What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Non issue? Trading league currency to not match on a player (1 Viewer)

Spin

Spin

Footballguy
Quick question on if this should be allowed.

In a 10 team dynasty league that I commish, we have a RFA month. Which means during the month of April, any player who has 0 years is up for bid by the other owners. The original owner then has the option of matching the highest bid and keep the player. Each owner is given 75 "snotes" each year, and these carry over. They are currency which is used to bid on RFAs as well as bid on free agents during the season.

Players are allowed to designate one player each year as their Franchise player. Meaning they pay 10 snotes up front, then they only have to match half of the high bid, If they lose their franchise player, by not matching the high bid, they get compensation in terms of a pick. The downside to franchise tagging a player is they only get a 1 year contract, so you get to do it all over again next year.

This year Team C franchise tagged Peyton Manning. Team C had 11 snotes (after matching a bid of 55 on Adrian Peterson).

Team A has 122 snotes and bid 45 on Peyton, so Team C would have to spend 13 to match (half of 45 + his 10 snotes cost of tagging player), but he only had 11. So he spent a day trying to "sell" draft picks for snotes but no one would make a deal with him, so he instead chose to trade Peyton.

Team B acquired Peyton Manning and now has the option of matching to keep Peyton or letting him walk and get the compensation. Team A approached team B and offered to give him 30 snotes in order for him to not match on Peyton.

So it would be a trade that consists of:

Team A gives:

30 snotes

Team B gives:

A promise to not match the current high bid on Peyton

This has never happened before so there is no league bylaw that covers it, and I'm not sure I like the idea of people trading league commodities for "promises" to do something, or am I way over thinking this?

 
I could see the "slippery slope" concern, but if there's is no rule against it, I'd let it slide. A "promise" is a valid consideration for a binding contract - and as long as the promise isn't for a commodity outside of the league (i.e. I'll mow your lawn, let you bop my sister, buy you a six pack) I don't see any real harm.

 
I would suggest you consider a rule that states trading players with expired contacts once RFA starts is not allowed. It is simple and will help stop a bad situation from coming up.

 
I read this as:

Team A has a "live" bid of 45 snotes to acquire Manning through RFA, to whomever the Manning owner is. Now he is offering the current (new) Manning owner an additional 30 snotes to NOT match his bid.

So, Team B, the new & current Manning owner, would get a total of 75 snotes, a compensatory draft pick, and lose Manning (the player he just acquired thru trade) if he didn't match the bid from Team A.

Is this correct?

If it is, the only one that "may" have gotten jobbed in this deal is Team C, but you didn't specify what compensation he received for Manning in the trade, so not sure about that. In addition he left himself in position to come of out this poorly by owning only 11 snotes, but I can see why he paid up for Peterson.

If my interpretations are correct, I don't think I would have a problem with this if I was commissioner. Team A has the ammunition to use as best he sees fit and barring a rule specifically banning the use of snotes for this type of scenario there isn't much you can balk at right now. If you don't like it, a rule change might be in order. Otherwise, yes, you are over thinking it.

 
This part just doesn't seem right:

Team A gives:

30 snotes

Team B gives:

A promise to not match the current high bid on Peyton

By itself it reads like "I'll give you something if you promise not to bid on a player I want". Seems shady to me.

 
Amused to Death said:
This part just doesn't seem right:

Team A gives:

30 snotes

Team B gives:

A promise to not match the current high bid on Peyton

By itself it reads like "I'll give you something if you promise not to bid on a player I want". Seems shady to me.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that Team B has a commodity "the rights to match the offer for Peyton Manning and thus roster him" that he is moving for value. I think it's pretty similar to team C being allowed to move Manning (when he wouldn't have been able to match the first bid). In fact I think allowing Team C to trade Manning as a RFA, when he didn't have enough money to match, is the more egrecious act.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Amused to Death said:
This part just doesn't seem right:

Team A gives:

30 snotes

Team B gives:

A promise to not match the current high bid on Peyton

By itself it reads like "I'll give you something if you promise not to bid on a player I want". Seems shady to me.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that Team B has a commodity "the rights to match the offer for Peyton Manning and thus roster him" that he is moving for value. I think it's pretty similar to team C being allowed to move Manning (when he wouldn't have been able to match the first bid). In fact I think allowing Team C to trade Manning as a RFA, when he didn't have enough money to match, is the more egrecious act.
Click to expand...
My salary cap contract league allows for the trading of RFA rights and specifically says in the rules that we can't trade cap space. So personally I see RFA rights being traded regularly. However, if we had a deal that sent an RFA right for a pick to someone, I would have a problem if that deal included a handshake and a wink that the original owner wouldn't bid up the player. This seems like something similar.

Not the same situation, but I would also have a problem if a deal was made for one owner to not bid on a player someone else wanted.

:2cents:

 
Asking for compensation in exchange for refraining from doing harm is known as extortion. Shouldn't be legal.

I also think it shouldn't be legal for Team C to trade the rights to Manning when there is a bid on the table. I don't know what the NFL rules are on tagging but I'd bet that once someone has bid, you can't trade the rights to the player; certainly you can't trade him with the tag still intact.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
I read this as:

Team A has a "live" bid of 45 snotes to acquire Manning through RFA, to whomever the Manning owner is. Now he is offering the current (new) Manning owner an additional 30 snotes to NOT match his bid.

So, Team B, the new & current Manning owner, would get a total of 75 snotes, a compensatory draft pick, and lose Manning (the player he just acquired thru trade) if he didn't match the bid from Team A.

Is this correct?

If it is, the only one that "may" have gotten jobbed in this deal is Team C, but you didn't specify what compensation he received for Manning in the trade, so not sure about that. In addition he left himself in position to come of out this poorly by owning only 11 snotes, but I can see why he paid up for Peterson.

If my interpretations are correct, I don't think I would have a problem with this if I was commissioner. Team A has the ammunition to use as best he sees fit and barring a rule specifically banning the use of snotes for this type of scenario there isn't much you can balk at right now. If you don't like it, a rule change might be in order. Otherwise, yes, you are over thinking it.
Click to expand...
Close, Team B would only get 30 snotes, the 45 get "spent" and are just removed. If you win a bid on a player the owner doesn't get those snotes, they just go away.

 
Spin said:
Ruffrodys05 said:
I read this as:

Team A has a "live" bid of 45 snotes to acquire Manning through RFA, to whomever the Manning owner is. Now he is offering the current (new) Manning owner an additional 30 snotes to NOT match his bid.

So, Team B, the new & current Manning owner, would get a total of 75 snotes, a compensatory draft pick, and lose Manning (the player he just acquired thru trade) if he didn't match the bid from Team A.

Is this correct?

If it is, the only one that "may" have gotten jobbed in this deal is Team C, but you didn't specify what compensation he received for Manning in the trade, so not sure about that. In addition he left himself in position to come of out this poorly by owning only 11 snotes, but I can see why he paid up for Peterson.

If my interpretations are correct, I don't think I would have a problem with this if I was commissioner. Team A has the ammunition to use as best he sees fit and barring a rule specifically banning the use of snotes for this type of scenario there isn't much you can balk at right now. If you don't like it, a rule change might be in order. Otherwise, yes, you are over thinking it.
Click to expand...
Close, Team B would only get 30 snotes, the 45 get "spent" and are just removed. If you win a bid on a player the owner doesn't get those snotes, they just go away.
Click to expand...
So Team A loses 45 snotes for the right to acquire Manning thru RFA, but they don't go to the team losing Manning in RFA, they "poof" into thin air. But he can trade 30 snotes to the team losing Manning in RFA to not match his bid of 45 snotes.

Okay, seems strange to me, but if it's following/allowed per current rules, I'm okay with it. Unless I'm not, then I would push for some modifications of the bylaws. Others have posted good alternatives.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
Spin said:
Ruffrodys05 said:
I read this as:

Team A has a "live" bid of 45 snotes to acquire Manning through RFA, to whomever the Manning owner is. Now he is offering the current (new) Manning owner an additional 30 snotes to NOT match his bid.

So, Team B, the new & current Manning owner, would get a total of 75 snotes, a compensatory draft pick, and lose Manning (the player he just acquired thru trade) if he didn't match the bid from Team A.

Is this correct?

If it is, the only one that "may" have gotten jobbed in this deal is Team C, but you didn't specify what compensation he received for Manning in the trade, so not sure about that. In addition he left himself in position to come of out this poorly by owning only 11 snotes, but I can see why he paid up for Peterson.

If my interpretations are correct, I don't think I would have a problem with this if I was commissioner. Team A has the ammunition to use as best he sees fit and barring a rule specifically banning the use of snotes for this type of scenario there isn't much you can balk at right now. If you don't like it, a rule change might be in order. Otherwise, yes, you are over thinking it.
Click to expand...
Close, Team B would only get 30 snotes, the 45 get "spent" and are just removed. If you win a bid on a player the owner doesn't get those snotes, they just go away.
Click to expand...
So Team A loses 45 snotes for the right to acquire Manning thru RFA, but they don't go to the team losing Manning in RFA, they "poof" into thin air. But he can trade 30 snotes to the team losing Manning in RFA to not match his bid of 45 snotes.

Okay, seems strange to me, but if it's following/allowed per current rules, I'm okay with it. Unless I'm not, then I would push for some modifications of the bylaws. Others have posted good alternatives.
Click to expand...
Yah, we handle it the same as if you're bidding on any other free agents, the only difference is the old owner has the ability to match the high bid.

It's allowed in the sense that there isn't anything saying they can not do it.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
Spin said:
Ruffrodys05 said:
I read this as:

Team A has a "live" bid of 45 snotes to acquire Manning through RFA, to whomever the Manning owner is. Now he is offering the current (new) Manning owner an additional 30 snotes to NOT match his bid.

So, Team B, the new & current Manning owner, would get a total of 75 snotes, a compensatory draft pick, and lose Manning (the player he just acquired thru trade) if he didn't match the bid from Team A.

Is this correct?

If it is, the only one that "may" have gotten jobbed in this deal is Team C, but you didn't specify what compensation he received for Manning in the trade, so not sure about that. In addition he left himself in position to come of out this poorly by owning only 11 snotes, but I can see why he paid up for Peterson.

If my interpretations are correct, I don't think I would have a problem with this if I was commissioner. Team A has the ammunition to use as best he sees fit and barring a rule specifically banning the use of snotes for this type of scenario there isn't much you can balk at right now. If you don't like it, a rule change might be in order. Otherwise, yes, you are over thinking it.
Click to expand...
Close, Team B would only get 30 snotes, the 45 get "spent" and are just removed. If you win a bid on a player the owner doesn't get those snotes, they just go away.
Click to expand...
So Team A loses 45 snotes for the right to acquire Manning thru RFA, but they don't go to the team losing Manning in RFA, they "poof" into thin air. But he can trade 30 snotes to the team losing Manning in RFA to not match his bid of 45 snotes.Okay, seems strange to me, but if it's following/allowed per current rules, I'm okay with it. Unless I'm not, then I would push for some modifications of the bylaws. Others have posted good alternatives.
Click to expand...
They don't really "poof", it's like they're going to the player. Just like when free agents are signed in the NFL.
 
John 14:6 said:
Ruffrodys05 said:
So Team A loses 45 snotes for the right to acquire Manning thru RFA, but they don't go to the team losing Manning in RFA, they "poof" into thin air. But he can trade 30 snotes to the team losing Manning in RFA to not match his bid of 45 snotes.Okay, seems strange to me, but if it's following/allowed per current rules, I'm okay with it. Unless I'm not, then I would push for some modifications of the bylaws. Others have posted good alternatives.
Click to expand...
They don't really "poof", it's like they're going to the player. Just like when free agents are signed in the NFL.
Click to expand...
I took it as a league fee, in which the "s-notes" bid are paid to the league for the right to successfully acquire a player through a RFA move. They are annually distributed by the league and are cumulative so you can stockpile them. They return to the league when you exorcise your rights and make a successful RFA claim.

amiright?

 
I wouldn't want the precedent of allowing teams to trade a currency for another team running their team in a fashion the first team wants. That's pretty clear collusion. A trade should be an exchange of tangible assets, not paying someone to use those assets the way you want.

If they want to do the change then either Team B should match the bid and then trade Peyton after.... or Team B should trade to Team A the rights to match that he obtained from Team C. Which would create the unusual situation of Team A having the right to match his own high bid. But that's still better than allowing what would be a collusive transaction.

 
CalBear said:
Asking for compensation in exchange for refraining from doing harm is known as extortion. Shouldn't be legal.

I also think it shouldn't be legal for Team C to trade the rights to Manning when there is a bid on the table. I don't know what the NFL rules are on tagging but I'd bet that once someone has bid, you can't trade the rights to the player; certainly you can't trade him with the tag still intact.
Click to expand...
I agree with this by the way, that it's probably not a great idea to allow that.

Though since it has already been decided they can be traded, I'd suggest they just trade the rights rather than pay someone off for how to exercise those rights.

 
Greg Russell said:
CalBear said:
Asking for compensation in exchange for refraining from doing harm is known as extortion. Shouldn't be legal.

I also think it shouldn't be legal for Team C to trade the rights to Manning when there is a bid on the table. I don't know what the NFL rules are on tagging but I'd bet that once someone has bid, you can't trade the rights to the player; certainly you can't trade him with the tag still intact.
Click to expand...
I agree with this by the way, that it's probably not a great idea to allow that.

Though since it has already been decided they can be traded, I'd suggest they just trade the rights rather than pay someone off for how to exercise those rights.
Click to expand...
The only caveat to this would be the fact that if Player A wins Peyton Manning from Player C, he can assign as many contract years as he wants. If Player C matches, since he is franchise tagged, he only gets a 1 year contract.

 
I think that you've gotta put a rule in that once a player has been offered a contract during the RFA signing period, that player is locked to the original owner and they must choose to match the offer or concede the rights to that player.

I'd be really annoyed with how this all went down if I was the team offering Peyton a contract during RFA.

In my SC league we can trade RFAs, but I don't recall a time where an RFA was ever traded to another team during the signing period AND that player was offered a contract by a completely different team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spin said:
Greg Russell said:
CalBear said:
Asking for compensation in exchange for refraining from doing harm is known as extortion. Shouldn't be legal.

I also think it shouldn't be legal for Team C to trade the rights to Manning when there is a bid on the table. I don't know what the NFL rules are on tagging but I'd bet that once someone has bid, you can't trade the rights to the player; certainly you can't trade him with the tag still intact.
Click to expand...
I agree with this by the way, that it's probably not a great idea to allow that.

Though since it has already been decided they can be traded, I'd suggest they just trade the rights rather than pay someone off for how to exercise those rights.
Click to expand...
The only caveat to this would be the fact that if Player A wins Peyton Manning from Player C, he can assign as many contract years as he wants. If Player C matches, since he is franchise tagged, he only gets a 1 year contract.
Click to expand...
Assuming Team B trades those rights... Team A would have to follow the rules for whichever option he chooses. If I followed correctly, he could exercise the tag rights and keep him cheaper (13 snotes i think?) but for only 1 year. Or Team A could not match and let his own high bid stand and in doing so, get extra contract years but he's paying more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eNdblu said:
I think that you've gotta put a rule in that once a player has been offered a contract during the RFA signing period, that player is locked to the original owner and they must choose to match the offer or concede the rights to that player.

I'd be really annoyed with how this all went down if I was the team offering Peyton a contract during RFA.

In my SC league we can trade RFAs, but I don't recall a time where an RFA was ever traded to another team during the signing period AND that player was offered a contract by a completely different team.
Click to expand...
Yah, this is where I think I'm going to propose at our next owners meeting. It really hasn't happened before until this year.

 
Greg Russell said:
Spin said:
Greg Russell said:
CalBear said:
Asking for compensation in exchange for refraining from doing harm is known as extortion. Shouldn't be legal.

I also think it shouldn't be legal for Team C to trade the rights to Manning when there is a bid on the table. I don't know what the NFL rules are on tagging but I'd bet that once someone has bid, you can't trade the rights to the player; certainly you can't trade him with the tag still intact.
Click to expand...
I agree with this by the way, that it's probably not a great idea to allow that.

Though since it has already been decided they can be traded, I'd suggest they just trade the rights rather than pay someone off for how to exercise those rights.
Click to expand...
The only caveat to this would be the fact that if Player A wins Peyton Manning from Player C, he can assign as many contract years as he wants. If Player C matches, since he is franchise tagged, he only gets a 1 year contract.
Click to expand...
Assuming Team B trades those rights... Team A would have to follow the rules for whichever option he chooses. If I followed correctly, he could exercise the tag rights and keep him cheaper (13 snotes i think?) but for only 1 year. Or Team A could not match and let his own high bid stand and in doing so, get extra contract years.
Click to expand...
Yah, I guess that would probably make the most sense.

 
Spin said:
eNdblu said:
I think that you've gotta put a rule in that once a player has been offered a contract during the RFA signing period, that player is locked to the original owner and they must choose to match the offer or concede the rights to that player.

I'd be really annoyed with how this all went down if I was the team offering Peyton a contract during RFA.

In my SC league we can trade RFAs, but I don't recall a time where an RFA was ever traded to another team during the signing period AND that player was offered a contract by a completely different team.
Click to expand...
Yah, this is where I think I'm going to propose at our next owners meeting. It really hasn't happened before until this year.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

 
Spin said:
eNdblu said:
I think that you've gotta put a rule in that once a player has been offered a contract during the RFA signing period, that player is locked to the original owner and they must choose to match the offer or concede the rights to that player.

I'd be really annoyed with how this all went down if I was the team offering Peyton a contract during RFA.

In my SC league we can trade RFAs, but I don't recall a time where an RFA was ever traded to another team during the signing period AND that player was offered a contract by a completely different team.
Click to expand...
Yah, this is where I think I'm going to propose at our next owners meeting. It really hasn't happened before until this year.
Click to expand...
You could also consider a rule where no player with 0 contract years can be traded. Makes it pretty cut and dry

 
eNdblu said:
Spin said:
eNdblu said:
I think that you've gotta put a rule in that once a player has been offered a contract during the RFA signing period, that player is locked to the original owner and they must choose to match the offer or concede the rights to that player.

I'd be really annoyed with how this all went down if I was the team offering Peyton a contract during RFA.

In my SC league we can trade RFAs, but I don't recall a time where an RFA was ever traded to another team during the signing period AND that player was offered a contract by a completely different team.
Click to expand...
Yah, this is where I think I'm going to propose at our next owners meeting. It really hasn't happened before until this year.
Click to expand...
You could also consider a rule where no player with 0 contract years can be traded. Makes it pretty cut and dry
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above, we've allowed RFA trading for a long time with no issue. Certainly not when there's a bid on the player (missed that part initially) but in general if you have no intention of matching a player or know you won't have the cap space to do so trading the RFA rights has not been a problem. You usually don't get much for it though.

One thing we're clear on though is you can't trade cap space, even to make a trade work.

 
So I'm Team B. And I was encouraged by Spin to give my point of view.

First there is an established practice of trading RFA's in our league before, during, or after the bid is closed, during the RFA period. I myself was the victim of this and lost high bid on Antonio Brown, 2 years ago, with only 2 minutes left on the auction.

I traded Bradford (5 year contract)/Lattimore (open contract) for the rights to Peyton Mannings Franchised RFA. I had the means to Match the high bid, which is correct in it only being 13 S-notes. Team A has by far the most accumulation of s-notes, at 122. Spin and another owner are 50ish, I am at 36. With the prospect of loosing Manning to me, which would give me a QB line up of Manning1yr/Breese4yr/Stafford1yr he offered me compensation not to match.

He had shared with me where he was willing to spend 80 s-notes on Manning, as well as 1.5, since the draft pick must be involved due to the franchise tag, The price of additional compensation of 35 s notes was based on his total value of Manning, and the current bid of 45 that was on him.

My point of view. We have used s notes as a bartering system since day one. Often times we sell or trade players for just S-notes, or combinations of draft picks, s notes, and players. We have used S-notes as compensation, for example, Sjax did not finish in the top 25 of RB's last year, so the player who owned him was awarded 15 s-notes, at the end of the year, as part of the agreement made in the initial trade, 6 months earlier. There is no slippery slope, since this is a simple form of supply and demand. The value that team A places on Manning. Capitalism in a sense in our FFL. If other owners chose to do similar things, given our structure, then supply and demand will be the mitigating factor. Just because someone demands additional payment, does not mean he will receive it.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

interested to hear responses to my arguments. Thanks

 
if he keeps manning would it be legal to trade him 20 snotes to not start manning against you?

not sure it is relevant, just a curiosity

 
B-Deep said:
if he keeps manning would it be legal to trade him 20 snotes to not start manning against you?

not sure it is relevant, just a curiosity
Click to expand...
I think this practice would fall under, assumedly, the league's collusion and anti-tanking rules that every dynasty league should have.

 
I think we both understand that taking s notes to not start a player is absurd

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nok12me said:
So I'm Team B. And I was encouraged by Spin to give my point of view.

First there is an established practice of trading RFA's in our league before, during, or after the bid is closed, during the RFA period. I myself was the victim of this and lost high bid on Antonio Brown, 2 years ago, with only 2 minutes left on the auction.

I traded Bradford (5 year contract)/Lattimore (open contract) for the rights to Peyton Mannings Franchised RFA. I had the means to Match the high bid, which is correct in it only being 13 S-notes. Team A has by far the most accumulation of s-notes, at 122. Spin and another owner are 50ish, I am at 36. With the prospect of loosing Manning to me, which would give me a QB line up of Manning1yr/Breese4yr/Stafford1yr he offered me compensation not to match.

He had shared with me where he was willing to spend 80 s-notes on Manning, as well as 1.5, since the draft pick must be involved due to the franchise tag, The price of additional compensation of 35 s notes was based on his total value of Manning, and the current bid of 45 that was on him.

My point of view. We have used s notes as a bartering system since day one. Often times we sell or trade players for just S-notes, or combinations of draft picks, s notes, and players. We have used S-notes as compensation, for example, Sjax did not finish in the top 25 of RB's last year, so the player who owned him was awarded 15 s-notes, at the end of the year, as part of the agreement made in the initial trade, 6 months earlier. There is no slippery slope, since this is a simple form of supply and demand. The value that team A places on Manning. Capitalism in a sense in our FFL. If other owners chose to do similar things, given our structure, then supply and demand will be the mitigating factor. Just because someone demands additional payment, does not mean he will receive it.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

interested to hear responses to my arguments. Thanks
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you in essense be trading away Bradford and Lattimore for 35 s-notes though? I'd think Lattimore would be more valuable that that?

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Nok12me said:
So I'm Team B. And I was encouraged by Spin to give my point of view.

First there is an established practice of trading RFA's in our league before, during, or after the bid is closed, during the RFA period. I myself was the victim of this and lost high bid on Antonio Brown, 2 years ago, with only 2 minutes left on the auction.

I traded Bradford (5 year contract)/Lattimore (open contract) for the rights to Peyton Mannings Franchised RFA. I had the means to Match the high bid, which is correct in it only being 13 S-notes. Team A has by far the most accumulation of s-notes, at 122. Spin and another owner are 50ish, I am at 36. With the prospect of loosing Manning to me, which would give me a QB line up of Manning1yr/Breese4yr/Stafford1yr he offered me compensation not to match.

He had shared with me where he was willing to spend 80 s-notes on Manning, as well as 1.5, since the draft pick must be involved due to the franchise tag, The price of additional compensation of 35 s notes was based on his total value of Manning, and the current bid of 45 that was on him.

My point of view. We have used s notes as a bartering system since day one. Often times we sell or trade players for just S-notes, or combinations of draft picks, s notes, and players. We have used S-notes as compensation, for example, Sjax did not finish in the top 25 of RB's last year, so the player who owned him was awarded 15 s-notes, at the end of the year, as part of the agreement made in the initial trade, 6 months earlier. There is no slippery slope, since this is a simple form of supply and demand. The value that team A places on Manning. Capitalism in a sense in our FFL. If other owners chose to do similar things, given our structure, then supply and demand will be the mitigating factor. Just because someone demands additional payment, does not mean he will receive it.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

interested to hear responses to my arguments. Thanks
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you in essense be trading away Bradford and Lattimore for 35 s-notes though? I'd think Lattimore would be more valuable that that?
Click to expand...
35 s-notes and 1.5 in the draft + a compensatory pick based upon how well Manning does and the number of years the new owner puts on him.

I think the fact that he was tagged was overlooked and Nok12me was looking at being able to start Manning for multiple years, when it occurred to him that matching on Manning came with a 1 year contract he looked for outside options.

 
CalBear said:
Asking for compensation in exchange for refraining from doing harm is known as extortion. Shouldn't be legal.
Click to expand...
Not always.

If I had a legal right of way to pass over your property (gained from the previous owner) to get to another piece of property I owned, but you didn't like the damage I was doing to your lawn, would you not have a right to offer me compensation to give up my easement and find another less convenient way to get to my property?

 
Spin said:
B-Deep said:
seriously

s-notes bugs me too

can't get past it
Click to expand...
Sorry, feel free to glance over it and replace with FAABB. :D

B-Deep said:
if he keeps manning would it be legal to trade him 20 snotes to not start manning against you?

not sure it is relevant, just a curiosity
Click to expand...
This is a really good point actually, and along the same lines imo.
Click to expand...
i am just messing with you

and i could not decide if the last thing was a good point or a horrible one, but it popped into my head

 
B-Deep said:
Spin said:
B-Deep said:
seriously

s-notes bugs me too

can't get past it
Click to expand...
Sorry, feel free to glance over it and replace with FAABB. :D

B-Deep said:
if he keeps manning would it be legal to trade him 20 snotes to not start manning against you?

not sure it is relevant, just a curiosity
Click to expand...
This is a really good point actually, and along the same lines imo.
Click to expand...
i am just messing with you

and i could not decide if the last thing was a good point or a horrible one, but it popped into my head
Click to expand...
Initially I thought there was some similarity, in that they both involved gaining a league currency for an agreement to do something. Not match or not start a player.

 
it just seems to me if there was a way for manning to be signed by the new owner and then traded that it would feel more above board. I cannot say exactly why the current situation doesn't sit well, and I am certainly not accusing anyone of anything nefarious, but it feels strange

 
I would not allow a Trade of $ for a promise. Instead I would suggest the following...

Have Team B match the bid and acquire Manning.

Then have Team A offer $88 to Team B for Manning.

I think that's the correct math ($45 original bid + $13 Team B's Match + $30 for additional value)

Or whatever it is that they agree upon. But definitely not a hard asset for a soft promise.

 
Amused to Death said:
B-Deep said:
Nok12me said:
I think we both understand that taking s notes to not start a player is absurd
Click to expand...
i am trying to decide how different that is from taking snotes not to sign manning
Click to expand...
This was the point I was making earlier. How much different is this from giving another owner compensation to not bid on a player I want. "I'll give you some blind bid money if you don't bid on Manning".
Click to expand...
or

if i know team A and team B are talking about trading manning in season, would it be legal for me to offer team a blind bid money to NOT make the trade?

again it is not a perfect correlation, but those are kind of how this feels

 
Beefeaters said:
I would not allow a Trade of $ for a promise. Instead I would suggest the following...

Have Team B match the bid and acquire Manning.

Then have Team A offer $88 to Team B for Manning.

I think that's the correct math ($45 original bid + $13 Team B's Match + $30 for additional value)

Or whatever it is that they agree upon. But definitely not a hard asset for a soft promise.
Click to expand...
This wouldn't work.

Once Team B Matched, Manning gets 1 contract year.

If Team A wins him, then he is allowed to sign as many years to Manning as he'd like.

 
What if Owner A was out of Snotes until the next refresh period... would you allow Owner B to trade a player (or the rights to a player) to that Owner A, based upon the promise that Owner A would compensate Owner B with x amount of Snotes once the refresh occurred?

 
B-Deep said:
Amused to Death said:
B-Deep said:
Nok12me said:
I think we both understand that taking s notes to not start a player is absurd
Click to expand...
i am trying to decide how different that is from taking snotes not to sign manning
Click to expand...
This was the point I was making earlier. How much different is this from giving another owner compensation to not bid on a player I want. "I'll give you some blind bid money if you don't bid on Manning".
Click to expand...
orif i know team A and team B are talking about trading manning in season, would it be legal for me to offer team a blind bid money to NOT make the trade?

again it is not a perfect correlation, but those are kind of how this feels
Click to expand...
This is the point of contention honestly. Spin see this exact scenario as being opened up the trade. I view the trade as a whole commodity and not two actions, with the exception I am gaining 35 of the spent 80 "faapp"

 
I think if there is no rule against it i would probably allow it, but I think there probably should be rules preventing it. There are a few different ways to approach that probably

 
Since s notes are considered commodities like players and picks, I think we have to consider if owners would also be ok with trading picks and/or players to not match a bid...

 
Beefeaters said:
What if Owner A was out of Snotes until the next refresh period... would you allow Owner B to trade a player (or the rights to a player) to that Owner A, based upon the promise that Owner A would compensate Owner B with x amount of Snotes once the refresh occurred?
Click to expand...
No need for this really, since the refresh comes after the rookie draft, before the season starts, you could just wait till then. I guess you could come to a gentle men's agreement, but nothing binding to my knowledge

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scoresman
Non-Playoff teams - What went wrong?
Replies
25
Views
631
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
Scoresman
The thread for people who do their own projections
Replies
6
Views
693
yankeerebel
yankeerebel
Zow
Trade issue in new league - drama ensues
2 3
Replies
138
Views
4K
5-ish Finkle
5-ish Finkle

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top