|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Sept 28, 2017 18:37:08 GMT -5
i give
Clay Matthews GBP 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 UFA
WASH give
2019 5th(WAS)
condition: if I do not obtain Edelman in UFA, an autotrade kicks in where I trade a 2019 4th(AZ) and the 2019 5th(WAS) back to the skins for Clay Matthews GBP 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 UFA
The intent of this trade is for me to have a chance at Edelman, and to avoid a cap hit. A 5th is dirt cheap for a starting LB, but its a risk im willing to take since my LB core has bolstered with late UFA and throw-in players from other trades. Since we are talking about a player that might score 90pts this season its only a minimal hit for the opportunity to get a real asset. Thx WASH, and GL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Sept 28, 2017 19:15:13 GMT -5
Redskins accept,
Since the Edelman bidding got a little high for me this trade is a great opportunity for me to get an asset that should really help my team. As has been discussed my LB needed an upgrade. Clay Matthews will be a great addition. This also helps Cardinals because they get an asset for a player they were going to waive and avoid the cap hits. The bonus for me is that if for some reason he doesn't win Edelman then I still win as I get another pick in return. Thanks to the cardinals
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 29, 2017 10:57:04 GMT -5
These type of conditions are tough, because it put an immediate condition on the DOT to vote before a FA bid is done, and then you have a situation where a decent LB is being undersold a bit.
Since Matthews was going toward waiver anyways, I will reluctantly approve, but DOT does not get the votes in on time, this trade will be void.
APPROVE 1-0
|
|
|
|
Post by Lions GM on Sept 29, 2017 11:23:01 GMT -5
approve 2
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 29, 2017 11:36:09 GMT -5
I'm quite sure that I'm in the minority here, but I am under the impression that stripes don't change merely because of circumstance.
Despite the trade being made with two experienced GM's, and the presumed fact of Matthews going to be waived anyway (there is no evidence of this other than...), I believe that the implications of this trade run much deeper than the fact that Matthews is being much more than a bit undersold. Other than a distant future 5th for compensation, it's also premised upon a condition - a condition that specifically quelled the bidding war between both of the GM's for Edelman.
Given the above, I am of the opinion that the appearance of impropriety presents itself to the detriment of the rest of the league.
Veto 2-1
|
|
|
|
Post by BuccaneersGM (Greg) on Sept 29, 2017 11:57:42 GMT -5
Veto (2-2) I agree with Darryl on this one. This appears that this trade is simply a tactic to buy off the bidding war on Edelman by the Cardinals. In my opinion it is detrimental to the league and gives the appearance of collusion. I also believe that the latest bid by the Cardinals on Edelman should be declared invalid, since to uses a trade as a conditional waiver. Just my opinion, but it sets a pretty bad precedent for future conditional trades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 29, 2017 12:01:14 GMT -5
I'm quite sure that I'm in the minority here, but I am under the impression that stripes don't change merely because of circumstance. Despite the trade being made with two experienced GM's, and the presumed fact of Matthews going to be waived anyway (there is no evidence of this other than...), I believe that the implications of this trade run much deeper than the fact that Matthews is being much more than a bit undersold. Other than a distant future 5th for compensation, it's also premised upon a condition - a condition that specifically quelled the bidding war between both of the GM's for Edelman. Given the above, I am of the opinion that the appearance of impropriety presents itself to the detriment of the rest of the league. Veto 2-1 Admittedly, this is a very odd trade. And thank you Darryl for pointing out what I missed the first time, because Matthews was going to be waived does not mean that a lower value has to be automatically applied because two parties have agreed to accommodate a trade. I will change my vote to a veto as well. VETO 3-1 |
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Sept 29, 2017 16:44:51 GMT -5
My original bid was waiving mathews... about 2hrs after I posted it we made this trade. The edit notes show this.I don't believe I should lose Edelman because I edited myself into a vetoed trade due to a uncertain grey area, one in which was offered to me, not something I went out of my way for.
|
|
