Patriots/Cowboys trade CFFL
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:25 pm
Troy,
Forgive me for discussing this in public, but I would like everyone to know of our intentions. Then to receive feedback on the matter.
Some of you may have noticed that Dallas and I placed bids on eachother's franchise player. This was in no way "collusion" in that we would each just match the offer, and get our players for less money. This was a trade that we had agreed to.
Vince Wilfork and a 3rd
for
Logan Mankins and Anthony Spencer
The rules currently stand that another team can make an offer of 75% less than the franchise tender. I hate this rule, but it's a rule none the less. I believe the rule needs changed to 110% of the franchise tender. Because a player isn't going to take LESS money to pack up and move his entire family. But, it's something that has been used.
That said, we both wanted the players signed to long term contracts prior to the deal. And, since we're allowed to sign them cheaper... it made sense.
Obviously, it appears as collusion. However, I assure you it's not. If Onyx and I were colluding... we'd be much better at it. In that I would've bid on Mankins weeks ago... he would've matched. Then he'd place a bid on Wilfork... I'd then match. Or... since we're both in all three leagues, we could "help" eachother in seperate leagues.
This didn't happen.
Does this allow contracts to be driven lower? Yes... but, in the same manner that happened in AFFL...
"San Diego has signed Ryan Kalil (|C|) to a 7 year contract @ 535,000/yr with 7,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus - DET will have 1 week (from 2010-03-26) to match the offer and add them to their own 53-man roster (2010-03-26)"
And, in the same manner that deals are struck with every RFA that can be signed long term at dirt cheap... as long as the teams come to agreement on the terms.
Anyhow... I'm just bringing all this to light for discussion. If the league generally feels this is collusion, and should be against the rules. Then that's fine. Let's change the rules immediately. Otherwise... if it remains legal, we're probably just going to do the deal.
Forgive me for discussing this in public, but I would like everyone to know of our intentions. Then to receive feedback on the matter.
Some of you may have noticed that Dallas and I placed bids on eachother's franchise player. This was in no way "collusion" in that we would each just match the offer, and get our players for less money. This was a trade that we had agreed to.
Vince Wilfork and a 3rd
for
Logan Mankins and Anthony Spencer
The rules currently stand that another team can make an offer of 75% less than the franchise tender. I hate this rule, but it's a rule none the less. I believe the rule needs changed to 110% of the franchise tender. Because a player isn't going to take LESS money to pack up and move his entire family. But, it's something that has been used.
That said, we both wanted the players signed to long term contracts prior to the deal. And, since we're allowed to sign them cheaper... it made sense.
Obviously, it appears as collusion. However, I assure you it's not. If Onyx and I were colluding... we'd be much better at it. In that I would've bid on Mankins weeks ago... he would've matched. Then he'd place a bid on Wilfork... I'd then match. Or... since we're both in all three leagues, we could "help" eachother in seperate leagues.
This didn't happen.
Does this allow contracts to be driven lower? Yes... but, in the same manner that happened in AFFL...
"San Diego has signed Ryan Kalil (|C|) to a 7 year contract @ 535,000/yr with 7,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus - DET will have 1 week (from 2010-03-26) to match the offer and add them to their own 53-man roster (2010-03-26)"
And, in the same manner that deals are struck with every RFA that can be signed long term at dirt cheap... as long as the teams come to agreement on the terms.
Anyhow... I'm just bringing all this to light for discussion. If the league generally feels this is collusion, and should be against the rules. Then that's fine. Let's change the rules immediately. Otherwise... if it remains legal, we're probably just going to do the deal.