DEAL VOIDED ('06 picks not yet tradeable) - Charles Rogers gets to go to Hawaii

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Nope it’s not a belated Pro Bowl trip it is a chance for Mr. Rogers to join the Royal Hawaiian Opihi’s development/taxi squad. Based on his potential (and past injury issues) the former Frenzy number 1 pick is being sent across the Pacific for a conditional 2006 pick (and yes there are quite a few conditions).

Based on Rogers’ 2005 production (in terms of Total points for WR's):

Top 15- First rounder in 2006
16-30- Second rounder in 2006
31-40- Third rounder in 2006
Outside of the Top 40 there will be no compensation owed.

Also, if Rogers finishes in the Top 40 and the Opihi have more than one pick in the appropriate round the pick will be in relation to where in the bucket Rogers ends up. If compensation is owed it will be transferred on January 1, 2006 (final Sunday of the 2005 season).
----------------

While parting with a guy you traded up to number 1 for is never a good feeling, it is our hope that Rogers will be able to stay healthy and allow us to re-coup some value while also clearing some cap years and dollars from our active roster for the 2005 season.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

The management of the OPIHI warmly welcome Mr. Rogers to the islands... and hope that our "rehab" formula of sand, sun & grass skirts does wonders to keeping him healthy for more than the first game of the season!

This was really an easy decision for us to make... sure, we could be giving up a first round pick in 2006... but if that happens, then he'll have earned a starting spot for us, and we'll gladly send the Freedom their due compensation.

He'll start on our DS/Taxi squad... and have to earn a starting spot. But if anyone had the potential to do it, it's Mr. Rogers.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Based on Rogers’ 2005 production (in terms of Total points for WR's):

Top 15- First rounder in 2006
16-30- Second rounder in 2006
31-40- Third rounder in 2006
Outside of the Top 40 there will be no compensation owed.

Umm, I have a problem with the 4th aspect of this conditional deal... I cannot say that we will or should allow a player to be traded with NO compensation going to the other team.

Knock out the 4th provision and make it a minimum of a 3rd or 4th or whatever round draft pick and I have no problem with the deal itself (although I majorly frown on the conditional aspect of it for reasons cited below). I do, however, have a major problem with potentially no equity being returned to the Freedom if Rogers finishes outside the top 40.

Additionally, while trading conditional picks is not specifically outlawed in the rules, I think we should consider this for future cases as it can make tracking and trading draft picks exceedingly difficult for both the teams involved and the league itself. I don't have a problem when its giving up the higher or lower pick you might have within 1 round, but involving multiple rounds as this deal does is constrictive to the league and the teams involved.

Jim, this essentially wipes away your ability to trade any picks within rounds 1-3 of 2006, thus making it difficult for others to trade with you pertaining those picks, which IMO affects the league as a whole, which is why I don't like deals such as this.

Anyhow, get rid of the no comp if outside the top 40 and I have no issue with the deal aside from Jim's insanity for such an injury prone underproductive bust (FYI, I offerered Matt a 3rd and told him if someone was crazy enough to offer a deal such as this to take it and run as fast as he could ;))!

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I am fine with it being a fourth rounder if he finsishes outside of the Top 40 but did not want to limit Jim's chance to get a future practice squad player.

Jim, if you are alright with this that is fine by me otherwise I would be equally fine with it being a 3rd rounder for anything outside of the Top 30.

Let me know what you think and we can make sure that this will garner the leagues approval. Thanks!!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Umm, I have a problem with the 4th aspect of this conditional deal... I cannot say that we will or should allow a player to be traded with NO compensation going to the other team.

Knock out the 4th provision and make it a minimum of a 3rd or 4th or whatever round draft pick and I have no problem with the deal itself (although I majorly frown on the conditional aspect of it for reasons cited below). I do, however, have a major problem with potentially no equity being returned to the Freedom if Rogers finishes outside the top 40.

Additionally, while trading conditional picks is not specifically outlawed in the rules, I think we should consider this for future cases as it can make tracking and trading draft picks exceedingly difficult for both the teams involved and the league itself. I don't have a problem when its giving up the higher or lower pick you might have within 1 round, but involving multiple rounds as this deal does is constrictive to the league and the teams involved.

Jim, this essentially wipes away your ability to trade any picks within rounds 1-3 of 2006, thus making it difficult for others to trade with you pertaining those picks, which IMO affects the league as a whole, which is why I don't like deals such as this.

Anyhow, get rid of the no comp if outside the top 40 and I have no issue with the deal aside from Jim's insanity for such an injury prone underproductive bust (FYI, I offerered Matt a 3rd and told him if someone was crazy enough to offer a deal such as this to take it and run as fast as he could ;))!

I also agree that a potentially compensation free trade would violate at least the spirit of the rules.

I think the idea of conditional picks does make it difficult to make deals, but I don't think to the detriment of the league. Matt and I made a conditional trade for Pennington a couple of years back. When the opprtunity arose to make another deal with draft picks involved, I simply went back to Matt (or he came to me) and we agreed on a definite pick. Teams don't seem to shy away from wheeling and dealing around here, so I think that would easily be accomplished in the future as well.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I also agree that a potentially compensation free trade would violate at least the spirit of the rules.

I think the idea of conditional picks does make it difficult to make deals, but I don't think to the detriment of the league. Matt and I made a conditional trade for Pennington a couple of years back. When the opprtunity arose to make another deal with draft picks involved, I simply went back to Matt (or he came to me) and we agreed on a definite pick. Teams don't seem to shy away from wheeling and dealing around here, so I think that would easily be accomplished in the future as well.

Right, I specifically remember that deal, and I also remember how it constricted you guys, which is why you came to terms later on on a seperate deal that solidified the pick.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

So do we need to put this up to a league vote, then... re: conditional picks? We still have a day or so before the April 1st "new year" start. If need be, Matt & I can tweak things a bit...

I guess I'm also not clear as to why performance incentive trades that would allow someone to go without compensation would be harmful to the league? Unless you think people would abuse that as a means of trying to dump players.

I wasn't really thinking about this constricting my trade options... if Rogers gets hurt again, then it'll be pretty clear, I guess. As for not offering more than a 3rd rounder... I can understand if it's a straight up trade. But if he performs as a top WR, why not offer decent compensation? If he doesn't, I wasn't gonig to be out anything...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

So do we need to put this up to a league vote, then... re: conditional picks? We still have a day or so before the April 1st "new year" start. If need be, Matt & I can tweak things a bit...

I guess I'm also not clear as to why performance incentive trades that would allow someone to go without compensation would be harmful to the league? Unless you think people would abuse that as a means of trying to dump players.

I wasn't really thinking about this constricting my trade options... if Rogers gets hurt again, then it'll be pretty clear, I guess. As for not offering more than a 3rd rounder... I can understand if it's a straight up trade. But if he performs as a top WR, why not offer decent compensation? If he doesn't, I wasn't gonig to be out anything...

No, the conditional part of your deal doesn't need to be put up for vote, I don't care for the clause, but that's not against the rules per se. All that being said Jim, It'd be my opinion that you will not be allowed to trade any of your 2006 picks in rounds 1-3 until the season was complete. Those picks are essentially locked in limbo until the final gun sounds on the week 17 games.

What I have a problem with in this deal is the potential for clause 4 to kick in if Rogers once again produces outside the top 40 which would result in Matt trading away a player for no compensation. IMO there has to be tangible compensation on both sides of the deal.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

So do we need to put this up to a league vote, then... re: conditional picks? We still have a day or so before the April 1st "new year" start. If need be, Matt & I can tweak things a bit...

I guess I'm also not clear as to why performance incentive trades that would allow someone to go without compensation would be harmful to the league? Unless you think people would abuse that as a means of trying to dump players.

I wasn't really thinking about this constricting my trade options... if Rogers gets hurt again, then it'll be pretty clear, I guess. As for not offering more than a 3rd rounder... I can understand if it's a straight up trade. But if he performs as a top WR, why not offer decent compensation? If he doesn't, I wasn't gonig to be out anything...

I agree with what Mike said, and to the issue of abusing it, I don't think the people in this league would. However, allowing this trade would set the precedent that a player could be traded for no compensation. I don't think we want to open the door on a gray area anywhere near that. Each team needs to give something up for each trade.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

No, the conditional part of your deal doesn't need to be put up for vote, I don't care for the clause, but that's not against the rules per se. All that being said Jim, It'd be my opinion that you will not be allowed to trade any of your 2006 picks in rounds 1-3 until the season was complete. Those picks are essentially locked in limbo until the final gun sounds on the week 17 games.

What I have a problem with in this deal is the potential for clause 4 to kick in if Rogers once again produces outside the top 40 which would result in Matt trading away a player for no compensation. IMO there has to be tangible compensation on both sides of the deal.

Couple of thoughts here... first, I see your point about my being limited in my draft pick trades... especially at the start of the year. However, by mid-season, I'm sure the picture will be pretty clear as to whether or not Rogers is going to meet any of those incentives. If he's doing really well, then I'll have to hold off. If he's been injured, or hasn't performed well, then I can be pretty confident that my first round pick will be there.... possibly even my 2nd.

Second, in the dynasty league in which I play, we also allow conditional trades... even trades that can be made with one side not getting anything, should the player fail to live up to the conditions of the trade. In my opinion, if the trade is structured fairly, then why not allow this? The only problem I could see was what I mentioned before - that some would use this as a "get rid of Player X" without it being a legitimate condition in return.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Couple of thoughts here... first, I see your point about my being limited in my draft pick trades... especially at the start of the year. However, by mid-season, I'm sure the picture will be pretty clear as to whether or not Rogers is going to meet any of those incentives. If he's doing really well, then I'll have to hold off. If he's been injured, or hasn't performed well, then I can be pretty confident that my first round pick will be there.... possibly even my 2nd.

Second, in the dynasty league in which I play, we also allow conditional trades... even trades that can be made with one side not getting anything, should the player fail to live up to the conditions of the trade. In my opinion, if the trade is structured fairly, then why not allow this? The only problem I could see was what I mentioned before - that some would use this as a "get rid of Player X" without it being a legitimate condition in return.

Jim,

I'm gonna tell you straight up that if you don't modify the 4th clause to include some form of guarenteed compensation I'm going to vote down the trade and encourage others on the Rules Committee to do so as well. I think it will set a horrible precedent and is a line we don't want to cross and shouldn't have to.

You're receiving a player (granted a potential boom/more likely bust guy, but a legit player nonetheless), you HAVE to give up something tangible IMO. No way around that.

As to the conditional part, if a pick is conditional on year end performance, then I feel you'd be required to wait until the season is completely over for the conditional aspect of the trade to be lifted. With the excpetion of IR, a player could start off super slow, and blow up week 15-17 vaulting him into premier status. No way would I feel comfortable allowing you to free up your picks until week 17 ended. I don't think you can burn the candles on both ends with this one.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I can understand the fear about dumping players but in this case I was trying to add some extra upside for Jim (and I was willing to take on the risk of getting nothing in return for a guy I traded up to draft).

In any event I think Jim and I are in agreement on the following (unless we are going to allow the league to vote on the original deal):

Based on Rogers’ 2005 production (in terms of Total points for WR's):

Top 15- First rounder in 2006
16-30- Second rounder in 2006
31-40- Third rounder in 2006
Outside of the Top 40 the Freedom will receive the Opihi’s 4th rounder or the Freedom will swap 4th picks with the Opihi if the Opihi’s pick is higher.

Also, if Rogers finishes in the Top 40 and the Opihi have more than one pick in the appropriate round the pick will be in relation to where in the bucket Rogers end up. If compensation is owed it will be transferred on January 1, 2006 (final Sunday of the 2005 season).

Also, if Jim feels he is in a bind at any point next year I see this playing out like the Pennington deal with Dodgers where we find another way to finish this off and grant Jim the freedom to make other deals.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Also, if Jim feels he is in a bind at any point next year I see this playing out like the Pennington deal with Dodgers where we find another way to finish this off and grant Jim the freedom to make other deals.

If we can have this freedom, then I see no problem with this.... especially since precedence has been set.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I
Based on Rogers’ 2005 production (in terms of Total points for WR's):

Top 15- First rounder in 2006
16-30- Second rounder in 2006
31-40- Third rounder in 2006
Outside of the Top 40 the Freedom will receive the Opihi’s 4th rounder or the Freedom will swap 4th picks with the Opihi if the Opihi’s pick is higher.

Also, if Rogers finishes in the Top 40 and the Opihi have more than one pick in the appropriate round the pick will be in relation to where in the bucket Rogers end up. If compensation is owed it will be transferred on January 1, 2006 (final Sunday of the 2005 season).

Matt,

The revised clause for the 4th option is acceptable IMO. Though it now ties up Jim's entire slate of 2006 picks! ;)

However, can you clarify that last sentance? Are we talking Jim's personal picks or those he may acquire as well? I think you need to limit this to the picks currently in his possesion.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

Jim,

I'm gonna tell you straight up that if you don't modify the 4th clause to include some form of guarenteed compensation I'm going to vote down the trade and encourage others on the Rules Committee to do so as well. I think it will set a horrible precedent and is a line we don't want to cross and shouldn't have to.

You're receiving a player (granted a potential boom/more likely bust guy, but a legit player nonetheless), you HAVE to give up something tangible IMO. No way around that.

As to the conditional part, if a pick is conditional on year end performance, then I feel you'd be required to wait until the season is completely over for the conditional aspect of the trade to be lifted. With the excpetion of IR, a player could start off super slow, and blow up week 15-17 vaulting him into premier status. No way would I feel comfortable allowing you to free up your picks until week 17 ended. I don't think you can burn the candles on both ends with this one.

No worries Mike... just a difference of opinion here on what's acceptible. I know you're a guy with tremendous passion, and you have to do what you feel is best. I disagree... and don't see it as "horrible precident". But I'm not willing to "fall on my sword" over this. I think Matt's post re: the 4th round compensation should be more than adequate... and we could very well "solidify" this trade in mid-season with a more firm resolution.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

If we can have this freedom, then I see no problem with this.... especially since precedence has been set.

Jim,

Keep in mind another trade was made, the Freedom and Dodgers didn't just change the terms, they specifically made a new deal which involved another player or 2 and solifdified the compensation owed to the Freedom for Pennington.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

Matt,

The revised clause for the 4th option is acceptable IMO. Though it now ties up Jim's entire slate of 2006 picks! ;)

However, can you calrify that last sentance? Are we talking Jim's personal picks or those he may acquire as well? I think you need to limit this to the picks currently in his possesion.

It was for any future picks I may have... since we're tying up all my picks with this one! lol

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I agree that it was meant as any pick that Jim may have.

Based on Rogers’ 2005 production (in terms of Total points for WR's):

Top 15- First rounder in 2006
16-30- Second rounder in 2006
31-40- Third rounder in 2006
Outside of the Top 40 the Freedom will receive the Opihi’s 4th rounder or the Freedom will swap one 4th round pick with the Opihi if any of the Opihi’s picks are higher.

Also, if Rogers finishes in the Top 40 and the Opihi have more than one pick in the appropriate round the pick will be in relation to where in the bucket Rogers end up. If compensation is owed it will be transferred on January 1, 2006 (final Sunday of the 2005 season).

[Preds]

The sentance Matt wrote makes no sense though, what does he mean that the pick will depend where in the bucket Rogers ends up for each round or whatever? The sentance is pretty confusing and appears to be lacking details, I still don't grasp how the compensation would be determined if Jim were to have multiple picks within one round.

I think you should keep this in line with the picks presently in Jim's possession.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I agree that it was meant as any pick that Jim may have.

Based on Rogers’ 2005 production (in terms of Total points for WR's):

Top 15- First rounder in 2006
16-30- Second rounder in 2006
31-40- Third rounder in 2006
Outside of the Top 40 the Freedom will receive the Opihi’s 4th rounder or the Freedom will swap one 4th round pick with the Opihi if any of the Opihi’s picks are higher.

Also, if Rogers finishes in the Top 40 and the Opihi have more than one pick in the appropriate round the pick will be in relation to where in the bucket Rogers end up. If compensation is owed it will be transferred on January 1, 2006 (final Sunday of the 2005 season).

Matt, I'm not talking about the new clause, I'm OK with that, I'm talking about the paragraph below it which doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify. Thanks!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

Jim,

Keep in mind another trade was made, the Freedom and Dodgers didn't just change the terms, they specifically made a new deal which involved another player or 2 and solifdified the compensation owed to the Freedom for Pennington.

It seems that it would be helpful, then, to set up what might be acceptible. I don't remember the specifics of how that trade went down... so let's just talk about this one...

Which of these would be allowed:
1. At any point in the 2005 year, Freedom & Opihi agree on which specific draft pick will be transferred to the Freedom.
2. We must wait until the end of the 2005 season in order to transfer picks.
3. At any point in the 2005 year, both teams agree to "tweak" the deal to something that's solid, and may or may not include other players.

I'm not trying to "stir things up" here... just want to be clear what's acceptible.

I'm also fine with knowing that my 2006 picks are somewhat tied up right now... I'll take that chance, especially if option 1 above is fine with the league.

(Gee, it's sure good to get back in the flow of fantasy football again!) :toast:

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

Matt, I'm not talking about the new clause, I'm OK with that, I'm talking about the paragraph below it which doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify. Thanks!

Mike, what we'd talked about is... say I eventually acquire two picks in the 2nd round next year. If Rogers finishes in the Top 16-30, then I would owe Matt a 2nd round pick. If Rogers finishes in the front half of that 16-30 (ie. spots 16-23) then he gets the higher of my 2nd round picks. If Rogers finishes in the 24-30 spot, then he gets the lower pick.

If I only have one pick, then he gets that no matter where it is!

Make sense now?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

1. At any point in the 2005 year, Freedom & Opihi agree on which specific draft pick will be transferred to the Freedom.

No, IMO a new deal would be required.

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

2. We must wait until the end of the 2005 season in order to transfer picks.

Yes, unless you make a new trade that involves additional picks and players and essentially involves solidifying the compensation of this deal

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

3. At any point in the 2005 year, both teams agree to "tweak" the deal to something that's solid, and may or may not include other players.

Kinda, some form of additional tangible compensation will still need to be involved.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Mike, what we'd talked about is... say I eventually acquire two picks in the 2nd round next year. If Rogers finishes in the Top 16-30, then I would owe Matt a 2nd round pick. If Rogers finishes in the front half of that 16-30 (ie. spots 16-23) then he gets the higher of my 2nd round picks. If Rogers finishes in the 24-30 spot, then he gets the lower pick.

If I only have one pick, then he gets that no matter where it is!

Make sense now?

That's fine, though in theory it'll tie up every pick you may acquire as well. I think that needs to be clarified for the final deal though, I had no idea that you were splitting the tiers. You need to spell it all out for me ;)

[Preds]

BTW, I just want to say my hat's off to Matt on pulling this one off (sorry Jim), I think he by far got the max potential out of Rogers that he could have. I personally felt Rogers had no value higher than a 3rd round pick.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Mike, back to the 3 options a few posts ago... if #1 won't work, but you say a new deal could be reached, what does that mean? Rogers will already be on my team, won't he?! Can we say "scratch that original deal, the NEW DEAL is" and then spell out whatever we want?

I'm thinking we get to the middle of the season, and we both agree that Rogers is worth a 2nd rounder. Can we say that's the new deal and be done with it, thereby freeing up my 1st, 3rd & 4th round picks? Or are you saying that it MUST involve other players in order to be redone?

(Man, this is way more confusing that it ever was intended to be!)

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

BTW, I just want to say my hat's off to Matt on pulling this one off (sorry Jim), I think he by far got the max potential out of Rogers that he could have. I personally felt Rogers had no value higher than a 3rd round pick.

Yay Matt. But I'm still having a hard time figuring out why this is a bad deal for me. If he performs well, he'll have earned the higher pick. If not, I only give up a 4th round pick (might even get to swap picks)! Are you saying that if he performs well enough to warrant a 1st-2nd round pick this year, his injury history is bound to catch up with him, and the chances that he'll maintain that level of production are slim to nil? In that case, it's a risk I'm prepared to take, I guess.

[Mutts]

I'm fine with this, but agree with Mike and Brian on the part of the deal that allows for potentially no compensation. Make the minimum compensation a 2006 4th rounder and I think it looks like a good deal for both. As I see it, this will eliminate Opihi's ability to trade any 2006 draft picks (1st-4th) during the upcoming season.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Yay Matt. But I'm still having a hard time figuring out why this is a bad deal for me. If he performs well, he'll have earned the higher pick. If not, I only give up a 4th round pick (might even get to swap picks)! Are you saying that if he performs well enough to warrant a 1st-2nd round pick this year, his injury history is bound to catch up with him, and the chances that he'll maintain that level of production are slim to nil? In that case, it's a risk I'm prepared to take, I guess.

I'm saying that with only 3 years left on his deal, the possibility of giving up a future #1 for him outweighs (by far IMO) his value.

And yes, IMO, one healthy season will not make me a believer in Charlie!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Mike, back to the 3 options a few posts ago... if #1 won't work, but you say a new deal could be reached, what does that mean? Rogers will already be on my team, won't he?! Can we say "scratch that original deal, the NEW DEAL is" and then spell out whatever we want?

I'm thinking we get to the middle of the season, and we both agree that Rogers is worth a 2nd rounder. Can we say that's the new deal and be done with it, thereby freeing up my 1st, 3rd & 4th round picks? Or are you saying that it MUST involve other players in order to be redone?

(Man, this is way more confusing that it ever was intended to be!)

Yes, I'm saying you can't modify the original deal after the fact without new tangible "assets" being involved.

The deal is what it is, it's a conditional deal based on performance, and as such, that will be how it plays out.

Now to "modify" the deal, Matt is in a sense trading back the conditional "asset" he received and you are sending him additional compensation in some form to acquire that back and then resend it however you wish.