27.11.2009, 20:08
I have a question for the league, and I would love to see as many opinions on this as possible:
Should trade negotiations be implicitly allowed during the no-trade period?
"Negotiations" should be defined for such a question...negotiations in this instance would constitute saying something to the regards of "I like Player X, who would you want in return?" or even getting to an agreement of "I will trade you Player X in return for Player Y + ______".
To start things off I will give my opinion...I don't believe it is fair to the spirit of the no-trade period because it gives an unfair advantage to the owners in negotiation. The advantage I feel that is given is that of a longer negotiation window that not all owners have the same explicit rights. In other words, if two owners are engaged in negotiations I don't consider it fair to the other 10 owners, who are seemingly unaware such negotiations are allowed to occur.
In professional sports these types of conversations are called collusion, to the best of my understanding of the term.
But, that is just MY opinion of such negotiations, and I would like to know what others think.
Is it fair if (as an example) I negotiate a trade for Adrian Peterson before every other owner KNOWS they are allowed to make the same types of negotiations for that player? Would it then be fair if my trade for Peterson is announced immediately after the trade period opens, making it impossible for other owners to begin their own negotiations for Peterson within the time frame of the trade period?
So, please share your opinions, I'm interested to hear what others think (especially if you disagree with me ).
Should trade negotiations be implicitly allowed during the no-trade period?
"Negotiations" should be defined for such a question...negotiations in this instance would constitute saying something to the regards of "I like Player X, who would you want in return?" or even getting to an agreement of "I will trade you Player X in return for Player Y + ______".
To start things off I will give my opinion...I don't believe it is fair to the spirit of the no-trade period because it gives an unfair advantage to the owners in negotiation. The advantage I feel that is given is that of a longer negotiation window that not all owners have the same explicit rights. In other words, if two owners are engaged in negotiations I don't consider it fair to the other 10 owners, who are seemingly unaware such negotiations are allowed to occur.
In professional sports these types of conversations are called collusion, to the best of my understanding of the term.
But, that is just MY opinion of such negotiations, and I would like to know what others think.
Is it fair if (as an example) I negotiate a trade for Adrian Peterson before every other owner KNOWS they are allowed to make the same types of negotiations for that player? Would it then be fair if my trade for Peterson is announced immediately after the trade period opens, making it impossible for other owners to begin their own negotiations for Peterson within the time frame of the trade period?
So, please share your opinions, I'm interested to hear what others think (especially if you disagree with me ).
Trophy Case
IDFL 2015, 2017, 2020
NSFF 2018, 2022