|
JAX/DAL
Feb 11, 2013 19:44:13 GMT -5
Post by Packers GM (GhostofAl) on Feb 11, 2013 19:44:13 GMT -5
Jaguars Trade: 2013 1.10 2013 3.29
Dallas Trades: 2013 1.17
Since when are later picks worth more than early picks lol?
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 11, 2013 20:01:14 GMT -5
Post by Dallas Cowboys (Colton) on Feb 11, 2013 20:01:14 GMT -5
I'd suppose it is the cap difference that caused the deal. I mean, I just accepted what was offered to me ha.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 11, 2013 21:13:32 GMT -5
Post by speedyRNF (NO) on Feb 11, 2013 21:13:32 GMT -5
DAL is correct. I was talking to JAX earlier and he felt that the cap difference between 1.10 and 1.17 was a good move for him to go down. I don't know why he included the 3... My advice was for him to ask for a later year 5 in return for falling the 7 spots, but oh well..... It's his choice
And glad to see that you're back GB
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 11, 2013 21:22:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ozzie Newsome on Feb 11, 2013 21:22:18 GMT -5
Saving cap or not Jacksonville Isn't getting enough in value
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 12, 2013 2:20:31 GMT -5
Post by Crestmount (Colts) on Feb 12, 2013 2:20:31 GMT -5
Perplexing is the word that came to my mind. TAB members, you can veto crap deals
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 13, 2013 16:31:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Feb 13, 2013 16:31:44 GMT -5
And I will early and often. Just be on notice: I'm not having it!
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 8:56:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure we can have our cake and eat it too. I have been offered plenty of higher round picks for lower picks. The fact that managers are out of cap and cannot afford some of their draft picks has changed the game. I'm not sure TAB should interfere with that. If your choice was to sit on a higher round 1st and lose it, or trade it for a lower 1st and sign them, you'd do the same thing. To illustrate....I'm sitting on plenty of picks that no one can afford, and basically have no value despite being top level draft choices. Not one manager is willing to take them on....because seemingly a lower round pick that you can use is worth far more than an upper round pick you can't use.
Another side effect of the no waiving players until after the rookie draft. And another thing you would never see in the business of the NFL.
My sole point here....the traditional sense of value has changed and is certainly in the eye of the beholder at this point.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 10:15:58 GMT -5
Post by speedyRNF (NO) on Feb 16, 2013 10:15:58 GMT -5
Which brings back the topic of (possibly) re-voting on the no Waivers before the Rookie Draft... I know it was said to be a no, but if the entire whole of the Rookie Draft is affected by it, then it may effect a lot of stuff for a lot of teams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 10:24:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 10:24:15 GMT -5
Teams have known that rule though from the start and teams that are smart and havent spend all their money will be negatively affected. Also teams who have made trades like this could complain.
You knew the rules from the start. No need to change them
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 10:55:32 GMT -5
Post by speedyRNF (NO) on Feb 16, 2013 10:55:32 GMT -5
It was just a thought... Not saying it needed to. Just a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 11:04:54 GMT -5
I will agree with the statement that the rule was there. I will not agree with the statement that everyone knew the rule. Personally, I joined this league as a recruit from the Real NFL and after the statement was made that the rules would be copied from that league, I definitely did not read or realize that no players could be waived until after the rookie draft. I joined under the assumption and the guiding premise that the point of this league was to mimic as closely as possible the actual NFL.
I can take it like a man that I missed the rule. Some of you did not, or maybe realized in time to watch your step and keep your franchise in tact. But there is no way that everyone was clear on this rule during the draft (regardless of where the blame may be laid)
I've kept my mouth shut for a couple weeks, but the fallout that is occurring is starting to get frustrating and concerning. The bottom line is that there is no longer a fair and equitable market. This is evidenced that 1st round Rookie picks cannot fetch much at all in terms of trade value. The have little value because hardly anyone can afford them. This would never ever happen in the NFL or the ramifications to the league would be severe. This would never happen anywhere. Never would you be handcuffed from selling something (or in this case waiving something) and be prevented from buying something (rookie picks). That would simply never happen in any scenario. You may be penalized (401k early withdrawal , etc ) but never would you be held hostage and unable to capitalize on something you owned of value.
Unfortunately we are now starting to see where this will lead. For now its lopsided trades that make no sense in a rational market environment. But long term it will lead to frustration and owners packing it in. For a free league especially...I can empathize.
Great idea for a league to start...and I feel bad for the commish and commend his efforts (and co commish efforts).
But this one just does not seem right to me at all. Save the bashing....clearly some of you are in great shape. But look at the bigger picture...so Aaron Rodgers gets waived....then waive your inferior or overpriced players and let the free agent bidding begin for Rodgers and whoever else enters the free agent pool. That's the REAL NFL....and it's happening every day around us. To be honest ....rookie picks are very risky, but they are fun. Tell me for the 2.50 a mid 1st rounder will fetch that you can't find 5-10 rosters players on some of the more value minded managers who it makes WAY more sense to own.
But let that play out as it would in real life. Don't allow a situation where the holder of the 1.25 rookie pick could conceivably land a top five rookie pick. That's just silly
....end of rant.
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 11:13:50 GMT -5
Jaguars Trade: 2013 1.10 2013 3.29 Dallas Trades: 2013 1.17 Since when are later picks worth more than early picks lol? Since the flow of currency has dried up and you either buy what you can afford or go hungry.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 11:20:29 GMT -5
Post by Dallas Cowboys (Colton) on Feb 16, 2013 11:20:29 GMT -5
While I do understand the point Denver is making, at some point we have to stop comparing this to the real NFL. This is an auction of every player in the league. That is real in no way. For one thing, in an actual hypothetical auction, Aaron Rodgers would cost much more than 25% of cap and would never, ever, ever be cut based on that price. Personally, I have seen the effects that cutting during the draft can have and a player like Rodgers being waived now would set off a chain off events that would very likely destroy this league, believe it or not.
IF, not when, some sort of waiver allowing before the rookie draft happens it would occur closer to the rookie draft, and would be highly limited (i.e. only 2 players, only players under $5, etc.) and would possibly be penalized with loss of a draft pick. Problem is, at this time too many deals have been made to strongly consider this sort of change.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 11:29:34 GMT -5
Post by speedyRNF (NO) on Feb 16, 2013 11:29:34 GMT -5
I do think that sort of thing would be successful for reviving the interest of a lot of owners though..
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 11:54:38 GMT -5
I even have the "50% penalty for having gone over the 100mil cap and being forced to drop a player to come into compliance" rule stuck in my head.
Good point on an inaugural auction being unrealistic too. And maybe Aaron Rodgers wasnt the best example. It just seems like this is deal time in the NFL and players like Woodson and Bradshaw are being released to clear up cap while others like Michael Turner are likely next. Point being....the teams are never stuck with guys they don't want anymore. They may be stuck with paying them something....but not bound to keep them.
In my opinion this would also be exciting for the league. It would introduce everyone to the FA bidding process, it would fill time between now and Aprils rookie draft and it would keep Those who have checked out frustrated involved which will increase the chances of them returning with interest intact come week 1.
But most importantly in my mind....it would keep the value of rookie picks intact this year and every year. Never would we see a 1.17 pick fetching a 1.10 and 3rd round rookie. That's what got me off on this to begin with....that and the ridiculous offers I've received for my first round rookies, that I've even considered based in the skewed value of things at this juncture.
Lets not forget....waiving a player does not let a manager off Scott free, unless the player gets claimed. Likely many of the players waived would be overpriced players taken in the very early (and probably ignorant on almost everyone's part) rounds of the draft- and the owner would be slapped with a significant penalty. Then the market would have a chance to iron itself out by having managers sign these players at reasonable salaries that they bid on. I for one, would love to have more FA bidding (either through MFL auction or posting a FA bid on Proboards) as a result of waived players. My bet is that there are no managers who would not participate as either a buyer or seller in this. Including the cash strapped Colts.
|
|