|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on May 9, 2017 15:12:09 GMT -5
There was a trade made a few weeks back between the 49ers and the Cardinals that involved conditional future draft picks for the 2019 season, and this passed with no league rights to 2019 draft pick trading, as the plan was to open up trading of those picks after the current rookie draft. At the time, I did not see conditional picks as actually trading future draft picks, but rather a promise of sorts, and it why I told those two teams making the trade to keep in mind the conditions of this trade being made. Reminder, because we are moving to MFL handling all trades, and because these conditions are so uncommon in this league, I have eliminated the ability to keep track of these conditions when they are made. Fast forward a few weeks, and this trade between the Texans and the Giants is interpreted that trading of 2019 draft picks is now open as the 49ers/Cards trade was used as precedence. After initially hearing the arguments that there is no effective difference between conditional trades and actually trading 2019 draft picks, I agreed with the logic and allowed the vote to continue. However, there is problems of a competitive nature regardless if there was an initial mistake made on my part. There was never no league wide announcement that 2019 draft picks were being made available for trade. If other DOT members interpreted the the conditional waiver rule of the 49ers/Cards trade as I did, then these members have no clue that trading is effectively open. The problem is made more problematic for non-DOT members who often times dont look at what is going on in between trades. I see opening trading for future picks by inference as a major problem, giving an advantage by teams that may have picked up a loophole created by a mistake on my part. Thus the trade that was made could have been open to 30 other teams who may not have realized that trading was inadvertently open. This is the problem as I see it... I need thoughts from DOT members. Cards/49ers trade: legacynfl.boards.net/thread/5787/49ers-cards-approved-3
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 15:15:17 GMT -5
I do not understand why there is any issue with this deal.
First, there was already a deal that was voted on, passed and processed weeks ago, that involved 2019 draft picks. If there was an issue A) it shouldn't of been allowed to be voted on or B) a statement could/should of came out after the deal between 49ers and Cards, informing the league that the Rule Regarding not trading 2019 draft picks was still in effect. Then for sure, this trade should not be allowed, however there was no correction made in the weeks after the first deal was processed/voted on. This trade with HOU/NYG did not come out hours after the 49ers and Cards one, plenty of time passed to fix it, without a fix, Laura and I thought it was OK to include. When you see the Commish of the league approve it, that's good enough for me.
If one deal is allowed for one group of owners, then all owners should be allowed to follow those guidelines, unless a correction is made.
Saying there is an issue after another trade comes up, is not right, and anything else shows a lack of consistency which is not OK.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 15:17:08 GMT -5
I understand competitive advantage, but I also understand being consistent and making things equal for all league members. Picking and choosing when to enforce a rule or when not to enforce a rule, does not show this consistency that I know all League Members want.
By allowing one deal to go through, but not another...where is the consistency?
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 15:25:35 GMT -5
I understand why we do not allow trading away 2 years away draft picks, but that is not the issue with this trade. The issue is, we allowed it previously, and if it was an issue, then I'm all on board for correcting it, but not during a trade.
I think it is important we do not tangle these two issues together, trading 2 years away draft pick, and the issue with this deal. This trade is not debating the rule, this trade is only that, a trade, that followed the precedent of a previous trade
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on May 9, 2017 16:04:48 GMT -5
I just put the 1.25 pick OTB... ill hold off on making any moves if ultimately my trade is over turned, all players and picks are still in place.
I have always been known as the one that stretches the rules and tests the edges. Both the 49ers and I wanted to come to an agreement and this was my idea. He wanted Ware really bad, and i wanted to get back into the top of the draft in a bad way. Now im probably on the low side of the deal so to be fair i think if the deal is reversed the 49ers should have a say in it.
As for the 2yr draft pick rule, it should be updated with a denote that conditionals are not permitted. I see the error of what I did here.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 16:07:44 GMT -5
I wouldn't vote for revoking the deal between the cards/49ers...things happen, DOT isn't perfect, we all make mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 16:08:34 GMT -5
But this deal between me and HOU should also be allowed to in order to continue with consistency
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 16:23:58 GMT -5
I agree with consistency.. I feel trade is a lil one sided..not enough for a veto at this point or reversal.. I agree..ant makes out here. But I do like consistency..rem my arguments in Charles Johnson deal
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 16:26:02 GMT -5
I agree with consistency.. I feel trade is a lil one sided..not enough for a veto at this point or reversal.. I agree..ant makes out here. But I do like consistency..rem my arguments in Charles Johnson deal Is the issue Frank is bringing up if the trade is fair or not, or the inclusion of 2019 draft picks. Because what steelers brought up is a totally different subject then this "Vote"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 16:28:46 GMT -5
Vote approve 1 keep trade
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on May 9, 2017 16:50:03 GMT -5
First, I'd like to thank Frank for bringing this issue to the forefront, and extra kudos for shouldering the responsibility (even though there is plenty of blame to go around in this situation). Imo, the best time to nip a situation in the bud is before it begins to bloom.
That said, I realise that I am perhaps the most vocal and outspoken GM when it comes to abiding by the rules, deciphering its interpretation, and so forth, whereas many others are lackadaisical on such issues. It is therefore in this sense from which I base my opinion upon the issue(s) as I see them. But I will add that I'm definitely glad I missed the initial arguments being made on behalf of trading future picks [outside of current rules], and the attempting to justify them on the basis of being "conditional". A pick is a pick is a pick...whether it is conditional does not change its nature.
As was mentioned earlier, a mistake was made. In response, I mentioned that although mistakes do indeed happen, they cannot realistically be expected to avoid the subsequent consequences that follow. This latter trade, imo, is a natural consequence that comes with the initial mistake. Simply put, both the mistake (of proposing and allowing the previous trade) and the consequence (the following of that perceived precedent), are inter-twined with one another. They are not separate issues, but one in the same. Despite this fact however, I think it is important that we attempt to avoid turning a mole hill into a mountain. Both trades could be placed on hold until the rookie draft ends, but I see no reasoning in that at all.
What's done is done, and whether we choose to believe or accept it, the damage is irreversible.
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on May 9, 2017 16:54:22 GMT -5
I have mixed thoughts about this issue. I can understand that there was an oversight in the Cardinals trade. I think the big issue as I see it is that nobody was informed that 2019 picks could be traded. Maybe some teams would have made an offer to Laura for these picks. I understand Jordy Nelson has been OTB for a long time and obviously Laura didn't ever get an offer she liked. Is it possible if a team that only had 2019 picks could have made a better offer to Laura to get Jordy? I know these are all "What if" scenarios but I think it deserves consideration. I approved Anthony's trade mainly because Frank posted that the picks were available. I can see an issue though that other teams didn't know these picks cold be traded. I don't really know how to solve this problem. I don't think we should reverse the Cards/49ers trade as it has been too long for that one. I am a little perplexed about this Giants/Hou trade. I would like to see some other discussion before I officially vote. I want to see some other points.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 16:58:41 GMT -5
If we are not discussing about reversing the first trade, and no correction was made, in the weeks after, why should GMs need to interpret the rules. If its good for one, should be good for all, until corrections are made
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 17:01:41 GMT -5
I dont want to make this into a big deal, as the draft is underway and we can just repost after this draft. But that would not be good for consistency.
|
|
|
Post by Jaguars GM (Shane) on May 9, 2017 17:07:51 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with consistency - the trades are different. The "conditional" picks are just that - and there is a chance the draft picks will never be moved. Frank should not have let the 2019 conditionals pass because of the confusion it would cause, but I can see why he did. Anthony trading actual 2019 picks when no official announcement has been made is wrong. He runs a league, he knows better - I doubt he would let the Destiny GMs themselves decide when 2019 picks were open to trade. The commissioner decides when and makes a league announcement informing the rest of us.
There's a reason why league announcements are important in the case of draft picks - it keeps the market level between all 32 owners. it is an inherent disadvantage to those owners not around enough to spy the loopholes, as in this case. I had no idea about the conditionals in that trade weeks ago - and so no knowledge that 2019 picks actually have been open to trading for weeks now. That might have affected the draft we're in right now.
Veto the trade and let Giants and Texans make the same deal after the draft ends. All that is lost is the advantage Giants gained by throwing open the 2019 draft room on his own, but it appears the Texans are eager to work with the Giants so no big deal.
2 approve/1 veto
|
|