PORT CITY / NEW ORLEANS

[Delandis]

I have never heard of an FOF trade being vetoed and I don't think this one should be.

Bridge is a personal real life friend of mine and he has no intentions of leaving the league any time soon. He is confident that his team will be much better next year following the draft and free agency. I spoke with him on the phone when we both saw the draft class reveal and we were both very impressed with the top end talent in this draft.

I have been in two other MP leagues with him and I witnessed him build a championship winner in the HFL after a series of similar trades.

If anyone is bothered by these trades it should be me because one division foe is adding two of the top 3 players in a top heavy draft IMO and another is adding a shit-ton of draft picks. I think the trade is fine.

I was told last year about the dangers of draft fever just for trading future 2nds for current 2nds. I actually believe you were one of the people who said something before I traded a 2nd to you. :)

Personally, I like the leagues that I participate in to bare some resemblance to reality. It doesn't have to be an exact replica but something like it. There is no NFL team that would make this deal.

I'm all about value being relative to the buyer's estimation of said value, but three rounds of picks for one player is insanity (IMO). If a player has a career-ending injury in preseason then what? The team is screwed for a long time. You have to see that this trade is not in the best interest of the team or the league as whole.

[Aston]

I wasn't going to veto it. Just asking.

For what it's worth, in game you can only process something like 5 things in a single transaction (but you can just keep adding things later on). That said, if it's going to cause a stir, we can look into it.

I mean, basically, it's three 1s and three 2s for the 1.3. The rest hurts a lot to give up, and they're nice to add, but it's not like they're overpowering, either. And there are players that, well, are worth this and more (I haven't looked at the class, though). I do think this is (pretty big) risk for Port City, for reasons mentioned above. The same commentary could apply to a number of trades, but maybe at not quite the same scale.

If we do end up deciding we have to adjust this deal, we should come up with some formal boundaries. Open to suggestions.

[Sharkn20]

I would accept 3 1st and 3 2nds but the whole draft class during 3 years?? That's unsustainable

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Dutch]

I'm cancelling the deal. I'll let Bridge know.

[IrishGuy65]

I wasn't going to veto it. Just asking.

For what it's worth, in game you can only process something like 5 things in a single transaction (but you can just keep adding things later on). That said, if it's going to cause a stir, we can look into it.

I mean, basically, it's three 1s and three 2s for the 1.3. The rest hurts a lot to give up, and they're nice to add, but it's not like they're overpowering, either. And there are players that, well, are worth this and more (I haven't looked at the class, though). I do think this is (pretty big) risk for Port City, for reasons mentioned above. The same commentary could apply to a number of trades, but maybe at not quite the same scale.

If we do end up deciding we have to adjust this deal, we should come up with some formal boundaries. Open to suggestions.

I think you should take a few minutes to look around the league and see how many solid starters are 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th round picks, or even undrafted free agents. You are REALLY underestimating the value of these picks, IMO.

Also, let's face the facts here by looking at the draft value chart.

1.3 = 2200

1.11 = 1250
2 future firsts (with no draft picks, the team isn't going to get better, say 1.11 range for both) 1250 each or 2500.

So 3750 for 2200 value. That's a ridiculously unfair price to pay, period. Now consider more: The only position worth that much is a franchise QB. Let's look at the draft... 2 franchise type QBs. this is for 1.3, which is NOT going to be likely to get a franchise QB. Not worth it. As previously mentioned, if it was for 1.1, or even 1.2, I would say it's fine (it being 1.1 or 1.2 for 1.11 and 2 future 1sts). For 1.3, it is not.

Also, if you want, Aston, you can look at it this way: How would you feel if South Maryland, Brooklyn, or Camden was giving up 1.3 for 3 years of drafts? It would DEFINTELY seem MORE unfair.

As for boundaries... well, simply, it has to be reasonable value on both sides of the trade. 3750 for 2200 worth of draft picks is NOT reasonable value. 70% value differential (3750-2200)/2200. I would say 25% to 33% be the maximum value difference, which this deal doesn't come close to, or even the new proposed deal.

[Guest]

I think we all need to be very careful where we go with this. Currently there are no rules or restrictions on trading picks. Officially, the guys haven't done anything wrong. We have to trust that all GM's are doing what they feel is best for their franchise. If bridge did all this and then left within a year and put Port City in the shit, we could have reason to put some rules/restrictions in place but for now, we have to trust bridge that he is here for the long term and feels he is honestly doing the best for his team. Just my two cents...

[Guest]

I think we all need to be very careful where we go with this. Currently there are no rules or restrictions on trading picks. Officially, the guys haven't done anything wrong. We have to trust that all GM's are doing what they feel is best for their franchise. If bridge did all this and then left within a year and put Port City in the shit, we could have reason to put some rules/restrictions in place but for now, we have to trust bridge that he is here for the long term and feels he is honestly doing the best for his team. Just my two cents...

+1

I agree. This would set a bad precedent. I think that the original trade should stand.

[Dutch]

I think you should take a few minutes to look around the league and see how many solid starters are 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th round picks, or even undrafted free agents. You are REALLY underestimating the value of these picks, IMO.

Also, let's face the facts here by looking at the draft value chart.

1.3 = 2200

1.11 = 1250
2 future firsts (with no draft picks, the team isn't going to get better, say 1.11 range for both) 1250 each or 2500.

So 3750 for 2200 value. That's a ridiculously unfair price to pay, period. Now consider more: The only position worth that much is a franchise QB. Let's look at the draft... 2 franchise type QBs. this is for 1.3, which is NOT going to be likely to get a franchise QB. Not worth it. As previously mentioned, if it was for 1.1, or even 1.2, I would say it's fine (it being 1.1 or 1.2 for 1.11 and 2 future 1sts). For 1.3, it is not.

Also, if you want, Aston, you can look at it this way: How would you feel if South Maryland, Brooklyn, or Camden was giving up 1.3 for 3 years of drafts? It would DEFINTELY seem MORE unfair.

As for boundaries... well, simply, it has to be reasonable value on both sides of the trade. 3750 for 2200 worth of draft picks is NOT reasonable value. 70% value differential (3750-2200)/2200. I would say 25% to 33% be the maximum value difference, which this deal doesn't come close to, or even the new proposed deal.

It wasn't intended to be fair. And Bridge was completely aware of that because he could care less. He wanted what I wanted. A franchise WR. I had no intention of trading 1.3. I needed a stud WR as well. I only accepted the trade because it was an awesome offer. What I offered in "take 2" was a 'fair points trade'. I don't know that I've ever accepted a 'fair points trade' when franchise QB's or WR's were available.

And while the trade doesn't make good NFL sense, it makes solid FOF MP sense. Oh well...water under the bridge now. No pun intended, Bridge. :)

[Dutch]

+1

I agree. This would set a bad precedent. I think that the original trade should stand.

If everybody is good with the original, I'm good with it. But it was like 6 against and 0 for it so I offered version 2. I refuse to have people being upset with my decisions, so I'm good with version 2. It's my gift to the OSFL. :)

[Delandis]

It wasn't intended to be fair. And Bridge was completely aware of that because he could care less. He wanted what I wanted. A franchise WR. I had no intention of trading 1.3. I needed a stud WR as well. I only accepted the trade because it was an awesome offer. What I offered in "take 2" was a 'fair points trade'. I don't know that I've ever accepted a 'fair points trade' when franchise QB's or WR's were available.

And while the trade doesn't make good NFL sense, it makes solid FOF MP sense. Oh well...water under the bridge now. No pun intended, Bridge. :)

The trade might make old FOF sense but from what I've seen,it doesn't make sense now.

[Aston]

I can see what you're saying, Irish, and I see the appeals to realism, too. There's definitely good food for thought here, and I'll think on them some more.

I guess I'd put it this way: vetoing a trade should be an extraordinary measure. It doesn't take three years' worth of 4-7s to make for a very bad deal (as you know!). However, for the most part, I'd like to leave it at that. Community feedback, and especially if a new player's involved, an "Are you sure?!" double check. Save the hammer for bad intent rather than a human mistake, for which I feel game realities (salary cap, TC, getting 7 more picks every season, etc) offer a decent amount of protection against. FWIW, this trade would have been much more beneficial to New Orleans in the old version.

In almost every case, I'd like to rely on game mechanics (or at least commonly seen rules) and not house mechanics. There's nothing more clear cut. In that vein, we *could* institute a "Max 5 items per side per trade" requirement as is the case in game, although that might be too restrictive. Thoughts?

In the current case, I'm thankful to Bridge and Dutch for both accommodating to the feedback and posting a revised trade. I think we're good to go there. Thank you, everyone.

[Delandis]

PORT CITY / NEW ORLEANS

There's nothing more clear cut. In that vein, we *could* institute a "Max 5 items per side per trade" requirement as is the case in game, although that might be too restrictive. Thoughts?

And that's why you are one of the better commishes I've worked with.

Very workable, level headed solution.

[Dutch]

In the current case, I'm thankful to Bridge and Dutch for both accommodating to the feedback and posting a revised trade. I think we're good to go there. Thank you, everyone.

You're very welcome. You are a big reason why I didn't want to drag this out into debates or votes. You have a tough enough job as is.

[IrishGuy65]

And that's why you are one of the better commishes I've worked with.

Very workable, level headed solution.

I agree with this. It's great that we have a commish that listens to feedback.

[Engelbert]

Ya, my feedback. Even though the trade has already been changed....

This is almost in the same category as the 1 yr FA signings for rediculous amounts of money which has caused a new rule to me made there.

Good call to nullify the trade and impose a new rule for future trades.

I have a lot of further opinions on the debate itself but, Ill just keep them to myself this time......

For the greater good. - Hot Fuzz