|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 17:10:56 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. Shane...I allowed a trade in Destiny to trade 2019 conditional picks last week, after the trade here in Legacy. When the trade was allowed here, I told the two teams who messaged me that if we allow it here, then Im ok with it over there. |
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on May 9, 2017 17:11:30 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. Well stated Redskins... As I've stated above however, the two issues are indeed intertwined with one another. Cards, like Giants who followed, were privy to offering picks for players that perhaps much of league, especially outside of DOT as Frank mentioned, may not have even been aware of. I know I wasn't aware of it. Now I haven't seen the Cards/49'ers trade that was approved, so I am unaware of the exact conditions surrounding it. Personally, even with permission I would not put my John Henry on such a trade. This latter trade I did BUT...ONLY because it has been accepted before. Imo, there is no solving this problem. It will have to resolve itself over time. What we can do, is suck up the detriment it has caused the rest of the league who would have perhaps made such offers if they knew they were permissible. Approve 2-0 |
|
|
|
Post by Jaguars GM (Shane) on May 9, 2017 17:19:54 GMT -5
Anthony - are you saying that by allowing that trade with conditional draft picks pass, you are officially announcing that 2019 draft picks are now tradable in Destiny? If so, please make an official announcement so we can all take advantage of that before the rookie draft starts there!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 17:21:08 GMT -5
on conditional basis, like was allowed here yes
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 17:21:30 GMT -5
If we allow it to pass for one, why wouldnt I let it pass for all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on May 9, 2017 17:23:25 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. Actually Jaguars, a condition WAS placed on the original proposal. But removed because of the first trade with permission. Secondly, a condition on a pick is not independent of the pick, whether it materialised is irrelevant. So the trades are not different at all. A 2019 pick was used in both trades as a bargaining chip. |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 17:25:06 GMT -5
AS colts said, Laura and I agreed on conditional top 75 for nelson. JUST like the Cards/49ers.
I wanted to make sure we were following the exact setup of the approved trade 3 weeks prior
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaguars GM (Shane) on May 9, 2017 17:26:23 GMT -5
As I've stated above however, the two issues are indeed intertwined with one another. Cards, like Giants who followed, were privy to offering picks for players that perhaps much of league, especially outside of DOT as Frank mentioned, may not have even been aware of. I know I wasn't aware of it. Now I haven't seen the Cards/49'ers trade that was approved, so I am unaware of the exact conditions surrounding it. Personally, even with permission I would not put my John Henry on such a trade. This latter trade I did BUT...ONLY because it has been accepted before. Imo, there is no solving this problem. It will have to resolve itself over time. What we can do, is suck up the detriment it has caused the rest of the league who would have perhaps made such offers if they knew they were permissible. Approve 2-0 There is a solution to this problem - it is important to defend the rules we all agree to play by. Once we start equivocating about rules that are so clear cut, then every and any rule will be open to renegotiation based on need, or efficiency, or fairness... To allow this mucked up issue to resolve itself means paying for the mistake by losing credibility. Admit mistakes were made, and stop the bleeding by dealing with the wound firmly. |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 17:28:34 GMT -5
As I've stated above however, the two issues are indeed intertwined with one another. Cards, like Giants who followed, were privy to offering picks for players that perhaps much of league, especially outside of DOT as Frank mentioned, may not have even been aware of. I know I wasn't aware of it. Now I haven't seen the Cards/49'ers trade that was approved, so I am unaware of the exact conditions surrounding it. Personally, even with permission I would not put my John Henry on such a trade. This latter trade I did BUT...ONLY because it has been accepted before. Imo, there is no solving this problem. It will have to resolve itself over time. What we can do, is suck up the detriment it has caused the rest of the league who would have perhaps made such offers if they knew they were permissible. Approve 2-0 There is a solution to this problem - it is important to defend the rules we all agree to play by. Once we start equivocating about rules that are so clear cut, then every and any rule will be open to renegotiation based on need, or efficiency, or fairness... To allow this mucked up issue to resolve itself means paying for the mistake by losing credibility. Admit mistakes were made, and stop the bleeding by dealing with the wound firmly. Whose debating not following the rules? We are talking about a situation that was allowed and not being corrected for weeks, so Laura and I thought we were allowed to do the exact same thing that was allowed weeks ago |
|
|
|
Post by Jaguars GM (Shane) on May 9, 2017 17:40:49 GMT -5
Anthony -there was no official announcement 2019 picks were open to trading. Allowing a conditional 2019 picks to pass in that trade should be seen as a decision particular to that trade only - because, again - no official announcement was made that 2019 picks were open to trading.
You might have contacted Frank before making this deal to ask if the 2019s could be free to trade (like you did last year in asking for the 2018 to be opened early). It would have solved this confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on May 9, 2017 17:41:17 GMT -5
@ Jaguars, agreed in part. The rules should be enforced as is, which is my initial analysis. However, that was not done and an admitted mistake was made. Thus the initial trade is no more justifiable than this latter trade. By attempting to justify the word "conditional" as being separate from the pick in question, we enforce breaking the rule. Even so, my point is, whether the trades are reversed or not, the damage is done. If you reverse the trades, believing it to be a solution, than 28 other potential members have already suffered a loss. If they are not reversed, the trades will most likely still stand once the rookie season is over and guess what? 28 other potential members will have still suffered a loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on May 9, 2017 17:42:18 GMT -5
Therefore, your solution is to have Giants and Texans add the condition on the pick again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on May 9, 2017 18:03:42 GMT -5
Anthony -there was no official announcement 2019 picks were open to trading. Allowing a conditional 2019 picks to pass in that trade should be seen as a decision particular to that trade only - because, again - no official announcement was made that 2019 picks were open to trading. You might have contacted Frank before making this deal to ask if the 2019s could be free to trade (like you did last year in asking for the 2018 to be opened early). It would have solved this confusion. I could of but reason why I did not contact Frank or why Laura never brought it up... 1. Frank did vote on the Cards/49ers trade 2. No correction was made since that trade weeks ago 3. A trade in destiny was allowed to have conditional 2019 involved and no issues were brought up then |
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on May 9, 2017 18:20:12 GMT -5
The 1.25 pick is OTC... ill check back to see if there is a ruling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 19:06:33 GMT -5
Anthony -there was no official announcement 2019 picks were open to trading. Allowing a conditional 2019 picks to pass in that trade should be seen as a decision particular to that trade only - because, again - no official announcement was made that 2019 picks were open to trading. You might have contacted Frank before making this deal to ask if the 2019s could be free to trade (like you did last year in asking for the 2018 to be opened early). It would have solved this confusion. I could of but reason why I did not contact Frank or why Laura never brought it up... 1. Frank did vote on the Cards/49ers trade 2. No correction was made since that trade weeks ago 3. A trade in destiny was allowed to have conditional 2019 involved and no issues were brought up then Just bringing up an answer to these points: 1) Doesn't matter, it was a mistake on all DOT's part. If a team was following the rules then they were at a disadvantage by not knowing 2019 picks were available to be traded 2) Teams may not have known about it to bring it up. Not everyone reads every trade. 3) Its a different league so completely irrelevant |
|
