Steve Smith potentially being traded

[Popes]

I hadn't really planned to trade Smith (1 year, 1089), but after an offer appeared that I really like, I'm thinking about parting with him. If I do so, it'll probably happen tomorrow.

In the interests of avoiding "Hey, you should have told me you wanted to move him!" comments tomorrow, I'm giving you all a heads-up. If you want to make an offer for him, I'm open to hearing it.

I'm currently being offered two "on-the-cusp" prospects and a 2nd round pick. This is the kind of thing I'm looking for.

What I consider an "on-the-cusp" prospect: a rookie contract guy who, due to his situation as starter or partial performance last year, looks to be on the cusp of performing as a worthwhile FF starter. Whether or not he will, we don't know, but do know that he has a starting NFL job and maybe put up some hopeful #s in limited time last year (think C. Benson, V. Davis).

I'm leaving the house in 90 minutes and then I'll be offline for 5 hours. I'll check back in around midnight Central time.

[Flaxwless]

Will definatley be intersted in how this plays out.

You gave me two 1st rounders, Hassellbeck, and Jacobs
for
Smith, 1.14 and Delhomme.

What's Mike offering you?

Lienart, Mark Clayton, and a 2nd?

If he does that... would be interesting. I believed I offered something similiar with Lienart and Clayton 1st but got shot down.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Popes

I hadn't really planned to trade Smith (1 year, 1089), but after an offer appeared that I really like, I'm thinking about parting with him. If I do so, it'll probably happen tomorrow.

In the interests of avoiding "Hey, you should have told me you wanted to move him!" comments tomorrow, I'm giving you all a heads-up. If you want to make an offer for him, I'm open to hearing it.

I'm currently being offered two "on-the-cusp" prospects and a 2nd round pick. This is the kind of thing I'm looking for.

What I consider an "on-the-cusp" prospect: a rookie contract guy who, due to his situation as starter or partial performance last year, looks to be on the cusp of performing as a worthwhile FF starter. Whether or not he will, we don't know, but do know that he has a starting NFL job and maybe put up some hopeful #s in limited time last year (think C. Benson, V. Davis).

I'm leaving the house in 90 minutes and then I'll be offline for 5 hours. I'll check back in around midnight Central time.

here we go again

how bout I don't insult you with an offer, and you instead tell me what you'd want from my team. No games, no ... you tell me via PM what it'd take and we'll take it from there.

And yes, of course I'm way interested !

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Will definatley be intersted in how this plays out.

You gave me two 1st rounders, Hassellbeck, and Jacobs
for
Smith, 1.14 and Delhomme.

What's Mike offering you?

Lienart, Mark Clayton, and a 2nd?

If he does that... would be interesting. I believed I offered something similiar with Lienart and Clayton 1st but got shot down.

funny, I havent been involved at all... yet

[Popes]

What if I insult you with my demand??? ;)

I'll take a look at your squad when I get home. I'm heading out the door right now...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Popes

What if I insult you with my demand??? ;)

I'll take a look at your squad when I get home. I'm heading out the door right now...

No insult taken... I'm very interested... you're more likely to make a 2 sided fair offer than my reputation, so I'lll let you steer the ship in this one.

[smsmith40]

I'm glad I'm not the other owner involved with Popes because I'd be really p!ssed with this thread.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I'm glad I'm not the other owner involved with Popes because I'd be really p!ssed with this thread.

After playing FF with him for 15+ years I know how and understand why he operates as he does.

[Urza's Ragers]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I'm glad I'm not the other owner involved with Popes because I'd be really p!ssed with this thread.

That's what I was thinking when I first read this...

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I'm glad I'm not the other owner involved with Popes because I'd be really p!ssed with this thread.

Well obviously the other owner needs to step up his deal.

[Cheezy]

Originally Posted by Preds

here we go again

how bout I don't insult you with an offer, and you instead tell me what you'd want from my team. No games, no ... you tell me via PM what it'd take and we'll take it from there.

And yes, of course I'm way interested !

Originally Posted by Preds

funny, I havent been involved at all... yet

Can anyone say SMOKESCREEN? I can, and I think I just did...

[Popes]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

After playing FF with him for 15+ years I know how and understand why he operates as he does.

In addition:

1. I notified him in advance that I'd be operating this way, so there was no surprise.

2. Technically, I made the initial offer. So, it's not like an offer was made to me for Smith (I should have worded that differently in the initial post), then I decided to shop the guy. I made the initial offer, then quickly moved into "Now, if I'm going to truly consider moving Smith as I'm offering to do, I'm going to shop him properly first (especially given Mike's prior interest)".

[smsmith40]

Hey Popes, how you operate is up to you. There's no rules covering this stuff, I just know this is not how I'd like to do business.

[Popes]

No problem. I just wanted to explain myself since criticism was coming my way.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Hey Popes, how you operate is up to you. There's no rules covering this stuff, I just know this is not how I'd like to do business.

Just for clarification, when you're negotiating a trade with someone, you have an assumption that you are in exclusive negotiations until a trade is finalized?

[smsmith40]

Nope, I understand that multiple people may be interested in the same guy (or pick) at the same time. However, if I'd worked out an offer with somebody I woudn't do a general broadcast of the parameters of the trade and invite other offers.

I think you need to judge the value of a trade yourself. By doing as I described you are essentially asking the league "Is this a good trade for me?", if no-one comes up with a better offer then you know its a good trade and you take it. Its using the league's judgement rather than your own.

[smsmith40]

I should have explained. I am a purchase professional. If I asked a supplier for a quote for one of his products and then told all the other suppliers the rough parameters of the quote and asked them to beat it then one of two things would happen. Either no supplier would be willing to give me an initial quote or the quote I did receive would be deliberately uncompetitive. Its a business strategy that might deliver short term gains but would be disasterous in the long term as my credibility would be shot

[Popes]

I appreciate that perspective. If all you're saying is that you disapprove of the inclusion of details (versus a general "I'm shopping" message), then that's much more understandable to me and I only included that info for a specific, unique reason.

Normally, I would simply post "I'm shopping this guy. Contact me if you want to talk." However, Brian was pushing me to get this deal done fast (due to UFA bidding deadlines on his guys). Given that I was not going to be around last night until midnight, such a post might elict several offers not even in the right ballpark that would then require numerous follow-up PMs just to get to a close bargaining range.

By posting the general parameters (without mentioning players or the owners name), I was able to give readers a lot of info up front and allow them to jump into negotiations near the right point, if they so desired. That was about the only way I could do my due diligence research on the marketplace and be ready to make a decision by this morning, which was what Brian wanted.

I guess I disagree that I'm using the league's opinion to confirm or modify mine. I had already decided this was a good deal to me. However, the need for a particular stud player impacts each team differently. If Mike was interested in a trade (and he was), that doesn't tell me my trade with Brian was too low, it simply tells me that Mike is in his own unique situation and is willing to give up more. And, of course, I want to get maximum value for my players. On the flip side, the lack of other offers coming in is more likely to tell you about those teams (lack of cap space, don't like that player's prospects, don't have a need for that position, etc) than it is a confirmation that you've made a "good deal".

I'm also assuming that the info that you're disapproving of (revealing parameters) is talked about constantly in PMs in this league. In fact, I assume people are saying straight up all-the-time: "I can get so-and-so for this guy, you have to beat that if you want to trade with me." Is it OK to privately advertise that info to numerous players of the league, yet more distasteful to make it public (saving the time Brian cared about) w/o mentioning the players?

I could have phrased it more artfully by saying "I'm trading S. Smith. I'm looking for 2 prospects and a 2nd. Contact me if interested." It would have seemed softer, but been essentially identical.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I should have explained. I am a purchase professional. If I asked a supplier for a quote for one of his products and then told all the other suppliers the rough parameters of the quote and asked them to beat it then one of two things would happen. Either no supplier would be willing to give me an initial quote or the quote I did receive would be deliberately uncompetitive. Its a business strategy that might deliver short term gains but would be disasterous in the long term as my credibility would be shot

In addition to what Jason said, I'd add my own comparison, buying a car. A recomended strategy is to elicit offers online from multiple dealers. Take the best offer and send it to the other dealers and see if they'll beat it. If they can't, you have got the best deal you can get. If they beat it, then you take that back to the first best dealer and see if they'll beat that. You're looking to maximize your return, and I have no problem with that.

I'm also somewhat biased by personal experience. Several years ago in our local league, one of the owners, due to injuries and whatever else, had no running backs for a week. He had to make a trade as he was in contention. He ended up trading Terrell Owens (back in his SF prime) for the at the time, 2nd and 3rd string running backs for the Giants. Over half the league would have obviously given more than that for Owens had they known he was being shopped. As it was, the team that received Owens went on the win the championship.

I'd rather see trades happen that are the most fair and least upsetting to the overall balance of power, even if that means I lose out on one here or there.

[Popes]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I should have explained. I am a purchase professional. If I asked a supplier for a quote for one of his products and then told all the other suppliers the rough parameters of the quote and asked them to beat it then one of two things would happen. Either no supplier would be willing to give me an initial quote or the quote I did receive would be deliberately uncompetitive.

I don't disagree at all here. As a soon-to-be lawyer who spent a disportionate amount of time in negotiation classes in law school (heck, I even won an award: http://www.hamline.edu/shared/news_i...ts_bring_.html ), that makes perfect sense. I'd contend that is not analagous to a FF league, where 12 guys are all in the same boat as competitors against each other (as opposed to a buyer/seller scenario) and the goods are of a fixed # and value.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Its a business strategy that might deliver short term gains but would be disasterous in the long term as my credibility would be shot

Funny you should say that. I made this exact same contention to Mike last night regarding approaching FF trades w/ deception and smokescreening.

Right Mike???

[smsmith40]

Firstly, I don't want it to seem like I'm having a rip at Popes, as ND said he is maximising his return. Just beacaue its not how I would operate but that doesn't mean that Popes doesn't have every right to do exactly as he has done, however if I was the other owner I might have at least considered posting openly that the deal was now off the table because I didn't take kindly to having my deal used as leverage against the league (and one particular owner who happened to be desperate for that particular commodity).

ND - my problem with your new car analogy is that in that situation you are one of many thousands of potential customers with a very low purchase frequency and a wide supply base the dealers.

Our situation is much more like the Automotive supplier situation I am familiar with, there are a limited number of customers and only a few capable suppliers (in our case 12). Both sides will have to continue a working relationship through many, many transactions. Its not in your interests to treat your supliers / customers in a way that affects your future credibility

[smsmith40]

I think Mike a role model for the kind of thing I am talking about. I personally think that Mike's approach is going to make it ever harder for him to get a deal done.

I have to admit that he tends to arouse my suspicious nature more than any other owner. There are a couple of guys like Mike in my other leagues, in one case the guy would need to offer LDT for Tiki Barber and a 4.06 rookie pick before I woul deal with him. To be fair, those guys are always in th playoffs so who am I to criticise?

Originally Posted by Popes

I don't disagree at all here. As a soon-to-be lawyer who spent a disportionate amount of time in negotiation classes in law school (heck, I even won an award: http://www.hamline.edu/shared/news_i...ts_bring_.html ), that makes perfect sense. I'd contend that is not analagous to a FF league, where 12 guys are all in the same boat as competitors against each other (as opposed to a buyer/seller scenario) and the goods are of a fixed # and value.

Funny you should say that. I made this exact same contention to Mike last night regarding approaching FF trades w/ deception and smokescreening.

Right Mike???

[Popes]

Very cool. I'd say we don't disagree on the general topic. This was really a one-time deal due to Brian's need for urgency. In fact, I even called him on the phone before I posted the thread to ask him if it would be alright to say that (he wasn't home, so I had to go with it in the interests of time). But knowing him as I do (15 years of playing/talking about FF) and having told him I would be shopping the pick in general, I knew he'd be OK with it. It is not something I would have done if I had been dealing with anyone else in the league.

But I appreciate you making the point, because it allows me to explain myself, so people don't have to assume things. It's funny because Mike and I (and Brian and I) have had long talks about negotiation style and I am very "protect your credibility and long-term relationships" to a fault (I wrote papers on that topic in school), so it's really odd for me to be on this end of this kind of debate

Great conversation!

[smsmith40]

P.S Is the asian guy in the link the long lost brother of the geekie guy from "Road Trip"?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

ND - my problem with your new car analogy is that in that situation you are one of many thousands of potential customers with a very low purchase frequency and a wide supply base the dealers.

Our situation is much more like the Automotive supplier situation I am familiar with, there are a limited number of customers and only a few capable suppliers (in our case 12). Both sides will have to continue a working relationship through many, many transactions. Its not in your interests to treat your supliers / customers in a way that affects your future credibility

I would agree your analogy is an improvement of mine with one exception. In a FF league, the various owners are in direct competition with each other for the end goal of winning. A buyer/supplier relationship is in some sort of competition with each side trying to get the best deal, but a positive relationship is more important for the long term, since dealing with each other is inevitable. We only have a limited number of trading partners, but even with trades being as frequent as they have been this spring, burning a bridge here doesn't have the same dire consequences. Heck, I think Mike and I have burned the bridge between us half a dozen times, but we still talk turkey every now and then.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Popes

I don't disagree at all here. As a soon-to-be lawyer who spent a disportionate amount of time in negotiation classes in law school (heck, I even won an award: http://www.hamline.edu/shared/news_i...ts_bring_.html ), that makes perfect sense. I'd contend that is not analagous to a FF league, where 12 guys are all in the same boat as competitors against each other (as opposed to a buyer/seller scenario) and the goods are of a fixed # and value.

Way to dress up for the photo opp.

[Preds]

, how did I get brought into this thread?

[Popes]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I think Mike a role model for the kind of thing I am talking about. I personally think that Mike's approach is going to make it ever harder for him to get a deal done.

I have to admit that he tends to arouse my suspicious nature more than any other owner. There are a couple of guys like Mike in my other leagues, in one case the guy would need to offer LDT for Tiki Barber and a 4.06 rookie pick before I woul deal with him. To be fair, those guys are always in th playoffs so who am I to criticise?

I actually have had the same reaction since I came into your league here. I should give Mike some credit though. I expressed those thoughts to him and he very deftly switched up to a straight-up negotiation process with me for Smith. I told him I don't react well to the misdirection and he adapted. Very nice. It made for an enjoyable trade conversation!