Trading and Matching Tagged players

[braven112]

I was reading an article on ESPN regarding he Derrick Anderson tender offer:

The Browns have offered Anderson a three-year deal for about $20 million. Like Matt Schaub a year ago, Anderson would be a popular restricted free agent. The Browns would have seven days to match any offer Anderson signs. Like the Falcons, who traded Schaub to Houston last winter, the Browns could work out a trade different from the first- and third-round choices required if Anderson leaves on an offer sheet.

What would you guys think of allowing the two teams in that process being allowed to work out a different trade and if it couldn't be worked out the original offer of draft picks would apply?

[Achon44]

Can you give an example as it would pertain to our league?

[braven112]

For example lets assume Dark Magicians decides not to match the offer for Tom Brady. I would then be awarded the player and would send my 1st and 2nd round picks to Dark Magicians.

Let's say Dark Magicians didn't want the draft picks as much as he wanted a player on my team. He could then offer me a trade in place of the 2 draft picks. Lets say he wants Chris Chambers. We could attempt to work out a trade involving Chris Chambers. We would have one week to work out a trade and if we couldn't then I would be forced to send the 2 draft picks but if we could come up with a trade involving a player on the team we could go that route. Our choice as long as we both agreed on the compensation.

It just adds a little intrigue to the matching process and simulates the NFL even more.

[Achon44]

For example lets assume Dark Magicians decides not to match the offer for Tom Brady. I would then be awarded the player and would send my 1st and 2nd round picks to Dark Magicians.

Let's say Dark Magicians didn't want the draft picks as much as he wanted a player on my team. He could then offer me a trade in place of the 2 draft picks. Lets say he wants Chris Chambers. We could attempt to work out a trade involving Chris Chambers. We would have one week to work out a trade and if we couldn't then I would be forced to send the 2 draft picks but if we could come up with a trade involving a player on the team we could go that route. Our choice as long as we both agreed on the compensation.

It just adds a little intrigue to the matching process and simulates the NFL even more.

So basically, you could work out a trade in principle, then Magicians can match your offer and make the trade.

[bonscott]

Not too sure if I like this idea. Too much opportunity to "work the system" in my eyes. I like the idea that you have to give up those picks so it "hurts" to bid on a tagged player. If you then work out a trade that gives up a lot less then the 1st and 2nd pick then it's using a loophole to get around having to give up those picks. So my concern is not giving up something equal to the picks.

But on the other hand I can see the side that maybe I don't want the extra picks. Won't be so bad in the future with the roster limits lifted in the offseason but maybe I don't want to have to make room for 2 extra picks and thus take cap hits one way or another. That would be the downside to letting a tagged player go if say the rest of my team is in good shape, extra picks can be a bad thing.

Hmmmmmm.....

[joe.commish]

Not too sure if I like this idea. Too much opportunity to "work the system" in my eyes. I like the idea that you have to give up those picks so it "hurts" to bid on a tagged player. If you then work out a trade that gives up a lot less then the 1st and 2nd pick then it's using a loophole to get around having to give up those picks. So my concern is not giving up something equal to the picks.

But on the other hand I can see the side that maybe I don't want the extra picks. Won't be so bad in the future with the roster limits lifted in the offseason but maybe I don't want to have to make room for 2 extra picks and thus take cap hits one way or another. That would be the downside to letting a tagged player go if say the rest of my team is in good shape, extra picks can be a bad thing.

Hmmmmmm.....

I kind of feel the same way. It is kind of a tough one to decide on.

My worry is that the trade that is reached could be a "bad deal" in many folks' eyes and thus create some sentiment that someone got the better end of a deal and even possibly a "you scratch my back..." scenario is going on. As it is now, the compensation has been agreed upon in the form of picks, so that scenario doesn't happen.

But if being like the NFL is the goal, then that is the way they do it. I'm sure there is some ruffled feathers in NFL circles with some deals that go down there, we could follow suit I suppose.

Definitely, Hmmmm. I'd have to think on this if it came to a vote.

[Achon44]

Not too sure if I like this idea. Too much opportunity to "work the system" in my eyes. I like the idea that you have to give up those picks so it "hurts" to bid on a tagged player. If you then work out a trade that gives up a lot less then the 1st and 2nd pick then it's using a loophole to get around having to give up those picks. So my concern is not giving up something equal to the picks.

But on the other hand I can see the side that maybe I don't want the extra picks. Won't be so bad in the future with the roster limits lifted in the offseason but maybe I don't want to have to make room for 2 extra picks and thus take cap hits one way or another. That would be the downside to letting a tagged player go if say the rest of my team is in good shape, extra picks can be a bad thing.

Hmmmmmm.....

If you approach it the way I mentioned in my last post you're really not doing anything to "work the system".

[bonscott]

Not too sure if I like this idea. Too much opportunity to "work the system" in my eyes. I like the idea that you have to give up those picks so it "hurts" to bid on a tagged player. If you then work out a trade that gives up a lot less then the 1st and 2nd pick then it's using a loophole to get around having to give up those picks. So my concern is not giving up something equal to the picks.

But on the other hand I can see the side that maybe I don't want the extra picks. Won't be so bad in the future with the roster limits lifted in the offseason but maybe I don't want to have to make room for 2 extra picks and thus take cap hits one way or another. That would be the downside to letting a tagged player go if say the rest of my team is in good shape, extra picks can be a bad thing.

Hmmmmmm.....

If you approach it the way I mentioned in my last post you're really not doing anything to "work the system".

Well, as Joe points out, if it's a bad deal then it's working the system. So instead of giving up my 1st and 2nd round pick I could work a deal to trade away something "less" in people's eyes. Basically I'm not totally against the idea but I see a lot of possible problems with it with ticked off other owners being the biggest issue. I can see good things on both sides though, and bad things.

[Achon44]

Not too sure if I like this idea. Too much opportunity to "work the system" in my eyes. I like the idea that you have to give up those picks so it "hurts" to bid on a tagged player. If you then work out a trade that gives up a lot less then the 1st and 2nd pick then it's using a loophole to get around having to give up those picks. So my concern is not giving up something equal to the picks.

But on the other hand I can see the side that maybe I don't want the extra picks. Won't be so bad in the future with the roster limits lifted in the offseason but maybe I don't want to have to make room for 2 extra picks and thus take cap hits one way or another. That would be the downside to letting a tagged player go if say the rest of my team is in good shape, extra picks can be a bad thing.

Hmmmmmm.....

If you approach it the way I mentioned in my last post you're really not doing anything to "work the system".

Well, as Joe points out, if it's a bad deal then it's working the system. So instead of giving up my 1st and 2nd round pick I could work a deal to trade away something "less" in people's eyes. Basically I'm not totally against the idea but I see a lot of possible problems with it with ticked off other owners being the biggest issue. I can see good things on both sides though, and bad things.

Any deal can be a "bad deal". People can say the deal you just made was a bad deal. There's really nothing stopping Magicians and Pigskins from striking up a side deal as we speak.

Using the current Tom Brady situation as an example...

Once Magicians matches the offer from Pigskins they own Brady and are free to trade him for whatever they want, but before he does what's stopping him from contacting Pigskins and saying "Hey, I'm going to match the offer, but I'd be interested in trading him to you for your 1st rounder and a player or your 1st and a pick next year"? He could also contact other owners in the league and make the same offer and if he doesn't get any takers he could then turn around and accept the 1st and 2nd from Pigskins. There's also nothing stopping any of the other owners from contacing Magicians and setting up a deal with him to give him certain picks or players if he matches Pigskins offer.

[bonscott]

Very true.

[joe.commish]

Any deal can be a "bad deal". People can say the deal you just made was a bad deal. There's really nothing stopping Magicians and Pigskins from striking up a side deal as we speak.

Using the current Tom Brady situation as an example...

Once Magicians matches the offer from Pigskins they own Brady and are free to trade him for whatever they want, but before he does what's stopping him from contacting Pigskins and saying "Hey, I'm going to match the offer, but I'd be interested in trading him to you for your 1st rounder and a player or your 1st and a pick next year"? He could also contact other owners in the league and make the same offer and if he doesn't get any takers he could then turn around and accept the 1st and 2nd from Pigskins. There's also nothing stopping any of the other owners from contacing Magicians and setting up a deal with him to give him certain picks or players if he matches Pigskins offer.

You bring up good points. With your example in mind then, how big of a need is there to even have a rule if it can basically be accomplished under the current system? Perhaps I am confused.

[Achon44]

Any deal can be a "bad deal". People can say the deal you just made was a bad deal. There's really nothing stopping Magicians and Pigskins from striking up a side deal as we speak.

Using the current Tom Brady situation as an example...

Once Magicians matches the offer from Pigskins they own Brady and are free to trade him for whatever they want, but before he does what's stopping him from contacting Pigskins and saying "Hey, I'm going to match the offer, but I'd be interested in trading him to you for your 1st rounder and a player or your 1st and a pick next year"? He could also contact other owners in the league and make the same offer and if he doesn't get any takers he could then turn around and accept the 1st and 2nd from Pigskins. There's also nothing stopping any of the other owners from contacing Magicians and setting up a deal with him to give him certain picks or players if he matches Pigskins offer.

You bring up good points. With your example in mind then, how big of a need is there to even have a rule if it can basically be accomplished under the current system? Perhaps I am confused.

Perhaps Pigskins was trying to go down another road, but if not you're right...there's really no need.

[bonscott]

Kinda what I was thinking. Nothing stopping the Magicians from matching the offer and then trading Brady to the Pigskins for some players and/or picks. It kinda sounds like you can basically do it already.

[braven112]

Actually I think it's a little different, in the example I'm refering to Dark Magicians decides not to match the offer.

In effect by not matching we've agreed on the following trade.

Pigskins gives up picks in round 1 and round 2 for Tom Brady.

What the NFL does, if I'm reading it right, is allow the 2 teams to then come up with an alternate trade if they both want. It could still be done I guess unde the current system but I would be a little more complicated you would have to trade back a draft pick or something along those lines.

Hears kind of what I was thinking the process would work...

Feb 15 deadline to tag players
Feb 15-22 teams offer contracts to tagged players
Feb 22-28/29 original team decides whether they want to match the contract or not
March 1-7 if the team declines to match they can work out an alternate trade if they don't work something else out the predetermined compensation is awarded (draft picks)

[Achon44]

Actually I think it's a little different, in the example I'm refering to Dark Magicians decides not to match the offer.

In effect by not matching we've agreed on the following trade.

Pigskins gives up picks in round 1 and round 2 for Tom Brady.

What the NFL does, if I'm reading it right, is allow the 2 teams to then come up with an alternate trade if they both want. It could still be done I guess unde the current system but I would be a little more complicated you would have to trade back a draft pick or something along those lines.

Hears kind of what I was thinking the process would work...

Feb 15 deadline to tag players
Feb 15-22 teams offer contracts to tagged players
Feb 22-28/29 original team decides whether they want to match the contract or not
March 1-7 if the team declines to match they can work out an alternate trade if they don't work something else out the predetermined compensation is awarded (draft picks)

Seems to me that could all easily be done, but the team would just have to match the offer and then make the trade.

[braven112]

The point is this scenerio team doesn't want to match the offer. They choose to lose the player for offered salary.

Otherwise I could say "hey match that offer and I'll make a trade for him dude." then later "well I changed my mind I don't want to do that trade." Now Dark Magicians is stuck with a player he didn't want. It also seems kind of shady to make backroom deals like this.

If we went with what the NFL does. The team that declined the offer gets the draft picks or players and if the trade doesn't happen with in the week the standard trade goes through. I guess to me it streamlines the process and puts everything out on the table.

[Achon44]

The point is this scenerio team doesn't want to match the offer. They choose to lose the player for offered salary.

Otherwise I could say "hey match that offer and I'll make a trade for him dude." then later "well I changed my mind I don't want to do that trade." Now Dark Magicians is stuck with a player he didn't want. It also seems kind of shady to make backroom deals like this.

Magicians can send you the trade offer through the trade link and you would need to accept before the deadline passes. If you accept then he matches the offer and the trade goes through. If not then he doesn't match and he get's your draft picks. BTW aren't all trades in fantasy backroom deals?

If we went with what the NFL does. The team that declined the offer gets the draft picks or players and if the trade doesn't happen with in the week the standard trade goes through. I guess to me it streamlines the process and puts everything out on the table.

I believe with the NFL the trade needs to happen before the timer expires for the team to match the offer or take the picks, not after.

[braven112]

BTW aren't all trades in fantasy backroom deals?

No. the scenario that joe mentioned is what I'm referring to as a "backroom deal". ..

Everyone that posted has had a different initial take on it. Maybe, in theory, you could do it now, but it's confusing and IMO not in the spirit of the rules, (hell I'm the commish and I didn't even know it was even a posiblity ), we don't have any rules that specifically say its acceptable or not acceptable.

It says in the constitution that you can't trade players without a contract, yet only way I know of to actually pull this off now, is for both teams to agree to and accept the trade on the MFL site, then the original team (Dark Magicians in the example) has to go on the message board and decide to "match" the contract. With out a clear rule, one could easily argue that those two teams can't agree to a trade in the first place since a player involved is without a contract. As a commish, I'd rather not hear a couple of lawyers hash things out, over a trade deal.

I guess the bottom line is why leave it as a gray area. Why not decide come up with a uniform way of handling it ,one way or the other, so everything is crystal clear in the future?

[Achon44]

BTW aren't all trades in fantasy backroom deals?

No. the scenario that joe mentioned is what I'm referring to as a "backroom deal". ..

I'm not exactly sure what scenario you're talking about.

It says in the constitution that you can't trade players without a contract, yet only way I know of to actually pull this off now, is for both teams to agree to and accept the trade on the MFL site, then the original team (Dark Magicians in the example) has to go on the message board and decide to "match" the contract. With out a clear rule, one could easily argue that those two teams can't agree to a trade in the first place since a player involved is without a contract. As a commish, I'd rather not hear a couple of lawyers hash things out, over a trade deal.

I guess the bottom line is why leave it as a gray area. Why not decide come up with a uniform way of handling it ,one way or the other, so everything is crystal clear in the future?

We could always leave things the way they are. We've yet to even see how the present tagging rules will play out in the long run.

[braven112]

We could always leave things the way they are. We've yet to even see how the present tagging rules will play out in the long run.

The way I interpreted the rules you can't make a deal to trade a franchise player because he's not under contract. I think most people had that interpretation, initially. Is that what you mean when you say we could leave things the way they are? Or are you saying the scenario allowing teams to agree to a trade, then match the player, which you described, should be allowed?

I guess the way the rules are now its up to me to decide how I want it to be interpreted, but I thought it would be better if everyone was on the same page and the rules in the constitution were ironclad instead of left to interpretation.

[Achon44]

We could always leave things the way they are. We've yet to even see how the present tagging rules will play out in the long run.

The way I interpreted the rules you can't make a deal to trade a franchise player because he's not under contract. I think most people had that interpretation, initially. Is that what you mean when you say we could leave things the way they are?

Yes. Either you match the offer or let him go and take the draft picks. I just think we should see how this works for a few years.

[bonscott]

Typing out loud here....

So let's say Browns tagged Anderson as their Franchise player. That means they *offer* a 1 year contract at X amount based on the average top salaries. But Anderson isn't under contract just because he is tagged. He is still a free agent and can seek a better deal elsewhere. If he doesn't get one he can still refuse the tagged contract and hold out.
There is also the different dynamic of the restricted free agent. The RFA is actually under contract with his team BUT he can seek a better offer. If he doesn't get one he still finishes out the last year of his current deal. But if he gets a better offer then his current team can choose to match it.

In out league basically all 3 tags (franchise, transition and restricted) are working the same way and that is similar to the NFL Franchise player.

To me in our league when Tom Brady is tagged he is not under contract yet, similar to the NFL. Thus he cannot be traded because he is not under contract yet. Brady is still not under contract yet with the Pigskins higher offer. And Brady is still not signed under contract until the deadline of the matching period. At the deadline Brady is immediately under contract to either the Pigskins or the Magicians if they choose to match and the if they didn't match the picks are transferred to them. And of course the Magicians could choose to match with the intention of trading Brady after that match.

So Commish, where in this process are you proposing a change? Are you saying that during the time the original team can match or not the two teams can work out a trade instead? So if the Magicians feel they don't want Brady but would rather have something other then the draft picks they could work out a trade instead?

Of course that's easily done now in that after Brady transfers to the PIgskins and the picks are given to the Magicians the two teams could then make a trade where the Magicians trade back those picks for a player or whatnot.

So let's use an example: So lets say the Magicians do not want to match the contract offer to Brady. But instead of a 1st and 2nd rounder they would rather have Tony Hunt and the 2nd rounder. So after the deadline and everything changes hands there could simply be a trade where the Magicians trade that 1st rounder they just got back to the Pigskins for Tony Hunt. Thus in effect the Magicians traded Tom Brady to the Pigskins for Tony Hunt and a 2nd rounder.

Or am I missing something?

[braven112]

So Commish, where in this process are you proposing a change? Are you saying that during the time the original team can match or not the two teams can work out a trade instead? So if the Magicians feel they don't want Brady but would rather have something other then the draft picks they could work out a trade instead?

Thats what I'm saying. I understand you could to something similar like you outlined below I was just thinking if it was actually part of the standard process it would streamline the process and avoid two team having to "tradeback" to accomplish what could be done in a one step process. It would basically give the 2 teams 1 week to work out a deal where the two parties can negotiate exclusively.

After the timer expires both teams can still negotiate a trade but now are free to do so with any team, either trading the new player, or the new draft picks obtained.

It's really not a huge deal as some of it is possible now, it's just not in the same way I'm suggesting.

Of course that's easily done now in that after Brady transfers to the PIgskins and the picks are given to the Magicians the two teams could then make a trade where the Magicians trade back those picks for a player or whatnot.

So let's use an example: So lets say the Magicians do not want to match the contract offer to Brady. But instead of a 1st and 2nd rounder they would rather have Tony Hunt and the 2nd rounder. So after the deadline and everything changes hands there could simply be a trade where the Magicians trade that 1st rounder they just got back to the Pigskins for Tony Hunt. Thus in effect the Magicians traded Tom Brady to the Pigskins for Tony Hunt and a 2nd rounder.

Or am I missing something?

[bonscott]

Gotcha, understand it now. It was confusing. As with anything, bring it up for a vote and see what happens for next year. I'd certainly have to think about it myself.

But it sounds like the key thing to understand is that what you want to do is to allow the 2 teams to negotiate a trade between themselves during the week of when the original team can match the offer. If no deal surfaces then either a match is made or the draft picks are exchanged for the player at the deadline and in either case the player is now signed and under contract and could be traded to any team.