2013 Forum Draft: Voting

[Mt. Crushmore]

Allow the Raiders bid on Shields.

[ravens__]

Yep.

Vote count is 7-2 in favor of having the bid go through.

[GrimCoconut]

I vote to allow the bid placed by Alexir for a 2nd round pick for Sam Shields at 8 Stars.

[ravensdan]

I vote to allow, however it seems to me there is some debate as to how this should be handled for next year. I believe it would be prudent to clarify this rule in the rules for next year...soeone should tweet john clayton for clarrification.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361428944' post='1363764']
[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
[/quote]
You cant read that with the striked out. Thats like saying read this without the bolded. Alexir is [b]Not [/b]the second coming of Al Davis. Grim didn't add that in. Its part of the rules.

It clearly states in the part you struck out that you must give up your own selection or better in the applicable round. Meaning you're only options are to give up pick 33, 34, or 35 (your original pick) as those are the only ones that are available and better than your pick in that round. In the event you don't have the original 35, then you must present a better pick ( or you can choose to give the better pick, not that anyone decent would but its Oakland so....) in the applicable round, in this case round 2 an the only picks available that better 35 are 33 and 34.

This really is clear at day and the other thing clear is you really want Sam Shields bad to be trying grasp at straws like that.

FWIW the only reason i'm opposing this bid is because you're trying to pass of a blatant misinterpretation of the rule to end around it and get your guy. I really don't care if you want to overpay for Shields, however, I do care when you try to pull something like this because its intentionally trying to end around the mock, and it likely means you will do it later should it suit your needs and that is something that does ruin the game and I would like to stamp out early on in the process. Its essentially taking advantage of a loophole and knowing that we can't account for every possibility of situation, we are bound to run into a few.

If you just said I don't think its fair that the rule wasn't established that's fine for an argument. However, don't try to misinterpret the rule when its written plain as day.

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361457323' post='1363886']

You cant read that with the striked out. Thats like saying read this without the bolded. Alexir is [b]Not [/b]the second coming of Al Davis. Grim didn't add that in. Its part of the rules.

This really is clear at day and the other thing clear is you really want Sam Shields bad to be trying grasp at straws like that.
[/quote]
No, I didn't add it in but I don't feel like it's right to not give him the player when he won the player fair & square. The problem is that the rules weren't clear here. Had they been, he would have no ground for argument. They weren't. We could have avoided this whole thing had we thought "well, people are doing a lot of trading of draft picks. Let's clarify the compensated pick so people understand how the process works".

That's the only reason I am siding with Alexir here. It's our fault as a whole because we didn't prevent this from happening.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='ravensdan' timestamp='1361455062' post='1363869']
I vote to allow, however it seems to me there is some debate as to how this should be handled for next year. I believe it would be prudent to clarify this rule in the rules for next year...soeone should tweet john clayton for clarrification.
[/quote]
Really don't see what is unclear about you having to provide your own selection or a better one in the applicable round. Seems plain as day to me. Explain? I do agree it should be put in the rules for next year.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361457705' post='1363888']
[b]No, I didn't add it in but I don't feel like it's right to not give him the player when he won the player fair & square.[/b] [b]The problem is that the rules weren't clear here[/b]. Had they been, he would have no ground for argument. They weren't. We could have avoided this whole thing had we thought "well, people are doing a lot of trading of draft picks. Let's clarify the compensated pick so people understand how the process works".

That's the only reason I am siding with Alexir here. It's our fault as a whole because we didn't prevent this from happening.
[/quote]
Again if that was his argument I have no problem with it, but its not. He is arguing that the rule is subjective in the way its written when that isn't the case which is an attempt to end around the mock, which I don't like because it inherently creates problem and is unfair to the other players.

[Alexir]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361457323' post='1363886']

You cant read that with the striked out. Thats like saying read this without the bolded. Alexir is [b]Not [/b]the second coming of Al Davis. Grim didn't add that in. Its part of the rules.

It clearly states in the part you struck out that you must give up your own selection or better in the applicable round. Meaning you're only options are to give up pick 33, 34, or 35 (your original pick) as those are the only ones that are available and better than your pick in that round. In the event you don't have the original 35, then you must present a better pick ( or you can choose to give the better pick, not that anyone decent would but its Oakland so....) in the applicable round, in this case round 2 an the only picks available that better 35 are 33 and 34.

This really is clear at day and the other thing clear is you really want Sam Shields bad to be trying grasp at straws like that.

FWIW the only reason i'm opposing this bid is because you're trying to pass of a blatant misinterpretation of the rule to end around it and get your guy. I really don't care if you want to overpay for Shields, however, I do care when you try to pull something like this because its intentionally trying to end around the mock, and it likely means you will do it later should it suit your needs and that is something that does ruin the game and I would like to stamp out early on in the process. Its essentially taking advantage of a loophole and knowing that we can't account for every possibility of situation, we are bound to run into a few.

If you just said I don't think its fair that the rule wasn't established that's fine for an argument. However, don't try to misinterpret the rule when its written plain as day.
[/quote]

Hey kid, go back and read everything I wrote . I mention the striked out later.

Man you come off like a big baby about it, I've said before that regardless, I don't care what happens. Plain as day? Why do 7+ people agree with me?

Indianstick isn't even that concerned over it compared to you....get over yourself, it's just a game....I'm not the one looking for loopholes or trying to scam anyone, so stop making allegations against my character.

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361458195' post='1363895']

Again if that was his argument I have no problem with it, but its not. He is arguing that the rule is subjective in the way its written when that isn't the case which is an attempt to end around the mock, which I don't like because it inherently creates problem and is unfair to the other players.
[/quote]
I don't know what his argument is. We'll just go off what makes sense. He bid on a player, was willing to surrender 8 Stars and the 2nd round pick he holds, Indianstick didn't want to match, there were no rules in place for a situation like this--nothing to explain the details at the time. Since nobody intervened before the RFA bidding ended, I feel like he gets the player. Yes, Indianstick can still keep the player, but the actual free agent bidding period has ended. Offer sheet time has expired. Thus, if Indianstick wants to keep the player all he has to do is pay 8 Stars. From what I saw from FA last year with CBs that might not even be that much and might be cheap.

That's how I see it.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361458640' post='1363899']
Hey kid, go back and read everything I wrote . I mention the striked out later.

Man you come off like a big baby about it, I've said before that regardless, I don't care what happens. Plain as day? [b]Why do 7+ people agree with me?[/b]

Indianstick isn't even that concerned over it compared to you....get over yourself, it's just a game....I'm not the one looking for loopholes or trying to scam anyone, so stop making allegations against my character.
[/quote]
Because it wasn't in the rules to begin with. Has nothing to do with your interpretation.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361458767' post='1363902']
I don't know what his argument is. We'll just go off what makes sense. He bid on a player, was willing to surrender 8 Stars and the 2nd round pick he holds, Indianstick didn't want to match, there were no rules in place for a situation like this--nothing to explain the details at the time. Since nobody intervened before the RFA bidding ended, I feel like he gets the player. Yes, Indianstick can still keep the player, but the actual free agent bidding period has ended. Offer sheet time has expired. Thus, if Indianstick wants to keep the player all he has to do is pay 8 Stars. From what I saw from FA last year with CBs that might not even be that much and might be cheap.

That's how I see it.
[/quote][quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361458767' post='1363902']
I don't know what his argument is. We'll just go off what makes sense. He bid on a player, was willing to surrender 8 Stars and the 2nd round pick he holds, Indianstick didn't want to match, there were no rules in place for a situation like this--nothing to explain the details at the time. Since nobody intervened before the RFA bidding ended, I feel like he gets the player. Yes, Indianstick can still keep the player, but the actual free agent bidding period has ended. Offer sheet time has expired. Thus, if Indianstick wants to keep the player all he has to do is pay 8 Stars. From what I saw from FA last year with CBs that might not even be that much and might be cheap.

That's how I see it.
[/quote]
In this mock maybe it may be cheap. I'll give you that. However, his argument stems around the fact that his pick or better is up for interpretation. He is trying to say that because he traded his original selection, the second round selection he has in return is his selection when the rule makes it fairly clear that it has to be his original second round selection or a choice better. Thats what I take issue with. The other argument is completely valid altho I dont see the need given trades are possible. What he is trying to pass off is just a really poor attempt to end around a rule which I am against as stated before in principle.

[Alexir]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361459820' post='1363925']

Because it wasn't in the rules to begin with. Has nothing to do with your interpretation.
[/quote]

So yeah that's arguement A and B. doesn't matter if they agree with interpretation or not

[Alexir]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361459969' post='1363929']

In this mock maybe it may be cheap. I'll give you that. However, his argument stems around the fact that his pick or better is up for interpretation. He is trying to say that because he traded his original selection, the second round selection he has in return is his selection when the rule makes it fairly clear that it has to be his original second round selection or a choice better. Thats what I take issue with. The other argument is completely valid altho I dont see the need given trades are possible. What he is trying to pass off is just a really poor attempt to end around a rule which I am against as stated before in principle.
[/quote]

So you are calling out my 3rd reason when my first 2 reasons are valid by you? Gotcha

[SecretAgentMan]

if it's still going on. I vote yes

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361459969' post='1363929']

In this mock maybe it may be cheap. I'll give you that. However, his argument stems around the fact that his pick or better is up for interpretation. He is trying to say that because he traded his original selection, the second round selection he has in return is his selection when the rule makes it fairly clear that it has to be his original second round selection or a choice better. Thats what I take issue with. The other argument is completely valid altho I dont see the need given trades are possible. What he is trying to pass off is just a really poor attempt to end around a rule which I am against as stated before in principle.
[/quote]
Well, I understand your point about whatever he is saying about his selection, but that's really neither here nor there. It's not the main argument. More of a side point than anything. He doesn't have his original pick or better, thus he really shouldn't get Shields. But the fact is it wasn't clarified so by technicality he should receive Shields for 8 Stars. Bottom-line. Any other argument he has or you have doesn't matter. The primary thing is that it wasn't a rule and I would just tell both of you to just drop it because the arguing is really unnecessary. It's a moot point, really. If he is saying that the traded pick he acquired from CAR is his original pick then that's not correct but that's not the basis of this argument here.

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='Mr. Irrelevant' timestamp='1361462198' post='1363966']
if it's still going on. I vote yes
[/quote]
I only saw one vote against the Raiders getting Shields. Was there another? Indian's doesn't count because Alexir nor Indianstick can vote as their teams are involved in this.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1361460997' post='1363955']
So you are calling out my 3rd reason when my first 2 reasons are valid by you? Gotcha
[/quote]
The only valid reason you have is that it was not clarified and I have no problem with that. What I do take issue with is the fact that if that is not enough you intend to blatantly misinterpret the rule trying to claim that a pick you trade for is "your pick" when it's clearly refers to your original selection. I don't care if you get Shields. Do I think its a stupid move and you're overpaying? Sure, but your Oakland in all likelihood thats common for that franchise. Your attempt to subvert a clearly established nfl rule is what I take issue with and why I oppose you getting him. It was not established in our mock, so that point is valid, but there is no way you can misinterpret what is written in that rule.

[Dubs]

I will vote to allow

[arnie_uk]

I vote to allow because I didn't specify this in the rules thinking it was common knowledge and the bid was made prior to me amending my oversight. Next year however it must be your own pick or better.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1361469389' post='1364071']
I vote to allow because I didn't specify this in the rules thinking it was common knowledge and the bid was made prior to me amending my oversight. Next year however it must be your own pick or better.
[/quote]
Alright we'll end this here as its a waste of time to keep going with it

[Sizzlebshu]

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

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b]Saving the Shambled Saints[/b]. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b]Background:[/b] The Saint's owner is inactive and incompetent. His state of the franchise page is an eyesore. He has only made 1 move, a trade which was vetoed. He has also been rumored into giving up his players for a pittance, which is essentially running the team into the ground. Truth has returned and Corvus was kind enough to hold a spot for him. However, the intended spot Carolina has been gutted by Corvus maliciously. So for the Truth to take over this team isn't really fair to him as the team has already been drastically altered due to Corvus's moves. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b]Solution: If the Saints GM does not return to activity by the start of FA, then Truth will be able to take over his team. If he does, Truth takes over the Panthers as Corvus was only keeping his seat warm and chose not to take a team. [/b][/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Pros: Truth gets a fair team to run as GM, we get rid of an inactive and incompetent owner. Brandon22 would have a chance to take over Oakland

Cons: Truth hasn't been the most active of owners. Kicking out the Saints owner may be a but unfair. Brandon22 would have chance to take over Oakland. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Vote: Should Truth become the new Saint's GM if the other owner doesn't return by the start of FA. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Voting ends: 1:10 Feb 22nd (12 hours that will extend to 24 hours if its close or an insufficient number of votes have been garnered) I feel this is a bit more effective. [/font][/color]

[Geving]

I vote for Truth to become the new GM of the Saints.

[Sizzlebshu]

I also vote Truth in

2-0

[GrimCoconut]

I dislike fiction so I go with Truth.

[stm85]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1361470309' post='1364092']
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]********* NEW VOTE ISSUE *************[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b]Saving the Shambled Saints[/b]. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b]Background:[/b] The Saint's owner is inactive and incompetent. His state of the franchise page is an eyesore. He has only made 1 move, a trade which was vetoed. He has also been rumored into giving up his players for a pittance, which is essentially running the team into the ground. Truth has returned and Corvus was kind enough to hold a spot for him. However, the intended spot Carolina has been gutted by Corvus maliciously. So for the Truth to take over this team isn't really fair to him as the team has already been drastically altered due to Corvus's moves. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][b]Solution: [/b]Kick the Saints GM out and have Truth take over the team.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Pros: Truth gets a fair team to run as GM, we get rid of an inactive and incompetent owner. Brandon22 would have a chance to take over Oakland

Cons: Truth hasn't been the most active of owners. Kicking out the Saints owner may be a but unfair. Brandon22 would have chance to take over Oakland. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Vote: Should Truth become the new Saint's GM[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Voting ends: 1:10 Feb 22nd (12 hours that will extend to 24 hours if its close or an insufficient number of votes have been garnered) I feel this is a bit more effective. [/font][/color]
[/quote]

A couple of things. 1, 24 hours for a vote is the rule, you can't change that. 2, what is all this stuff about Brandon22 and the Raiders? 3, why do you accused Corvus of being malicious in his dealings?

[arnie_uk]

Yes to truth. I also like a 12 hour period so as not to hold truth up in getting started. But for this vote only

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='stm85' timestamp='1361470548' post='1364100']


A couple of things. 1, 24 hours for a vote is the rule, you can't change that. 2, what is all this stuff about Brandon22 and the Raiders? 3, why do you accused Corvus of being malicious in his dealings?
[/quote]
Yeah...I don't think personal opinions should be addressed in an opening poll. That is biased at its finest. Good catch. I didn't read to be honest, lol. Just saw the headline and voted for Truth.

I don't understand talk about replacing Alexir with Brandon22. I assume that was a joke. Alexir's not bad. Brandon's not even active every day.

[ravens__]

I'll wait until tomorrow before I submit my vote in case Johnwilson returns. Yes, he's made some boneheaded trades but it would just be rude to kick him out. If he doesn't come back, it's a clear yes from me.

EDIT: I don't get the Brandon nonsense either.

[Alexir]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1361470808' post='1364103']

Yeah...I don't think personal opinions should be addressed in an opening poll. That is biased at its finest. Good catch. I didn't read to be honest, lol. Just saw the headline and voted for Truth.

I don't understand talk about replacing Alexir with Brandon22. I assume that was a joke. Alexir's not bad. Brandon's not even active every day.
[/quote]

I don't really pay attention to sizzle, just taking shots for no reason. Honestly don't know why he is putting these vote polls up if he can't do it unbiased . Obviously lacks the maturity to do so, can someone else take over?