2013 Forum Draft: Voting

[Geving]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1361216689' post='1361254']
Honestly, it's not a huge deal if this gets vetoed. I think it's absurd but I have a solid deal lined up as an alternative so I'm fine either way. I just don't get why everyone is so eager to veto other deals, it's like everyone is on a power trip.
[/quote]

Because it takes the fun out of it, when you find a weak link GM and exploit it to make a completely unrealistic and unfair trade.
Now stop whining about your trade being vetoed.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1361216689' post='1361254']
Honestly, it's not a huge deal if this gets vetoed. I think it's absurd but I have a solid deal lined up as an alternative so I'm fine either way. I just don't get why everyone is so eager to veto other deals, it's like everyone is on a power trip.
[/quote]hows it absurd. Graham is the second best if not the best tight end in the league. That team wouldn't be anywhere near as good without him.

If he was a QB he'd be arguably a top five player on the league he's that good.

[stm85]

I think trades being vetoed in general is absurd, not just this one. The only reason I would want a trade vetoed is if an owner purposefully took a lesser deal compared to another offer, which reeks of collusion. I am not in favor of vetoing any deal just because one views it as poor judgement on the part of the owner. Every deal Al Davis ever made would be vetoed if the NFL did that. It takes away from the realism IMO

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='Geving' timestamp='1361216794' post='1361257']
Because it takes the fun out of it, when you find a weak link GM and exploit it to make a completely unrealistic and unfair trade.
Now stop whining about your trade being vetoed.
[/quote]
To be fair, in the NFL we call this weak link GM Oakland/NYJ

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1361217079' post='1361266']
I think trades being vetoed in general is absurd, not just this one. The only reason I would want a trade vetoed is if an owner purposefully took a lesser deal compared to another offer, which reeks of collusion. I am not in favor of vetoing any deal just because one views it as poor judgement on the part of the owner. Every deal Al Davis ever made would be vetoed if the NFL did that. It takes away from the realism IMO
[/quote]i didn't want to veto deals either but rules are rules. Those franchise guys, star guys can't be traded and jimmy graham is exactly that.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1361217079' post='1361266']
I think trades being vetoed in general is absurd, not just this one. The only reason [b]I would want a trade vetoed is if an owner purposefully took a lesser deal compared to another offer, which reeks of collusion.[/b] I am not in favor of vetoing any deal just because one views it as poor judgement on the part of the owner. Every deal Al Davis ever made would be vetoed if the NFL did that. It takes away from the realism IMO
[/quote]

Must Control Impulse to Kill JO in White Hot Rage

No but seriously Im not vetoing this cause its unfair. Im vetoing it because Graham is easily a marquee player and is the arguably 1 of the top 50 players in the league probably higher.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361217492' post='1361291']


Must Control Impulse to Kill JO in White Hot Rage
[/quote]that was a joke.

[JO_75]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361217492' post='1361291']
Must Control Impulse to Kill JO in White Hot Rage[/quote]

Still mad over the Vincent Jackson thing from last year I see.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='JO_75' timestamp='1361220410' post='1361385']


Still mad over the Vincent Jackson thing from last year I see.
[/quote]
I'm so going to discount double disembody you Wilson... I mean Jo

[JO_75]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361220685' post='1361388']
I'm so going to discount double disembody you Wilson... I mean Jo
[/quote]

haha lol. I thought about taking Tampa just to trade Vincent Jackson all over again lol.

[JO_75]

[quote name='Mt. Crushmore' timestamp='1361215137' post='1361213']
10-8 Veto winning
[/quote]

How many more vetos until it is officially vetoed?

[stm85]

7 or after 24 hours.

[Sizzlebshu]

30 mins remaining to vote on the Graham Sham.

[stm85]

It's going to get vetoed so we can withdraw the trade. I'll post the revised one in the trade thread now.

[Mt. Crushmore]

Its officially vetoed but they have a new trade anyways.

[Sizzlebshu]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]********* NEW VOTE ISSUE *************[/font][/color]

[size=4][b]Protecting the Shield [/b][/size]


The rules of RFA were not established prior to the RFA period and the Oakland GM, Alexir, believes that it is unfair that his bid on Sam Shields is invalid due to the following point

[b]© No First Refusal Exercise Notice[/b][color=#292929][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][font='Mercury SSm A', ', ', 'Mercury SSm B', ', Georgia, Georgia, serif} '][size=4]. If the Prior Club does not give the Restricted Free Agent the First Refusal Exercise Notice within the applicable period, the player and the New Club shall be deemed to have entered into a binding agreement, which they shall promptly formalize in a Player Contract, containing (i) all the Principal Terms; (ii) those terms of the NFL Player Contract not modified by the Principal Terms; and (iii) such additional terms, not less favorable to the Restricted Free Agent than those contained in the Offer Sheet, as may be agreed upon between the Restricted Free Agent and the New Club (subject to Section 5 below), and the Restricted Free Agent’s Prior Club shall receive from the New Club the Draft Choice Compensation, if any, specified in Section 2 above of this Article. [b]Any Club that does not have available, in the upcoming Draft, the selection choice or choices (its own or better choices in the applicable rounds) needed to provide Draft Choice Compensation in the event of a timely First Refusal Exercise Notice may not sign an Offer Sheet in such circumstances.[/b] The player and the New Club may not renegotiate such Player Contract to reduce the Salary in such contract until after the end of the first regular season covered by the Contract. Neither the player nor the New Club may exercise an option in such Player Contract that reduces Salary in the first League Year of such contract until after the end of the first regular season covered by the Contract.[/size][/background][/size][/font][/font][/color]


[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]The portion relevant is bolded[/background]

[color=#292929][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][b]Argument[/b]: His claim for it being unfair was because he did not know about this prior to bidding and believes that we should just completely disregard it as not part of the rules. [/background][/color]

[b]Counter Argument[/b]: Even if this were established in the beginning Oakland could not have made a bid because they could not satisfy the bolded portion as a result there was no loss of liberty. Not to mention, Oakland still has the option of trading for Sam Shields.


[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][color=#292929]Vote: Should Alexir's bid go through? [/color][/background]

[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][color=#292929]Voting Ends Feb 22nd 1:00 a.m. [/color][/background]

[Sizzlebshu]

I vote No to try and save Oakland from the wrath of the second coming of Al Davis.

1-0 in favor of No

[stm85]

I vote yes

1-1

[indianstick]

I vote no (obvi)

[stm85]

[quote name='indianstick' timestamp='1361428459' post='1363758']
I vote no (obvi)
[/quote]

I'm not sure you or Alexir get to vote. Johnwilson and I couldn't vote on the Graham trade.

[indianstick]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1361428591' post='1363760']
I'm not sure you or Alexir get to vote. Johnwilson and I couldn't vote on the Graham trade.
[/quote]

oh ok its whatever then

[stm85]

[quote name='indianstick' timestamp='1361428649' post='1363761']
oh ok its whatever then
[/quote]

I could be wrong, this situation might be different but I'd assume you 2 can't vote because your teams are directly involved and people shouldn't be voting based on self-interest.

[Alexir]

[b][u]*Counter Arguement*[/u][/b]

Again to make an observation, take it as you will. Honestly guys, I don't take this whole thing as seriously as Sizzle does but I am refuting this because it was never in the rules and Arnie's post was wayyy after my inital bid (actually had to go back and read it tonight).

This was something that could of been nipped in the bud as soon as I put in the offer, but no one said a word. I could of put in a bid for another player I was interested in (original round tender) but I tied my investment in shields. I do not say this looking for sympathy or to whine, I am just stating nothing was done until the clock hit zero.

[b]Any Club that does not have available, in the upcoming Draft, the selection choice or choices [s](its own or better choices in the applicable rounds)[/s] needed to provide Draft Choice Compensation in the event of a timely First Refusal Exercise Notice may not sign an Offer Sheet in such circumstances.[/b]

[color=#292929][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Read this with out the striked out. I have the necessary draft choice compensation in the pick that I acquired through Carolina. My original 2nd round pick was traded away last year. This clearly says that a selection choice must be provided for upcoming draft which, like I said, I have in the pick I acquired from Carolina.[/font][/color]

[color=#292929][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Now lets address the striked out: [/font][/color][b] [s]([/s][/b][b]its own or better choices in the applicable rounds)[/b]

​To me this can be interpreted in many ways. First of all, to me, it says that if I have the 2nd pick originally and still posses it but I acquired the 27th pick, that I would have to present at the time of the bidding going through my 2nd pick. I also take it as if I have the 32nd pick as my franchises pick and I acquire the 2nd pick from another team, that I can use said pick in that transaction. No where does it say that I must have an original pick to bid on an RFA. It implies that if I have 2 2nd round picks, that I must present either my own or the one that is the highest.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Again, not in the rules, clock hit zero before overturned.

later

[Alexir]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1361428715' post='1363763']
I could be wrong, this situation might be different but I'd assume you 2 can't vote because your teams are directly involved and people shouldn't be voting based on self-interest.
[/quote]

Yeah, neither one of us can vote. Either way it would cancel each other out.

[stm85]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361428995' post='1363765']
Yeah, neither one of us can vote. Either way it would cancel each other out.
[/quote]

Vote count is still 1-1

[JO_75]

I vote yes to allow his bid to count.

Vote Count is 2-1 Yes

[gabefergy]

Yes.

[T3hRaven]

I vote no.

[Ed_Reed20]

Yes

[Geving]

Yes