Little Rock-Oakland

[Cringer]

I just talked with Jave, and I have edited the original post to now include my 2nd round pick next year to go to Jave. I actually had to talk Jave into this.... :lol:


So is that any better?

[JesterBlaze]

I believe the original trade is fair. Everyone is going to have their opinion (which is what makes online leagues great) and seeing how the opinions are split, that to me is proof that it's fair enough. In a "thinking man's game" like FOF an unfair trade would have 75% or so of the league squawking and I don't see that here. While I personally think Jave paid a high price the events are such that a high price was what it was going to take to get the #2 pick in this draft with the information available to our league.

I just talked with Jave, and I have edited the original post to now include my 2nd round pick next year to go to Jave. I actually had to talk Jave into this.... :lol:


So is that any better?

NO!! I fear this could start a precedent of league interference in trades. Finalized trades (meaning both parties have "signed" the trade thread) should be FINAL unless overruled by the extreme majority (a minimum of 27 votes IMO) and this is certainly not the case here. Bending to the will of the few who disagree with a trade is worse to me than a lopsided trade.


- Jester

[Cringer]

That is a good arguement there Jester. But let me address a few things.


Most owners are saying, "The trade is OK." But those same guys will turn around say that Jave is giving up too.

So in an effort to try to wipe out those doubts people have, I added the draft pick for next season.


As far as setting a trend, it will not. This has turned into a special case because I am the commissioner. In trades between two other owners, then I make the decision. Most the time it is an easy decision. If I have any doubts as to the fairness of a trade, then I will bring in sovstar, and roadrash if he is available. If the 2 or 3 of us can not come to a decision, then we would then ask everyone else for their opinions.

[Warhammer]

There is a difference between saying something is ok, but not something I would do, and something that is unfair.

The draft terms were entirely reasonable. I would not make the trade because I would be weakening myself in too many areas for marginal gain. In Jave's case, he could completely revamp his offense by doing this. He can't be MUCH worse than he was last year. In that case let the trade stand as it was originally.

Trades should only be rejected when one owner is completely ripping a team apart. Also, as Jave said he would probably not be able to resign his guy anyway. Why not use him as trade bait?

[BIGWOOD1488]

I would have done the same if I thought I could have pulled it off,I think both teams will benefit,although I must say that I was hoping to put together an offer to move up but I can't touch his offer.

[Cringer]

I would have done the same if I thought I could have pulled it off,I think both teams will benefit,although I must say that I was hoping to put together an offer to move up but I can't touch his offer.

Don't worry, your my division opponent, I would have made it impossible for you to get the pick.

[Kobeck]

Finalized trades (meaning both parties have "signed" the trade thread) should be FINAL  ...  Bending to the will of the few who disagree with a trade is worse to me than a lopsided trade.


- Jester 

I agree completly. Early in IFL there was some discussion about someone picking up a QB mentor. The two parties agreed - good enough for me.

[Cringer]

Finalized trades (meaning both parties have "signed" the trade thread) should be FINAL  ...  Bending to the will of the few who disagree with a trade is worse to me than a lopsided trade.


- Jester 

I agree completly. Early in IFL there was some discussion about someone picking up a QB mentor. The two parties agreed - good enough for me.

ha! that was me too. :huh:

[roadrash]

What exactly is the point of challenging a trade? To prevent collusion, right? So are Cringer and Jave colluding to spike the talent of one team at the expense of the other? No. Both teams are making the move based on improving their own teams.

A couple things to consider though

I believe that when a player is traded, the losing team takes the bonus money cap hit for the enitre length of the contract as soon as the trade happens. By my calculations, Oakland takes a 6.8 Million dollar cap hit this year if the trade is approved. This will be dead money. Of course OAK does end up reducing the cap number from 8.7 million to include salaries.

The other is the trade itself. The Snipe Hunters will overvalue DTs because we dont' have them. I think Jave is severely undervalueing Woods. In this leage he is definitly work a top pick from a number of teams, and may even get two 1st rounders. . .Like me, I would have offered my 11th overall this year and next years 1st round pick for him. Think I'm overvalueing Woods now? When he would be a key to a playoff berth, what is that worth.

I'm tired, was I rambling? Or did any of that make sense. Basic point, trade is fine as long as Jave knows what he is getting into.

[BOSS]

Damn Cringer how did you pull that off lol. Great trade on your part. Thats how you rebuild a team right there. I would make that deal in a heartbeat. I also understand where Sov is coming from too as the deal does look rather excessive. But hey if the guy is willing to give all that up for the 2nd pick in the draft so be it. All the guys you acquired are young too. Congrats Cringer.

[Suicane]

Personaly, I'm all for the deal. I don't think that if 2 active members who we know arn't colluding agree to a deal, wether it seems lopsided or not, we should overturn it. Guys shouldn't be looking over their shoulder wondering if the rest of the league is gonna cast them out if they swindle or get swindled (not that im saying thats what happened here). This is a league of 32 owners, each within the rights to make their own decisions, if they make bad decisions then it'll cost them. I would never vote against a trade, lopsided as i may think it is, unless i suspected collusion.

[fofgamer]

I think any deal in which both teams agree should be finalized. In the "real" NFL there would of course be an owner and fans opinions to deal with but if someone (like Oakland) has a gut feeling about a guy and wants to over pay, then so be it! We're all adults here. We will all make our fair share of great moves and we'll also have plenty of busts.

To sum it up: I don't think any trade should be dis-allowed unless there is proven collusion.


PS Good you you Cringer for getting the best of that deal!

[Warhammer]

I think fofgamer should have to change his nick to Shamu... :lol:

[roadrash]

I think any deal in which both teams agree should be finalized. In the "real" NFL there would of course be an owner and fans opinions to deal with but if someone (like Oakland) has a gut feeling about a guy and wants to over pay, then so be it! We're all adults here. We will all make our fair share of great moves and we'll also have plenty of busts.

To sum it up: I don't think any trade should be dis-allowed unless there is proven collusion.


PS Good you you Cringer for getting the best of that deal!

Exactly. . I presonally think that Eli Manning was way overpaid for

[fofgamer]

I think any deal in which both teams agree should be finalized. In the "real" NFL there would of course be an owner and fans opinions to deal with but if someone (like Oakland) has a gut feeling about a guy and wants to over pay, then so be it! We're all adults here. We will all make our fair share of great moves and we'll also have plenty of busts.

To sum it up: I don't think any trade should be dis-allowed unless there is proven collusion.


PS Good you you Cringer for getting the best of that deal!

Exactly. . I presonally think that Eli Manning was way overpaid for

Being a Steelers fan, I'd have to agree! Ben was the best QB on the board and everyone realizes that now!