your decision quickly because we only have a certain amount of hours left. I don't know, I just think its similar to other aggressive strategies that we've tried to water down a bit in the past.

That was exactly my feeling on this whole piece.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

The practical reason I don't like these trades is because of the undo leverage it gives the team holding the RFA. It feels a little heavy-handed to me when you outbid 11 guys in the league, paying the player every cent that the market will bear, and then the RFA owner informs you that you can't have the player unless you are willing to pay higher than market price. Oh yeah, by the way, make your decision quickly because we only have a certain amount of hours left. I don't know, I just think its similar to other aggressive strategies that we've tried to water down a bit in the past.

Really how does this give the tendering team leverage? Seriously? Say no, maybe that every penny you spent wasn't enough to entice the tendering team to decline. In some cases, the league compensation isn't enough. Travis Henry, Brett Favre, Barlow... all of these guys have too much potential for the relatively low salaries the market sold them at. I wanted Henry, I wanted Favre. One the bids on both. Wish I woulda contacted either Matt or Jake to work a deal truth be told. Had either of them contacted em I would not have felt bullied, or that they had leverage, I woulda seen an opportunity to get the guy I wanted. In the cases of Henry and Favre I hoped I had bid enough, but appaently I didn't as their inherent value outweight the compensation.

As for the leagues division on this, I fully expect a 50/50 split ... what else is new.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

Looks like Freedom, Dodgers, Mutts, Squirrels and possibly Ragers over here. ;)

Uh oh! There's gonna be a shoot-out at the OK Corral!

Well, seeing as the Derby Cars were OK with the deal we made, that makes it 5-5 lol. The Undead and Toxic Waste appear to be the teams to lobby for a vote next year lol.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

Really how does this give the tendering team leverage? Seriously? Say no, maybe that every penny you spent wasn't enough to entice the tendering team to decline. In some cases, the league compensation isn't enough. Travis Henry, Brett Favre, Barlow... all of these guys have too much potential for the relatively low salaries the market sold them at. I wanted Henry, I wanted Favre. One the bids on both. Wish I woulda contacted either Matt or Jake to work a deal truth be told. Had either of them contacted em I would not have felt bullied, or that they had leverage, I woulda seen an opportunity to get the guy I wanted. In the cases of Henry and Favre I hoped I had bid enough, but appaently I didn't as their inherent value outweight the compensation.

This same argument applies just as well to the idea that you should be able to trade match/decline straight up. But regardless, you can't trade match/decline straight up because it has no value. What is the rationale for allowing match/decline to take on value if other players are involved? Whether or not such a trade would benefit both teams involved is not a consideration, IMO.

Edited to add: It seems to me that the leverage held by the RFA owner is obvious, in fact it presents itself as having actual value in such negotiations. I think the issue we are considering is whether we are going to allow owners to use that negotiation tool or not.

[Flaxwless]

Interesting debate we have here.

But i really don't believe it gives the tendeirng team anymore leverage than usual. Let's look at it step by step and see where the leverage is during a RFA transaction.

1. Free Agent is tendered as an RFA
Leverage: tendering team
2. RFA is now placed on open market
Leverage: market, decide the price
3. RFA is sold
Leverage: If the RFA sells lower than tendering team values, leverage: owner.
If the RFA sells higher than the tendeirng team values, leverage: winning bidder.
4. Match/Decline
Leverage: None. Decision based on price and value of RFA placed by owner.

Now where does the leverage come in with a decline part of a larger trade?

If the RFA sells lower than their value the tendering team can: match or let the winning team know they will match the player and offer trade.

By matching they are using their leverage gained, since the market did not take it from him. In offering a trade the tendering team has leverage, but the winning team has a chance to "change" his bid, since obviously the RFA undersold. If no deal is made then the tendering team does what it would have done in the first place, match the RFA b/c it is of value to them. So no additional leverage is gained. Just an oppourtuniy to gain more value.

Now if the RFA sells higher than expected the the tendering team can: decline or offer a trade. The tendering team has leverage but as each hour goes by within the 72 hour timespan, their leverage decreases. If a deal is met, good job by the tendering team. If a deal isn't reached then they'd let the free agent go, as would be. Remeber also, if the 72 hours pass without a match or decline it goes to the WINNING team.

Now the catch here is the winning team will be bombared with offers for a trade. It is then up to the winning team to wait it out. Really, the Mutts mentioned that they would be under pressure b/c of the time, however as each hour passes the leverage shifts from the tendering team to the winning bid. So owners would be just advised to wait it out until the wee hours.

If you think about it, all it really is basically away to trade an RFA before in-season FA. B/C obviously the market did not set the price high enough for the tendering team to outright decline, so basically the tendeirng team is giving the winning team an oppourtunity to get the player, someone they would've gladly rostered, before in-season FA (which when you can trade RFAs). Now if the owner is trying to extract more value than they can either extract some or not, however their leverage goes away each hour. In the end the winning bid would get the team.

I really don't see a problem with this b/c the tendering team cannot trade the right to any team, ONLY the winning bid. So the market has set the value already. All that making the decline part of a larger trade does is allows the winning bid to get a player whom the market price hasn't forced the owner to decline.

With this out in the air, don't expect to win an RFA bid without a trade offer. But all you really have to do is wait 2 days and then you can see if the owner is serious or bluffing.

[Flaxwless]

On what the Mutts said, I wouldn't be opposed now that I think about it allowing to trade the right to decline straight up for a player and comp.

Seeing as no extra leverage is gained and that time and trading partners are limited.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

If you think about it, all it really is basically a way to trade an RFA before in-season FA.

I agree, and trading an RFA before in-season free agency is against Frenzy rules. Which, according to the Insects explanation, makes this strategy a loophole.

[Flaxwless]

which is a loophole i wouldn't mind.

We put in the no RFA trades in order to prevent teams from driving down the prices by taking one team out of the bidding, which had an agreement with the tendering team to trade the RFA to them after he has sold.

However, in the way explained the market STILL sets the price and the tendering team has a 72 hour time span to negotiate a trade with ONE TEAM. If you think about it this is similiar to the NFL's RFA policy, except reverse. In the NFL teams will correct/set the market price as they often accept trades for players, b/c teams do not want to pay the draft picks, which they value more. In our league the same prinicple would apply except we are correcting the market price for an RFA that sold too low, by accepting players whihc we value more than the comp pick.

Again, I wouldn't mind making trading for the right to decline OK.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

I agree, and trading an RFA before in-season free agency is against Frenzy rules. Which, according to the Insects explanation, makes this strategy a loophole.

This was exactly the point I was going to make. This is a base admission that this tactic amounts to finding a loophole in rule we passed last season.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

which is a loophole i wouldn't mind.

We put in the no RFA trades in order to prevent teams from driving down the prices by taking one team out of the bidding, which had an agreement with the tendering team to trade the RFA to them after he has sold.

However, in the way explained the market STILL sets the price and the tendering team has a 72 hour time span to negotiate a trade with ONE TEAM. If you think about it this is similiar to the NFL's RFA policy, except reverse. In the NFL teams will correct/set the market price as they often accept trades for players, b/c teams do not want to pay the draft picks, which they value more. In our league the same prinicple would apply except we are correcting the market price for an RFA that sold too low, by accepting players whihc we value more than the comp pick.

Again, I wouldn't mind making trading for the right to decline OK.

But the league as a whole has agreed to the compensation for RFAs. If they are bid low to a point you would like to retain them, you have the right to match the undermarket bid, and we have then outlawed the trading of those RFAs until the regular season. If the bid is above market, you are awarded a draft pick compensation that the tendering team willingly assigns.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

But the league as a whole has agreed to the compensation for RFAs. If they are bid low to a point you would like to retain them, you have the right to match the undermarket bid, and we have then outlawed the trading of those RFAs until the regular season. If the bid is above market, you are awarded a draft pick compensation that the tendering team willingly assigns.

The reason we agreed to outlaw this was to keep teams from manipulating the bidding market. That does NOT occur in this situation.

I still see nothing wrong with this sort of deal and stand by it.

[Flaxwless]

What mike said, we agreed to stop trading b/c of one team dropping out of the bidding b/c of a trade worked out prior to the RFA selling.

In this situation the market has already set the price an dtrading occurs between the tendeirng team and winning team. The winning team DOES NOT have to trade. No one is holding agun to their head, b/c if the team wants to keep the player he will, if he doesn't then he will eventually give in with his trade demands.

And of course it takes two people to trade, so the winning bid would not trade for mor ethan what they thought was fair.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

The reason we agreed to outlaw this was to keep teams from manipulating the bidding market. That does NOT occur in this situation.

I still see nothing wrong with this sort of deal and stand by it.

But please try to get us to understand why you don't support a straight up trade of match/decline for other value. I think that would help clear up alot of this.

[Flaxwless]

I would!

[Flaxwless]

Does that help?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Preds

The reason we agreed to outlaw this was to keep teams from manipulating the bidding market. That does NOT occur in this situation.

I still see nothing wrong with this sort of deal and stand by it.

Additionally, you are actually hurting the tendering team of getting value out of an underbid on match by making them wait till August 15th. That's an eternity in this marketplace.

The rule is and should be to keep the market from being manipulated. This does NOT IMO in any way manipulate the market. The market sets the price, and the tendering team decides if it's above or below value, if it's below value, they match or seek to obtain what value the player has to them from the winning bid team. Nobody loses in this situation. Nobody. So why do you guys have to be so anal (and we all know I can be anal as well) against something like this? Both teams get what they want.

The more I think about it, the more I'm with Frank, screw it, allow the intangible value of the decline to be traded.

Seriously I'm pretty much sick of the debate. Make a vote, do whatever, but lets stop the bickering, nobodies changing their mind in this it appears.

[Flaxwless]

I don't think we're bickering Mike, just discussing.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

The reason we agreed to outlaw this was to keep teams from manipulating the bidding market. That does NOT occur in this situation.

I still see nothing wrong with this sort of deal and stand by it.

Just going back and looking at the original thread, I suggested this exact practice be outlawed (see the second to last paragraph in my post in this thread). Unfortunately no one else responded to my thought on this, but this was definitely my original intention.

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3640

[Flaxwless]

ah... good find. at least you've satyed consitent.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Additionally, you are actually hurting the tendering team of getting value out of an underbid on match by making them wait till August 15th. That's an eternity in this marketplace.

Do you know how many posts of yours I've read that have stated to the effect, if a RFA is underbid, obviously the tendering team will just match and get to keep the player? Now you've changed your mind and are concerned with the tendering team getting a fair trade in return for an underbid RFA?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Just going back and looking at the original thread, I suggested this exact practice be outlawed (see the second to last paragraph in my post in this thread). Unfortunately no one else responded to my thought on this, but this was definitely my original intention.

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3640

I don't think I've ever been in favor of limiting a teams ability to trade, so I'm staying consistent as well ;).

Personally I hate the sign / no trade rule till August 15th... that's an eternity in the off-season market as you shape your team and inhibits a teams abilities quite a bit.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

I don't think I've ever been in favor of limiting a teams ability to trade, so I'm staying consistent as well ;).

Personally I hate the sign / no trade rule till August 15th... that's an eternity in the off-season market as you shape your team and inhibits a teams abilities quite a bit.

I can agree with you there. We had to do something so teams wouldn't attempt to manipulate the RFA market - but I sure wish we wouldn't have had to go down this road.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Do you know how many posts of yours I've read that have stated to the effect, if a RFA is underbid, obviously the tendering team will just match and get to keep the player? Now you've changed your mind and are concerned with the tendering team getting a fair trade in return for an underbid RFA?

So then isn't it a smart business move to attempt to get fair value for an asset?

Again what is wring if the MARKET has set the value already?

In a trade the TENDERING team and WINNING team will take in equal value or else they wouldn't agree to a trade.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I don't think I've ever been in favor of limiting a teams ability to trade, so I'm staying consistent as well ;).

Personally I hate the sign / no trade rule till August 15th... that's an eternity in the off-season market as you shape your team and inhibits a teams abilities quite a bit.

If you place an importance on teams having the ability to trade RFAs. I've always felt the reason for RFAs was to allow teams to retain key players. We introduced compensatory picks so teams get something in return for a player bid above market value, or out of the salary reaches of the tendering team.

Most of the league (I feel justified in saying most since the rule passed on an 8-2 vote) felt the RFA process was being abused, so we took steps to cut down on the wheeling and dealing of RFAs. Obviously out attempts fell just short of successful.

[Preds]

No, I think the tendering team should have multiple options, match, decline, make the decline part of a package, and f' it, at this point I'm with frank, in essance trade the decline for addtional value to the winning team. There's no gun to anybodies head. Nobody has to make a deal.

Seriously, you guys are stripping the stratagy right out of things and nixing creative thinking and smart team management.

I've wasted enough time on this debate... I'm stepping out of it, there's nothing more I can say that will convince you any other way. Put it up for vote and move on.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

So then isn't it a smart business move to attempt to get fair value for an asset?

Again what is wring if the MARKET has set the value already?

In a trade the TENDERING team and WINNING team will take in equal value or else they wouldn't agree to a trade.

Quite simply because we ovewhelmingly voted last year to ban this practice. Regardless of how it is worded, agreeing to decline the match on a player is the exact same result of matching the player and trading him, which is exactly what was banned.