Re: FA and trades

by tru11 Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:29 pm

RVallee wrote:
bretty wrote:Players like LaRon and Reece with one year left should be separated and looked after as that team did no wrong,

Players like Avril, Curry Ungar and welker who reject deals shouldn't be traded as they are only traded because they will walk

How do we know if they've rejected or not?

owners said it ??

GENIUS!

by RVallee Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:44 pm

tru11 wrote:
RVallee wrote:
bretty wrote:Players like LaRon and Reece with one year left should be separated and looked after as that team did no wrong,

Players like Avril, Curry Ungar and welker who reject deals shouldn't be traded as they are only traded because they will walk

How do we know if they've rejected or not?

owners said it ??

GENIUS!

by Logan_Buckler Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:09 am

Avril never rejected a deal. I just never offered one, and river knew this

by bretty Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:12 am

Did he cut of lines to talk?
Become un negotiable? Or was still negotiable when u traded him?
Why would u trade him for some one that u knew had rejected a deal (cury)

by Riverside Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:18 am

Logan_Buckler wrote:Avril never rejected a deal. I just never offered one, and river knew this

yeap. so knowing this I would:

1) offer him a deal by the end of season.
If EA would not alow me - its clearly a bug - but.

2) I would tag him, even loosing more money in the process.
If EA would not alow me and wil send to FA - its clearly another bug.

So, Bretty, now you would tell me that having two EA bugs (surelly unknown before) its all my GM's fault to bought him? are you serious, mate?

by bretty Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:46 am

You will get the chance end of the year,
I swere u told me u tested it, tradded players in last year eg Eagles FB Reece, were still able to be tradded....

If u dont then its a bug, and u shouldn't be penalized,

Players who reject trades shouldn't be tradded, correct me if I'm wrong but curry rejected his deal?
I rember on the twitter he was walking...

That's we're the issue is....Now the trades been done and its a hard one,
I'm not wanting to penalize u guys who have tradded,
I'm wanting to stop pple trading players who reject deals...

But moving forward these things need to be stopped,
Eg, seattles C trade,

This needs to be thought out and planned for, with pple looked after,

by bretty Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:37 am

I just did a sim online cc,
I traded for FB reece in his contract year, and I could offer him a deal at the end of the season,
I can confirm that type of trade is fine,..

Eg of trades that receiving team will have chance to sign befor FA starts
Wr Smith,
LT Gross
FS LaRon

by Riverside Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:41 am

bretty wrote:You will get the chance end of the year,
I swere u told me u tested it, tradded players in last year eg Eagles FB Reece, were still able to be tradded....

If u dont then its a bug, and u shouldn't be penalized,

Players who reject trades shouldn't be tradded, correct me if I'm wrong but curry rejected his deal?
I rember on the twitter he was walking...

That's we're the issue is....Now the trades been done and its a hard one,
I'm not wanting to penalize u guys who have tradded,
I'm wanting to stop pple trading players who reject deals...

But moving forward these things need to be stopped,
Eg, seattles C trade,

This needs to be thought out and planned for, with pple looked after,

I've tested it on some players and it worked. that is why I've started with p.1 - offer him a contract. but I can't guaranty the same would happen with Reece, Avril, others.

Curry did reject the contract. But what is important - noone knows that period of time that those rejected can't be offered nothing latter. We all just assumed it might happen or not. That is why I've suggested to divide trade before and after week 5 - as it revealed only after week 5 (when I've started this topic). So that all of the last year trades before week 5 would have the same protection.

Anther example to do that is actualy yourself.
You've approved the Lions-Raiders trade and in the same situation of SF-SEA rejected the same case knowing already that it might not work... that the question on aknowledgement more then of future practice of that kind of trades leaving legaue w/o FA pool. Noone is asking to make it a regular basic protection - all I'm saying is we should give a protection to those "dark times" trades of PHI, OAK, DET, others.

by Riverside Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:04 pm

and frankly speaking I would accept any desicion and don't what to fight for amy of those players but here is question more about my trades to other teams then as about players I've got from them and that is why I'm writing all that stuff...

by rymac588 Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:52 pm

I feel like maybe I should weigh in here as I was involved in two of those trades.

Landry is essentially on a restricted FA contract, as such you get no chance to re-sign him during the year, however you do get one shot to sign him at the end of the season. I don't see why there should be any exceptions made here. I didn't trade him because of this but it certainly factored in my decision.

Smith and Gross were both cut by Scouse during his tantrum on the way out of the league. They each originally had 3-4 years left on their deals but had to be re-signed to one year contracts. Before agreeing to the trade Mani assured me that I had exclusive rights to sign them back after the season (as they both should have much longer contracts and not be under FA signing rules).

I agree with Bretty for controlling the situation and having realistic FAs but I think a solid set of rules needs to be laid down for every trade before it gets even more out hand.

Thoughts?

by Mani Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:24 pm

rymac588 wrote:I feel like maybe I should weigh in here as I was involved in two of those trades.

Landry is essentially on a restricted FA contract, as such you get no chance to re-sign him during the year, however you do get one shot to sign him at the end of the season. I don't see why there should be any exceptions made here. I didn't trade him because of this but it certainly factored in my decision.

Smith and Gross were both cut by Scouse during his tantrum on the way out of the league. They each originally had 3-4 years left on their deals but had to be re-signed to one year contracts. Before agreeing to the trade Mani assured me that I had exclusive rights to sign them back after the season (as they both should have much longer contracts and not be under FA signing rules).

I agree with Bretty for controlling the situation and having realistic FAs but I think a solid set of rules needs to be laid down for every trade before it gets even more out hand.

Thoughts?

we are already settings the new standards ryan. And also if you have any suggestion, please put them down.

by Riverside Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:49 pm

rymac588 wrote:Before agreeing to the trade Mani assured me that I had exclusive rights to sign them back after the season (as they both should have much longer contracts and not be under FA signing rules).

that is correct for all of CAR trades I assume.

by tru11 Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:27 pm

i think its simple.
if there is a bug it should go as followed:

guys who got traded without rejecting a deal shouls be offerd to their new team first and get either a tag deal for 1 season or a long term contract.( guys like reece, laron and such)

guy who rejected there deal should only get a deal worth the franchise tag for their position for 1 year.( guys like avril,curry and ....)
this ofcourse is for players who go straight into FA.
panthers players are the exception.

by Riverside Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:37 am

tru, Avril wasn't offered contract - he sould be in group 1

by bretty Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:01 am

This will go around in circles,
But the hole point is a ruling so people know what is and isn't happening in these trades,
A line drawn for people to follow,

It doesn't really affect me, not sure why i got sooo involved, I guess it's cause I felt I had the answeres on egsamples,

I'm not singling u out Rymac, u have two trades sets of trades wile i been modd so i know the situations on them both, lol and ars examples to use,

My last question is......
WR Smith and LT Gross, DWill, Gamble, Murfey etc....
Panther trades so it needs to be handled properly.

As they are one year deals they will be able to be offered end of the year, befor FA
Like LaRon and Reece,

I know all panther players should have 3 year deals if scouse didn't cut em, but none of u wouldn't have em if he didnt.....Pple benifitted from the opportunity in a way...

Do these teams with panthers get help in FA?
assumption based on tests is... Assuming I'm correct....
Like all other last year of contract players They get an opportunity to sign them befor FA
The Same opportunity as Cmay and Tru to sign LaRon and Reece and those type of last year of deal players....

I realise the Pathets are a unique situation but commish team need to be clear on who is helped in FA bids and who isn't,

Anywayz I'm gonna stop talking about it.... And disconnect from the thread as it doesn't affect me,
Untill I'm told other wise, from comish's i won't approve rejected deal trades,
GL

by tru11 Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:59 am

i think we are getting ahead of ourselfs.

the question is this:

Do all traded players end up in FA or only the ones who rejected a contract?

*If the awnser is all then we got a problem and we should come up with a solution.

* if the awnser is only rejected then either the team gets the option to sign them to a franchise tag 1 year deal or let them become FA for everyone.

gets no easier.

If i get no chance to resign reece then its a bug cause river did not even know he was on a 1 year deal and thus never negotiated with him.
i should be able to tag or offer him a deal before FA or EA screwed up.
If so i feel i should be given the right to resign him before people start bidding on him. Same goes for Avril and Landry.

Players like Unger and Curry on the other hand rejected a long term deal and got traded. Its highly unlikely they would take a new deal but they should be able te be tagged by there new team. If this is not the case i think its fair if there new team get the option to sign them at the tag price for 1 season. Signing them at a lower price long term with out a bidding war would be cheating though.

by Logan_Buckler Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:11 pm

should be able to tag or offer him a deal before FA or EA screwed up.

This is under review we have to be careful and just about this; it takes a little time and effort.

by rymac588 Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:45 pm

bretty wrote:This will go around in circles,

I know all panther players should have 3 year deals if scouse didn't cut em, but none of u wouldn't have em if he didnt.....Pple benifitted from the opportunity in a way...

GL

I know you aren't singling me out arch rival Bretty Razz

But I don't agree with this part above. Obviously if Panthers had kept these players he would have been able to sign them to whatever deal he wanted to make up for the Scouse issue. Just because they were FAs signed to a one year deal this shouldn't change the rules for the person who has them now. PAnthers GM wanted to rebuild and get younger, this is why he dealt them, not because of the potential trouble signing them back (my assumption).

Anyway this is my thoughts on my particular situation, and this was conveyed before any trade was accepted.

by RVallee Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:04 pm

I agree, the Panthers situation was different, I honestly thought it was agreed to let a few things slide in this situation, cause lets be honest, I'll still be amazed if he's able to field a team next season.

by montes Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:49 am

Ok, im so freakin confuses on this subject. Once u guys get it figured out would someone post it in a thread so i dont have to read all the extra stuff. All i care is what we are gonna do about it. Thanks and sorry for bein a butt in this conversation. And sorry for runnin scouse off ( on second thought im not sorry for runnin him off rofl)

by Sponsored content