‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ Drama Grips #QFL

In case you were blissfully unaware of the awkwardly hilarious drama unfolding on the QSN comments under post Exclusive Interview With SOQ here is an update. But first, some background. This all started before Scott dropped Brees and Foster. Scott alleges a gentleman’s agreement with Ted existed that made Scott think dropping Brees and Foster was a shrewd thing to do but the agreement was broken when Ted claimed Brees off waivers. The hilarity ensued.

Some highlights:

From Scott on Ted.

“a team with no integrity or moral fiber”

From Ted on Scott

I get that you’re obviously bitter about turning your 2nd place team into a flaming pile of crap in such short order. To top it off, the Pats got blown out by the freakin Dolphins and clearly can’t win a legit SB without cheating.

The complete blow by blow.

Ted says:
September 7, 2014 at 8:34 AM
Since Scott is questioning my integrity in a public forum I feel that I need to offer my side of the story. This is how events unfolded from my perspective:

– After the auction, I offered Scott in a trade Ridley for Bush straight up. This was before Ridley fumbled, Scott had Vereen, I had Bell, both $9 players etc, seemed like a good fit. Scott declined the trade.
– A few days later I get an email from Scott saying “I’m considering dropping Brees and/or Foster with the idea of getting them back cheaper. If you agree not to bid on either and I get them both back I will trade you Bush for Ridley.
– At that moment Brees was dead to me and that ship had sailed in my mind. I liked who I bought with that money and really had no interest in cutting guys to get an overpriced $28 player. However, Scott’s “offer” was hardly the deal of the century. What exactly was my compensation? To have him execute a pretty fair one for one trade? Its not as if we executed a trade with a promise on the back end.
– After thinking about Scott’s email for all of 5 seconds I said “Ok I won’t bid on those guys but I have Ridley out on offer but if I don’t get anything done let’s revisit afterwards.”
– Over the weekend, I realized that Rishi, my new division rival, was going to claim or bid on Brees. I believe that if Rishi had been able to secure a cheap WR before WW (otherwise he would have had to cut T Smith and was already thin there), he would have claimed Brees. He was not able to pull off a trade and thus did not put in a claim. But he was going to bid $26 in free agency for Brees.
– So I’m sitting there realizing the best team in my division is getting Brees, Scott will clear cap room to get Rishi’s cut players, and Im left with Scott granting me the trade of the century Bush for Ridley?

I had no competitive choice other than to take action. Once I really spent time looking at who I could cut to claim Brees, I decided it was worth it to prevent Rishi from getting him, even if I pissed off Scott. I apologized to Scott offline, but in the end I have no regrets as Scott could not have possibly thought he was compensating me enough to sit on my hands in this situation. If we had done a trade prior to him cutting Brees that included this promise, then I would have treated this as a live binding agreement and not have claimed Brees.

Quince of Darkness says:
September 11, 2014 at 3:10 PM
I don’t think many people would agree that Ridley for Bush would be a “pretty fair” trade as Bush is universally rated higher and is not at risk of losing his job altogether as Ridley is.

On top of that, when I made the offer I specifically indicated that I was making the offer as an effort to pay you back for illegally outbidding you on the New England D/ST. When I made the offer, I said “Would you consider that making us even?” You responded to that email agreeing to the deal without disputing the fact that it would make us even.

Regardless, the value of the trade to you is irrelevant. The fact remains that you agreed to the arrangement. If you didn’t see value in the trade then you did not have to agree to the arrangement.

Furthermore, your assertion that you thought briefly about this and then only agreed tentatively is a blatant misrepresentation. You and I exchanged multiple emails after that, confirming the arrangement. In one email your said, “I’m not bidding on your guys and feeding you info … so I don’t want any bullshit after this Ridley fumble.”

Your statement that you had “no competitive choice” is also patently untrue. If you had decided that the risk of Rishi bidding on Brees was too much for you to take, then you could have informed me in advance that you did not intend to honor the agreement. I then may have decided not to cut him, which would have eliminated the risk of Rishi getting him or you and I could have worked out a deal where I traded you Brees. You did not do so because you decided not that you didn’t want Rishi to have him, but rather that you wanted him yourself and that this was worth sacrificing your integrity.

This is evidenced in your “apology.”

You said, “Basically it came down to doing what I needed to do and dealing with pissing you off as a consequence. I didn’t decide to do to until I really looked at who I had to cut over the weekend.

Sorry dude, but why you decided this was a good risk to take I’m not sure.”

In summary, your argument is no defense of your integrity, but only a rationalization for why you decided to sacrifice your integrity for the acquisition of Brees.

You decided that having the services of Brees for two years at $28 was worth more than your word. Brees will be gone at the end of next year (if not sooner), but the black mark on your reputation will be there forever. I know I won’t ever trust you in any kind of agreement that is not systemically enforced.

Congrats.

Ted says:
September 12, 2014 at 9:32 AM
Dude, your offer of this “arrangement” was :

“I now need to free up $6 in cap space. I’m considering dropping Brees and/or Foster with the idea of trying to get them back cheaper. If you agree not to bid on either of them (not sure that you would anyway) AND I GET THEM BOTH BACK then I will trade you Bush for Ridley.”

It did not take long after the cuts to realize a) you definitely weren’t getting at least one if not both of them back b) the most likely scenario was my division rival getting Brees and c) if you lost one or both and even if you did still trade me Bush for Ridley that I was the one getting ripped off in this quasi 3-way trade.

Listen, I get that you’re obviously bitter about turning your 2nd place team into a flaming pile of crap in such short order. To top it off, the Pats got blown out by the freakin Dolphins and clearly can’t win a legit SB without cheating. But after making some of the QFL’s biggest historical management blunders, its time for you to have some self-awareness and take a look in the mirror rather than blame others the problems you created for yourself.

Quince of Darkness says:
September 12, 2014 at 3:19 PM
Again, if you didn’t like the deal then you didn’t need to accept it (and then later confirm it). Even if you had decided to renege on your acceptance, you could have it done it in an honorable manner. You chose not to.

Your weak arguments are merely distraction tactics and are irrelevant.

You entered into a gentleman’s agreement and did not honor it.

There is no ambiguity.

Boy do I hope this isn’t the end of it!