2014 Forum Mock: Trades

[rmw10]

 

Jaguars Give:

CB Cary Williams (5 stars each way)

QB Tarvaris Jackson (0.5 stars)

DT Roy Miller (0.5 stars)

5th (#154)

 

Browns Give:

DT Ahtyba Rubin (+6.5 stars for Jaguars, - 7 stars for Browns)

 

 

Confirmed!

[Ed_Reed20]

LB A.J. Klein (0.5 star) is on the block. 

[The Oakland Cathedral]

Willing to move my late 1st for the right player as well as my 2nd or 3rd.

[The Oakland Cathedral]

Willing to move my late 1st for the right player as well as my 2nd or 3rd.

Need help at FS, SS, CB, ILB, 4-3DE, TE, WR

[rmw10]

Now that I've acquired Cary Williams, he's on the trading block.  If you can't tell, the Rubin trade was obviously for the draft pick lol.

[T3hRaven]

Willing to move my late 1st for the right player as well as my 2nd or 3rd.

Need help at FS, SS, CB, ILB, 4-3DE, TE, WR

 

Any interest in TE John Carlson or S Jamaraca Sanford/Andrew Sendejo?

[The Oakland Cathedral]

Any interest in TE John Carlson or S Jamaraca Sanford/Andrew Sendejo?

Not for any of those picks but it depends on the asking price

[KDUBB44]

Shopping my 11th overall pick for a young and coming CB and some picks

[The Oakland Cathedral]

I'm going to cut Lance Briggs in the next couple hours. If you want him pm me an offer.

[T3hRaven]

Ravens give picks 31 and 212

Bills give Leodis McKelvin and pick 105

 

Bills save 4.5 stars with post june 1st designation

Ravens take in 2.0 stars as base salary

 

They only save 2 on that June 1st.  Only a 0.5 star difference, you only save base salary with that designation.

[Guest Mr. Nobody]

They only save 2 on that June 1st.  Only a 0.5 star difference, you only save base salary with that designation.

 

I believe Clutch will change the post-june designation from our trade to the stevie johnson trade he had done previously; thus a save of only 1.5 on McKelvin and then 3.5 on Stevie Johnson, so a total of 5.0 on both, compared to 4.5 on McKelvin that I incorrectly thought it would be and the 0 save Clutch previously had on Stevie Johnson trade

 

PS: have asked Clutch to confirm this in our pm and really appreciate all the help

[arnie_uk]

I dont think you can change that. When ypu cut someone post june he's gone, done. Can't be changed

[Guest Mr. Nobody]

I dont think you can change that. When ypu cut someone post june he's gone, done. Can't be changed

don't think Clutch knew that the post-June thing was introduced for this year until we were working on our trade and by that time he had other trades gone through...

 

ps: there were some franchise tag swaps allowed and there's only one post-june cut allowed and Clutch didn't use it before now...

[-Truth-]

The June 1st designation can be changed from one player to another. It's been allowed before, as it doesn't change the availability of the player.

[The Oakland Cathedral]

The June 1st designation can be changed from one player to another. It's been allowed before, as it doesn't change the availability of the player.

Thats what I thought.

[Guest Mr. Nobody]

ok, so who wants a 4th from the Ravens in order to facilitate a move up for the draft?

either from 17 or from 48

[arnie_uk]

The June 1st designation can be changed from one player to another. It's been allowed before, as it doesn't change the availability of the player.

personally think thats a pile of crap. You designate how you cut your player at the time. You shouldn't be able to come back and say I want to change that. Say for example you use june 1st and get 5 mil cap compared to 2 the normal way, that extra 3 mil at that time could let you get x player whereas you wouldn't have afforded him at the time if you used the normal way because down the line you were considering cutting someone else with the June 1st tag.

[T3hRaven]

The June 1st designation can be changed from one player to another. It's been allowed before, as it doesn't change the availability of the player.

That was before FA, I think all that is locked in now.

[arnie_uk]

That was before FA, I think all that is locked in now.

it def should be

[The Oakland Cathedral]

That was before FA, I think all that is locked in now.

I more or less asked if it would be before FA and was told it wasn't.

[stm85]

Eagles are looking to trade down from 22 into the late 1st/early 2nd. PM with offers if interested

[-Truth-]

That was before FA, I think all that is locked in now.

 

There was no deadline presented for the June 1st designation. There was only one given for the Franchise Tag. I can't fault anyone who assumed that the June 1st designation is still in play, as we're far from the date.

[-Truth-]

personally think thats a pile of crap. You designate how you cut your player at the time. You shouldn't be able to come back and say I want to change that. Say for example you use june 1st and get 5 mil cap compared to 2 the normal way, that extra 3 mil at that time could let you get x player whereas you wouldn't have afforded him at the time if you used the normal way because down the line you were considering cutting someone else with the June 1st tag.

 

Then why was it overlooked in the several times that it has already occurred? There wasn't a single peep of opposition. And your example completely ignores the second portion of the process, wherein they would apply the designation to another player. Given that it is applicable to any player from the original roster, it can be assumed with near certainty that any remotely competent GM who is interested in changing the designation from one player to another would do so in order to save a higher amount of Stars in the end. Therefore, your example wherein the GM ends up with less Stars is both incomplete and implausible. And considering that it can only be applied to the original players with dead money, as the FA and trade acquisitions come only with the base salary, there's no workaround present to prevent. In this situation, Clutch Ravens will unsurprisingly gain from the move, a net of .5 Stars, if I'm not mistaken. And we're not about to punish him for a deadline that was neither officially approved or nor even stated publicly in order for it to be assumed.

[arnie_uk]

Then why was it overlooked in the several times that it has already occurred? There wasn't a single peep of opposition. And your example completely ignores the second portion of the process, wherein they would apply the designation to another player. Given that it is applicable to any player from the original roster, it can be assumed with near certainty that any remotely competent GM who is interested in changing the designation from one player to another would do so in order to save a higher amount of Stars in the end. Therefore, your example wherein the GM ends up with less Stars is both incomplete and implausible. And considering that it can only be applied to the original players with dead money, as the FA and trade acquisitions come only with the base salary, there's no workaround present to prevent. In this situation, Clutch Ravens will unsurprisingly gain from the move, a net of .5 Stars, if I'm not mistaken. And we're not about to punish him for a deadline that was neither officially approved or nor even stated publicly in order for it to be assumed.

didnt read ur block of text but I have never seen anyone change their cut designation. Only the franchise tag

[-Truth-]

didnt read ur block of text but I have never seen anyone change their cut designation. Only the franchise tag

 

If you don't bother to read, then you shouldn't have the nerve to comment. You offered an entirely incomplete example that was dismissed in a single post. And if you haven't seen those situations occur, that's on you. It's happened more than once.

[arnie_uk]

If you don't bother to read, then you shouldn't have the nerve to comment. You offered an entirely incomplete example that was dismissed in a single post. And if you haven't seen those situations occur, that's on you. It's happened more than once.

you missed my point. If I have a wide out that his high cap hit. I may not want to cut him until after free agency to see if I can get a cheaper alternative. So instead I post 1st cut an expendable mlb to save enough money to sign said wideout. I then post first cut my original wideout and save even more cap room by swapping post june 1sts.

It reduces the element of risk.

[-Truth-]

...but I have never seen anyone change their cut designation. Only the franchise tag

 

[arnie_uk]

If you don't bother to read, then you shouldn't have the nerve to comment. You offered an entirely incomplete example that was dismissed in a single post. And if you haven't seen those situations occur, that's on you. It's happened more than once.

and I never mentioned a deadline. He swapped the post 1st from one player to another.

And as a final post, just to bring your arrogance to the table, you didn't dismiss anything.

[arnie_uk]

he still didnt change his june 1st from one player to another

[rmw10]

Man, you guys are just trading shots at one another.  See what I did there… thread title… I'll be here all night.