Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade - Page 7

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

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 tendering team's value and market value.

Big difference.
Understand both of you?

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

Continue.

Well duh, why would the decline be considered part of he market value? Is that really where you're coming from on this Joe?

Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers · April 22nd, 2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preds

Well duh, why would the decline be considered part of he market value? Is that really where you're coming from on this Joe?

Yes. As I stated earlier if we did not have the ability to trade the right to match then the bidding team would simply bid their max price for the RFA. As it stands now they dont have to bid their max price if they know they can make up the difference by trading compensation.

Edit to add: I've already gone over why it might be more favorable for a team to go with the lower price and use compensation to make up the difference rather than paying the max price.

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Yes. As I stated earlier if we did not have the ability to trade the right to match then the bidding team would simply bid their max price for the RFA. As it stands now they dont have to bid their max price if they know they can make up the difference by trading compensation.

Edit to add: I've already gone over why it might be more favorable for a team to go with the lower price and use compensation to make up the difference rather than paying the max price.

Well we're on different planets on this. I can't envision your angle on this as being valid, and you don't see mine.

Gonna just leave it at that.

Flaxwless · April 22nd, 2005, 04:33 PM

Haha well we need the rest of the league chime in.

The 4 of us still in this thread are the for least likely to change ourstances. We're spilt at 2-2. Now if the rest of the league can chime in.

April 22nd, 2005, 04:34 PM

You guys are just bumping this thread so your thread count is bigger.

;)

Size Matters

Nittany Dodgers · April 22nd, 2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy the One Eyed Beagle

You guys are just bumping this thread so your thread count is bigger.

;)

Size Matters

Thanks for helping.

Mike, when did everyone start to get to post in other league's threads? I'm going to start chiming in on the CDL. They need some coversation started over there, and I'm just the man to do it.

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy the One Eyed Beagle

You guys are just bumping this thread so your thread count is bigger.

;)

Size Matters

SAC'Ds falling way behind us now ;)

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Thanks for helping.

Mike, when did everyone start to get to post in other league's threads? I'm going to start chiming in on the CDL. They need some coversation started over there, and I'm just the man to do it.

All the boards have been open for over a year now... unless it becomesa problem I see no reason to restrict things.

Nittany Dodgers · April 22nd, 2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preds

All the boards have been open for over a year now... unless it becomesa problem I see no reason to restrict things.

MWAHAHAHAHA!

Oops, I mean :whistle

Flaxwless · April 22nd, 2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

Yes. As I stated earlier if we did not have the ability to trade the right to match then the bidding team would simply bid their max price for the RFA. As it stands now they dont have to bid their max price if they know they can make up the difference by trading compensation.

Edit to add: I've already gone over why it might be more favorable for a team to go with the lower price and use compensation to make up the difference rather than paying the max price.

What about what Mike said about other teams still having the chance to bid over that lower price (thus creating a bidding war, until the market sets it's price)?

Also did you use the wrong word or maybe you're just thinking along the same lines as us the whole time? "I've already gone over why it might be more favorable for a team to go with the lower price and use compensation to make up the difference rather than paying the max price."

So you're really with us Joe?

Trading players for decline is making up compensation.

If so then you just differ in the argument that the market doesn't set the price. Correect?

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 04:41 PM

Wow... I'm exhausted, and I haven't even posted in this thread in a page & a half!

Frank made some very good points in that epic post... and for the most part the debate has been fairly well-spirited...

Let me just say that I knew what I was doing when I put a 2nd round tender on Bulger. Compared to RBs, there are very few QBs who get "market price" for their services. Looking at my cap space, I had to tender at what I thought I could handle, should no one else bid on him. Is he worth more than 2nd round compensation? Yah probably. But isn't the point of RFA tags to hopefully retain players? I'd love to keep him, and hopefully still can for the 2005 season and beyond.

I also believe that it's up to the entire league to ensure that RFA bidding doesn't go "too low." We only have ourselves to blame, if players get signed "significantly below market value." Quite often I'll bid on a player I have no realistic expectation of getting... simply because I don't want him to sell too cheaply.

Now, back to the discussion on "declining" a match... I guess I'm still in the middle left of the debate... since I'm the only who thinks it's okay to decline in a multiple player deal, but not straight up.

So honestly, how do we move forward from here?

Nittany Dodgers · April 22nd, 2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

So honestly, how do we move forward from here?

With hurt feelings and grudged held for years.

Oh, did you say honestly?

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Wow... I'm exhausted, and I haven't even posted in this thread in a page & a half!

Only a page and a half? I thought you were further behind than that. Heck, I thought we ripped through 2-3 days alone.

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preds

Only a page and a half? I thought you were further behind than that. Heck, I thought we ripped through 2-3 days alone.

Well, I was a page and a half when I started the post... but by the time I finished, it was 3 pages! :wow

Flaxwless · April 22nd, 2005, 04:49 PM

Don't know where to go, but have the rest of the league chime in.

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 04:51 PM

Okay, I'll put on my "problem solving" cap now. The issue seems to be: can "RFA declines" be used in trading. Let's put it up for a league-wide vote. Guess we can have "yes" or "no" or something inbetween. We can debate this until we use up our bandwidth... but I think for the good of the league, we need to get some resolultion on things. The results should be effective in 2006, since we can only use what's in the rules now for what we're doing now. The rules committee will have to decide on a case-by-case basis should this come up again between now and the end of the RFA period.

So who's with me!?!?!?!

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 04:52 PM

And I'm amenable to make it the start of the 2007 season, if some owners think that next year's RFA's have already been compromised with what's sold this year.

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Okay, I'll put on my "problem solving" cap now. The issue seems to be: can "RFA declines" be used in trading. Let's put it up for a league-wide vote. Guess we can have "yes" or "no" or something inbetween. We can debate this until we use up our bandwidth... but I think for the good of the league, we need to get some resolultion on things. The results should be effective in 2006, since we can only use what's in the rules now for what we're doing now. The rules committee will have to decide on a case-by-case basis should this come up again between now and the end of the RFA period.

So who's with me!?!?!?!

Fine by me. Don't be surprised with a 6-6 vote though.

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

And I'm amenable to make it the start of the 2007 season, if some owners think that next year's RFA's have already been compromised with what's sold this year.

I'd agree with that as well.

Jeesh, see how agreeable I can be at times Brian! ;)

Urza's Ragers · April 22nd, 2005, 04:53 PM

Horse is dead, let's leave it alone and move on!!!!

I just want to help our thread count.

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preds

Fine by me. Don't be surprised with a 6-6 vote though.

6-6 is fine... that just means we keep things as is and have the rules committtee sort it out.

Nittany Dodgers · April 22nd, 2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

6-6 is fine... that just means we keep things as is and have the rules committtee sort it out.

Yes! Rules committee decides! I can live with that. ;)

Nittany Dodgers · April 22nd, 2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preds

I'd agree with that as well.

Jeesh, see how agreeable I can be at times Brian! ;)

Jim, we need a way to get you into SAC'D. You have a strange effect on Mike.

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Yes! Rules committee decides! I can live with that. ;)

y, since it'd be 2-1 against. ;)

I think the league needs to come to a resolution together.

Preds · April 22nd, 2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Jim, we need a way to get you into SAC'D. You have a strange effect on Mike.

There goes my Diet Pepsi again lol!

Flaxwless · April 22nd, 2005, 04:59 PM

We need to come otgether seeing as the rules committee would shoot each other.

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 05:06 PM

Well, let's put it up to a vote anyway... if it ends up 6-6... then let's see if we can find some "middle ground" to which people would be agreeable. We might be able to say certain practices would be allowable, and others would be not allowable.

Let's just get the vote started... who's in charge of that?

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urza's Ragers

Horse is dead, let's leave it alone and move on!!!!

I just want to help our thread count.

By the way, Ragers win the #200 post prize... you get to decline your next RFA tender and receive Ron Dayne as compensation! :clap

Nittany Dodgers · April 22nd, 2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Well, let's put it up to a vote anyway... if it ends up 6-6... then let's see if we can find some "middle ground" to which people would be agreeable. We might be able to say certain practices would be allowable, and others would be not allowable.

Let's just get the vote started... who's in charge of that?

I nominate the imortal ramirez. He likes to organize votes.

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · April 22nd, 2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I nominate the imortal ramirez. He likes to organize votes.

If he hasn't been following this thread, it'll take him until next Tuesday to catch up...

April 22nd, 2005, 04:33 PM	#184
Flaxwless Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 6,050	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade Haha well we need the rest of the league chime in. The 4 of us still in this thread are the for least likely to change ourstances. We're spilt at 2-2. Now if the rest of the league can chime in. __________________ Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects - 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion Bay Area Bloodsuckers 2008 SAC'D Champions - 2nd Worst to First in Year! 2011 SAC'D Champions - #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!

April 22nd, 2005, 04:34 PM	#185
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade You guys are just bumping this thread so your thread count is bigger. ;) Size Matters

April 22nd, 2005, 04:41 PM	#191
Royal Hawaiian Opihi Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Palmdale, CA Posts: 16,604	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade Wow... I'm exhausted, and I haven't even posted in this thread in a page & a half! Frank made some very good points in that epic post... and for the most part the debate has been fairly well-spirited... Let me just say that I knew what I was doing when I put a 2nd round tender on Bulger. Compared to RBs, there are very few QBs who get "market price" for their services. Looking at my cap space, I had to tender at what I thought I could handle, should no one else bid on him. Is he worth more than 2nd round compensation? Yah probably. But isn't the point of RFA tags to hopefully retain players? I'd love to keep him, and hopefully still can for the 2005 season and beyond. I also believe that it's up to the entire league to ensure that RFA bidding doesn't go "too low." We only have ourselves to blame, if players get signed "significantly below market value." Quite often I'll bid on a player I have no realistic expectation of getting... simply because I don't want him to sell too cheaply. Now, back to the discussion on "declining" a match... I guess I'm still in the middle left of the debate... since I'm the only who thinks it's okay to decline in a multiple player deal, but not straight up. So honestly, how do we move forward from here?

April 22nd, 2005, 04:49 PM	#195
Flaxwless Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 6,050	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade Don't know where to go, but have the rest of the league chime in. __________________ Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects - 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion Bay Area Bloodsuckers 2008 SAC'D Champions - 2nd Worst to First in Year! 2011 SAC'D Champions - #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!

April 22nd, 2005, 04:51 PM	#196
Royal Hawaiian Opihi Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Palmdale, CA Posts: 16,604	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade Okay, I'll put on my "problem solving" cap now. The issue seems to be: can "RFA declines" be used in trading. Let's put it up for a league-wide vote. Guess we can have "yes" or "no" or something inbetween. We can debate this until we use up our bandwidth... but I think for the good of the league, we need to get some resolultion on things. The results should be effective in 2006, since we can only use what's in the rules now for what we're doing now. The rules committee will have to decide on a case-by-case basis should this come up again between now and the end of the RFA period. So who's with me!?!?!?!

April 22nd, 2005, 04:52 PM	#197
Royal Hawaiian Opihi Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Palmdale, CA Posts: 16,604	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade And I'm amenable to make it the start of the 2007 season, if some owners think that next year's RFA's have already been compromised with what's sold this year.

April 22nd, 2005, 04:53 PM	#200
Urza's Ragers Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Jose, Ca Posts: 1,431	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade Horse is dead, let's leave it alone and move on!!!! I just want to help our thread count.

April 22nd, 2005, 04:59 PM	#206
Flaxwless Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 6,050	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade We need to come otgether seeing as the rules committee would shoot each other. __________________ Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects - 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion Bay Area Bloodsuckers 2008 SAC'D Champions - 2nd Worst to First in Year! 2011 SAC'D Champions - #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end! Last edited by Flaxwless; April 22nd, 2005 at 05:01 PM.

April 22nd, 2005, 05:06 PM	#207
Royal Hawaiian Opihi Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Palmdale, CA Posts: 16,604	Re: Derby Cars and Predators negotiate MONSTER trade Well, let's put it up to a vote anyway... if it ends up 6-6... then let's see if we can find some "middle ground" to which people would be agreeable. We might be able to say certain practices would be allowable, and others would be not allowable. Let's just get the vote started... who's in charge of that?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RB Kevan Barlow (49ers) - SOLD to the Derby Cars for 900 (Match DECLINED by Preds)	The Knights of Ni	Frenzy Restricted Free Agents (RFA) Declaration and Bidding	2	April 18th, 2005 11:59 PM
Javon Walker traded to the Derby Cars	Preds	Frenzy Trading Block	2	March 25th, 2005 07:52 AM
2005 Rookie Draft Order	Preds	Frenzy Rookie Draft	12	January 17th, 2005 06:03 PM