 |
|
|
|
|
|
Oleg the Finn
Headbanger
3322 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/26/2016 2:42:46 AM |
 |
 |
unless there is a franchise player involved...
|
|
|
|
...eliminated teams should not be trading players.
what on earth are you doing making trades, Kent? you are OUT of the playoffs and making trade after trade with playoff teams.
if you were getting a 2017 franchise player i would understand it. but you're not.
all you are doing now is altering the season-long established balance of the league, and for no purpose other than drunk masterbation. if you wanted to trade so much, you should have done it when it mattered.
i'm seriously considering calling official Shenanigans.
next year we will be putting in a trading deadline for eliminated teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oleg the Finn
Headbanger
3322 posts
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 2:51:07 AM |
|
|
I OFFICIALLY CALL SHENANIGANS
|
|
|
|
there is no justification for an eliminated team to trade with a playoff team when there is no 2017 franchise element.
I CALL SHENANIGANS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 8:10:37 AM |
|
|
I agree
|
|
|
|
| However the rules state the only recourse is a fairness committee vote. Are you calling for one? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 9:00:08 AM |
|
|
Agree on 2017 rule change, but shenanigans is 1 trade too late
|
|
|
|
I recognize that as a Koo loyalist my opinion is not valued by the rules committee, but I don't see how this week's trade is shenanigans worthy when last week's wasn't. And I'll say here what I wrote to Sean before seeing this thread: I think this is a fair trade, with Hill and Bennett sure to get a ton of work down the stretch but Ajayi having a great schedule. Last week's trade looks much harder to justify.
It's still Kent's team, and he's one of the best owners - I've no doubt there's no malicious intent in these trades. Plus, I've been wrong before about almost every trade, so who knows the extent to which these trades alter the 2016 landscape. (Personally, I think Stu wins this thing in a walk, with or without Martin. Jinx jinx jinx!) But I don't really like the possibility of these trades impacting the playoffs, particularly without Kent getting something he could use in 2017. As such, I'd be up for a rule change discussion for 2017 to prevent similar trades in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 9:07:00 AM |
|
|
Couldn't disagree more.
|
|
|
|
If you want to put this to a vote, that's your decision. But I think you're coming down harshly on Kent, and I'd say that even if I weren't involved in the trade (or one of the trades) in question.
A team makes a trade if he thinks it improves his team. Period. It doesn't matter whether that team is in the playoffs or not--and isn't the point of the Loser's Bracket to give all teams something to play for? There's still a difference between owning the 7th draft selection spot versus the 12th, isn't there?
Do you think the trade is unfair? Because I don't, and I'd like to hear your justification if you do.
If you think there should be a rule about teams being able to trade once they're eliminated from the playoffs, and/or should only be allowed to make trades for potential franchise players, that's a different issue (and one that, as you note, is not currently in the rules). However, this is a slippery slope to climb, and one that personally doesn't make sense.
For example, as previously mentioned, why shouldn't a non-playoff team be able to trade if they're motivation in doing so is to improve their team? And if they can only trade for franchise players, how do we make a concrete rule about acquiring a franchise player--which is purely objective? Can an eliminated team mortgage their current season to trade for a franchise player who is out for that season and/or on IR?
It would only make sense (in my opinion) to put a rule like this in effect if we completely did away with the Loser's Bracket, which would be the worst decision of all. But if you did this--in giving an eliminated team nothing to play for--you could call "shenanigans" on any trades made. Is that worth it?
And another thing--I think we'd all agree that the high number of trades made each season is one of the cool things about Ragnarok. I love getting those email notifications that trades have gone down regardless of whether I'm involved--it's awesome to think that everyone is constantly thinking about Ragnarok, and how to wheel and deal. Do we really want to put a rule in place that tempers trading?
Bottom line--I don't think Kent did anything wrong. I don't think I did anything wrong. Or Stu, for that matter, if this applies to his earlier trade with Kent as well. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, and I'm all for discussing potential rule modifications if the league thinks it's necessary--in the offseason.
Happy to take this offline with anyone if that would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 12:13:27 PM |
|
|
I have to agree with Sean here.
|
|
|
|
Because of the losers' bracket, we shouldn't limit eliminated teams to only making trades that involve potential franchise players.
However, the Sean/Kent trade should be nixed because Rudolph already played this week and was in Kent's starting lineup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 1:02:49 PM |
|
|
Unless I'm missing something...
|
|
|
|
| There's no rule that says a player that has already played cannot be traded. It just means I cannot put Kyle Rudolph in my starting lineup because Kent already started him, nor can Kent start Martellus Bennett this week because he already played Kyle Rudolph... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 1:46:06 PM |
|
|
It's not in the trading rules
|
|
|
|
But the free agency rules state "If a team starts a player on a Thursday or Saturday game, those players are stuck on that team for that week's games."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 1:57:47 PM |
|
|
True...
|
|
|
|
Though I don't think that's what the rule is meaning. That rule references not being able to start a player in a given week and then drop that player in favor of a free agent during the same week. Hence, why that language appears in the Free Agency section and not the Trading section. And I think if we're being honest, this rule was not meant to apply to trading-as long as no team is trying to start a traded player, there is no advantage gained, whereas you could argue differently for free agency.
That said-and though I would disagree-I would be open to nullifying the trade in terms of this week's games, though I think it should still be processed for next week. Is there historical precedent for a trade occurring (or not occurring) between Thursday and Monday, when players have already played? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 2:52:23 PM |
|
|
I agree that it's confusing
|
|
|
|
While the quoted statement is in a rule about dropping players for free agency, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to trades also.
I'm pretty there is historical precedent for this type of trade, I just haven't been able to find it yet in the message board archives. From what I remember, there was a trade made on a Monday and the fallout from it was that we had to wait until Tuesday before trading anyone that had started the previous week. Of course I could be remembering this incorrectly, but it just seems to make sense that players can't be traded midweek if they have been started that week. If nothing else, to avoid thing like the scoring on the Maulers/Mao match up right now - adding up the point totals for Kent's starting players doesn't equal the team's overall total.
The thing that brought all of this to mind for me is that earlier this season Billy flagged himself for dropping a bench player that had already started that week. We never really got an official ruling on that. He had agreed to drop a different player, but that switch was never made. I think we may need to have a few things cleared up here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 5:50:08 PM |
|
|
OK, so maybe this is what we do:
|
|
|
|
Nullify the trade between Kent and myself. Whether I agree with the rule-and the intent of what the rule is actually meant to cover-are immaterial. As things are currently written, Kent cannot trade Kyle Rudolph at this time because Rudolph already played on Thursday. No one meant to break any rules here.
That said, I'll talk with Kent, and it's certainly possible that we just execute the same exact trade on Tuesday of next week. I find it pretty ridiculous this trade is even being put to a vote, for reasons already expressed.
If you're going to vote against this trade, please do so for the only plausible reason: you think the trade itself is so unfairly balanced that it should not be permitted. This has nothing to do with the specific teams involved or their respective places in the standings-if you would consider this exact trade fair if it were made between two similarly-placed teams rather than between one team in the playoffs and one team out, you're not being objective.
I'm fully on board for discussing this rule in the offseason, or even now in the context of next season. But let's not forget that there is no rule outlawing a team's ability to trade based on their place in the standings, and I think it would set the wrong kind of precedent to inact rules in the middle of the season. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 6:02:31 PM |
|
|
at the very least it is illegal, not just retarded
|
|
|
|
| it'll have to be nullified because you can't start and trade a player later in the same week. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 8:51:07 PM |
|
|
I just got off the phone with Kent
|
|
|
|
According to him, the fake ads are preventing him from being able to access the site. He gave me his log in and I put Ajayi back into his starting lineup, but I couldn't put Rudolph back in because he has already played.
Due to his inability to access the site (and him needing to be at work at 6 AM), there will be no Scribbles this week.
As for my opinion of the trade - I'm fine with this same trade being made on Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 10:02:24 PM |
|
|
Fake Ads
|
|
|
|
Odd that Kent can't access the site, but the links are profound. As for the trade, I see how the last trade could be (innocently) made, yet not cool. Hell, can't any trade be suspect....? (ahem)
Things are fine, but I'm going through the most fucked up of times for me, in many ways. Life is odd and unpredictable. Maybe why I'm a Bruin again. I'm thankful for you guys, no matter what my record is, or what my team is called. Love you guys. Just needed to say that.
Football! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 10:02:25 PM |
|
|
Fake Ads
|
|
|
|
Odd that Kent can't access the site, but the links are profound. As for the trade, I see how the last trade could be (innocently) made, yet not cool. Hell, can't any trade be suspect....? (ahem)
Things are fine, but I'm going through the most fucked up of times for me, in many ways. Life is odd and unpredictable. Maybe why I'm a Bruin again. I'm thankful for you guys, no matter what my record is, or what my team is called. Love you guys. Just needed to say that.
Football! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/26/2016 10:45:28 PM |
|
|
Addendum
|
|
|
|
Sorry. The end of that post could be interpreted as "extreme" but that wasn't my intention. I'm not making Ragnarok a personal dumping ground. I just wanted to express (in our time of Thanksgiving) my gratitude of our Brotherhood. You guys are people I've known longer than anyone in my adult years. Thanks!
Oh, and go Chiefs! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aebleskiver
Cleats
259 posts
 |
Fu: 100.48 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2016 6:20:58 AM |
|
|
2 cents
|
|
|
|
| I agree with Sean's take on the whole purpose of trading. I would like to think that even if I'm out of the race I can still try to make my team the best it can possibly be, avenge earlier losses, keep my most hated rival from the playoffs, get a better pick in next years draft, whatever. And in the case of these last two trades they seem fair enough, at least to make arguments either way. It also seems even more dangerous to the balance of the leagues season to say it's ok to trade if there is a franchise player involved but not just to make a team better for the sake of competition. What would prevent a non-playoff team from unloading a shit ton of talent to an already good team for one great franchise player thus setting themselves up for next year. This could suddenly make the good team great and more greatly alter the landscape of the playoffs than a poor trade of lesser players. The bottom line for me is that if I didn't trust everyone in this league I wouldn't be in it. That doesn't mean I don't expect dumb trades not to be made (myself included), it just means that I can't see anyone intentionally making their team worse just to help out another owner or screw with the league. Am I wrong about that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2016 7:13:43 AM |
|
|
Well, in my opinion
|
|
|
|
| There you have it. My initial reaction was one of shenanigans. But after reading all the posts, and especially the last one by Scott, I have changes my mind. "Trust" is always a big word, right? I do trust all of you. So the trade can't happen this week as explained by Stu. However, there is nothing keeping it from happening on Tuesday. Good luck this week to all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2016 9:00:00 AM |
|
|
Thankful
|
|
|
|
What a great thread, with the exception of no name calling. Glad to see such thoughtful dialogue with minimal spelling and grammar errors. I hope there will soon be video posted of Mars pacing around the house screaming, "that trade is bullshit".
If I am reading this correctly, the new rule will be no trades with Koo. The Bass second that motion.
Peace... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2016 4:53:09 AM |
|
|
Well, in my opinion
|
|
|
|
There you have it. My initial reaction was one of shenanigans. But after reading all the posts, and especially the last one by Billy which mentioned the last one by Scott, I have changed my mind.
Not shenanigans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aebleskiver
Cleats
259 posts
|
Fu: 100.48 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2016 5:24:13 AM |
|
|
Which brings to mind one of my all time favorite movie quotes...
|
|
|
|
| "i am not ashamed. i have known love. i have known rejection. i am not ashamed to dclare my feelings; take trust for instance, or friendship. these are important things in life. these are things that matter, that help you on your way. if you can't trust your friends, well what then... what then?.. oh, yes. i believe in friends. i believe we need them. but if one day you can't trust them anymore, well, what then... what then?" ewan mcgregor in shallow grave 1994. better with a scottish accent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head of Scouting
Gjallarhorn Master
529 posts
 |
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2016 9:13:18 PM |
|
|
Which brings me to this movie quote
|
|
|
|
Say, man, you got a joint?
No, not on me, man.
It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/29/2016 9:49:51 PM |
|
|
What? AGAIN? I call shenanigans!
|
|
|
|
And you should too. It's a seriously great place to watch some football. Shenanigans Sports Pub (www.shenaniganssportspub.com).
They're back up and running after the fiasco caused by that rival sports bar across the street, Hayters & Company. (www.Haytersandco.com). Apparently Hayters was not happy when Shenanigans brought in a new chef to bolster their menu and tried to get said chef's employment overturned, even though all the proper documentation was completed and there was nothing illegal about the hire.
Everything seems to be sorted out now, though. Both sports bars realized a little friendly competition was totally fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
