|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 29, 2017 12:22:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 29, 2017 12:50:40 GMT -5
First I'd like to say that I agree with Greg's assessment that the Cards last bid should be held invalid anyway due to listing a trade within the thread as a condition of creating cap space (which incidentally was edited in after the fact of the original post). There are no rules in Legacy that supports this proposition. Second, the fact that the trade was vetoed means Cards do not have the cap space to place a bid...again, under the rules, makes the bid invalid. The Rules state in relevant part:- INVALID BIDS WILL BE VOIDED AND DO NOT COUNT AGAINST THE CLOCK. (Up to commish discretion in special circumstances)...
- Invalid Bids are bids that have a wrong # of years, have the wrong point total, put the team over cap, put the team over the roster max, or use the RFA distinction incorrectly. To sign a player as a RFA, you MUST include RFA in the contract offer.
Accordingly, there is no question that the last bid by Cards is invalid. However, it appears that the original invalid bid was placed approximately 15 minutes before Redskins were due to win Edelman. With such a late last minute [and in many respects a very disheartening bid] it is doubtful another GM was going to place a bid. Given the circumstances, I would concur with Redskins winning the bid. |
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Sept 29, 2017 17:42:38 GMT -5
The original bid was a CW on Mathews, 2hrs after Blaine offer me the trade, i added the conditional to the trade so that i didnt lose Clay and Edelman, but only gave up a 4th for the troubles. The timeline shows that i made the edit at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Sept 29, 2017 17:53:05 GMT -5
i normally would never disclose a PM, but i believe i need to show my case. imgur.com/qiJkapywe didnt work out the conditional for another 2hrs because of dinner and normal family duties, im also willing to show the complete convo in a PM to TABS if that is required. |
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 29, 2017 20:58:46 GMT -5
I feel like we're pushing rules to the limit, and this is quite frustrating. On one hand we have a bid that has been altered in a way where a rule was broken where GM's cannot anticipate cap room specifically via trades. And now Im being asked to honor a conditional waiver which I never saw with my own eyes because we have an invalid bid because of a vetoed trade. I understand the Cards perspective on this, as he was trying to protect himself, but Im not quite comfortable with the way this bidding ended.
I need thoughts from the DOT
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 29, 2017 23:36:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure I fully understand what is being asked, but will comment on the Cards appeal.
While it may be a fact that the thread was edited, what's important is not what the previous bid may have contained, because the effects of the edit in essence eliminated the old bid and created a new one. One which, regardless of the time frame, was accounted to the Cards as the original bid. Therefore I'm not sure how something that does not exist can be honored. Yet it appears that this is what the Cards are requesting. To bring back into existence that which formerly existed. Personally I cannot understand this reasoning. It seeks to shift the responsibility of the inept actions taken from the GM onto the shoulders of the Commish.
As a solution I would suggest, rather than make such a request as to burden the Commish to accept a non-existent bid, perhaps working on a trade wherein the players could be exchanged would be more beneficial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Oct 2, 2017 12:27:50 GMT -5
This is my ruling on this: On one hand we have a situation where two teams competing for the same player tried to work out a deal of accommodation, which on the surface gives the appearance of collusion. I have heard statements from both GM's and I do not believe there was an intent to collude in any manner, just two GM's who are very active trying to make a deal work. On one hand if I award Edelman to the Cards, Im in a position where I am awarding a player where a bid has been altered, and never seeing the conditional waiver for myself, would be very uncomfortable in this decision as it would be a terrible league precedent. On the other hand, I believe both the Cards and the Redskins GM's when they say that it was in the midst of the Edelman bidding that the contact between the two teams came to be, and that the Cards changed the bid thread after the Redskins GM contacted him. Thus, I think the Cards would get unfair result here if I were to award Edelman to the Redskins, as the Redskins were the ones that proposed the trade, and changed the dynamic of the Edelman bidding, as the Redskins dropped out of bidding soon after the discussions took place. My ruling is that the Julian Edelman bidding be made void, and Legacy GM's can consummate a new thread for the future of this player as all 32 teams can once again join in on the bidding. Read more: legacynfl.boards.net/thread/6326/julian-edelman-nep-wr?page=1#ixzz4uNAx14YR |
|
