SSBA

Nuggets trade:
Darius Perry


Celtics trade:
Malcolm Trump
2020 1st round pick (I was told this is allowed now?)
$100


Nuggets accept. There will be a second part to this deal that will make more sense down the road (where I will be able to make Trump expiring). So I get close to the same player (12/8 in starter mins vs 14/7) with an additional pick. Plus I just had to see the Kings reaction.

Celtics accept.

very good trade nuggets. you get a younger PG with similar talent, cash and a first rounder
nice rape of the celtics  :shock:

get my starter back in Perry ... since for the final run with Chills and Dirk I need a better PG starter than Reed/Trump. And how better can you start than with an all-defensive first teamer.

It hurts I couldn't resign him myself, and now had to give a future pick, Trump (who'll have a good career somewhere, i'm convinced) and money. But it is still NOW that counts, and I'm willing to pay for that.

dirk who?  :lol2:

you mean that bastard that didn´t retired  :lmao:

Bad thing that Perry, despite 91 loyalty and just 35 greed, took the Nuggets offer of 9m 1yr.
Offered him all I could at 5.4m starting for 4 years, but it wasn't enough and now I had to overpay to get him back.

Not perfect, and it's not like he's been underpaid for so long and the payday is his gratification, so he's just a greedy bastard ...
;-)

you should know by now that almost every player here took the one year offers with more first year money over security.

Ok ok, this is getting ridicilous.

First Blazers, now Celtics. Since WHEN we're allowed NOT to have picks for 2 consecutive seasons?!

bods told everyone he is still undecided if he will allow it or not.

So why is everyone pretending like he already made a decision?

This ain't fair.

I agree with Kings...until Bods rules on the consecutive picks then these trades should not be allowed.  Everyone should be able to negotiate under the same rules.  I have avoided offering my picks in deals because until told otherwise the rule is a GM cannot trade away consecutive picks.

I told him it should be the 2021 pick but he said "no look at Blazers, for the time being its ok"

What a bastard. Bods clearly said "there has been found a glitch in the program" and he also admited he made a mistake. Now Celtics ignored all of that and it's just playin dumb.

There's no way this deal should be processed. No way.

Holy crap man, remove the G string from your crotch and settle down. In the event Derek said this isnt allowed I will accept the 2021 1st round pick and all will be well. Get off your high horse

he is just frustrated his Celtics, Blazers picks wont be lotto like he was sure they will :)

I told bods 4 seaosns ago that FBB only requires you to have a 1st for any of the 2 drafts FOLLOWING the next draft. So right now, a first in 2020 OR 2021 is mandatory by FBB. No glitch, that's how it's always been.

For that very reason I allow this in DJSL for 4 seasons already.

And if he now allows it for the Blazers, he has to allow it for every other team as well, in all fairrness. Especially after if wasn't mistakenly allowed, but about 5 teams posted constantly about that and he put it through despite.

Nah, i'm cool. But i'm not letting it this one go away just like that. I know i'm right.


You can bet i'm pissed. Anyone would've been had his picks been ruined cause someone is obviously breaking the rules. Your trade should have been canceled as well but ok, no biggie, everyone can make a mistake. But now the Celtics is tryin to take a advantage of that. No way. This trend has to stop.

There are some things in this league that I wish would stop, but wishes dont always come true  8)

You mean constant bickering between me and Tom? You know that's not possible.

You told Bods? Nice. How about sharing you little secret with the rest of us?

big difference Telfair or Livingstone, my pick would be the same no matter who of those 2 is my PG, its not like i got Yao for pick.

1) I still don't remember Celtics telling me 4 seasons ago.  Not in the slightest
2) The fact that it's the way FBB allows it, doesn't mean it's not a glitch.  Microsoft calls those undocumented features.
3) I will allow this trade.  No more trades like this will be allowed until I make a ruling.

can you tell us why you allow this trade but future maybe not?
why didn´t you just stop both trades until you make a final decision?
if you decide for the rest of us we aren´t allowed to make such trades in the future celtics and blazers get an unfair advantage imo.

Bods...I agree with Pacers.  This deal should not be allowed.  It was negotiated under unfair conditions.  The rest of us were going on the belief that you allowed the first one due to your mistake.  This one is a deliberate attempt to force the rules buy one GM.  Bad precedent.

So in short;

1) Celtics lied to us.
2) So the entire deal is AGAINST the rules
3) But it's going to be allowed anyway?

Ok ok, this is getting ridicilous and this is completely against the very integrity of this league! I have no idea what's going on overhere anymore? It's ok if you break the OBVIOUS rule as long as you're the first (or second one in this case) one to do so??

I demand a league vote. This is a discrimination against 28 other GM's and it's simply not fair.

This trade was allowed because I wasn't decisive on what the rule was.  That's the only reason.  I made a declarative statement that for the time being it's not allowed going forward.

I talked to bods about it in March 2006. On AIM. To his credti, i didn't find any post or PM asking for this to be allowed here in SSBA.

I allowed this in DJSL in June 2006:
http://z13.invisionfree.com/DJSL/index.php?showtopic=2353
when i found out it works as designed. So half of the league USE this rule for 4 seasons now.


So first i didn't lie to anybody, and second, I didn't exactly push a trade through here ignoring the rules. It's not like I didn't HAVE a pick that would work anyway ... unlike the Blazers in their deal.

And is it really worth crying murder over whether I trad a '20 or '21 first ?

hey doug, why is nobody furious that a mega trade the Balzers made, and that would have ZERO chance to go through when you follow the rules, but everyone rips us here when we use a 2020 pick instead of a 2021 pick. It's not like this is the difference between a Cavs and Kings pick, right ?

When I posted the deal I was having two things in mind:

a) bods did NOT say he wouldn't allow any further deals, but hasn't made a decision yet. Since the earlier trade was approved, I found it ok to use the 2020 pick
b) the Nuggets stated in the trade that he would accept the 2021 pick as well, in case it's not allowed to use 2020, so where is the problem ? For me it's irrelevant. My 2020 pick won't be atop the league and my 2021 pick won't be leading the lottery. Nobody knows what happens until then (on predictions, I was planning without Dirk to start rebuilding from the 2016 season, and now he still plays).


But it seems like everyone else agrees that I gained a HUGE advantage using the 2020 pick instead of the 2021 one. For whatever reason ...
 :?

then just make it official so we can be without 2 1sts or all 3, and well....i think we should be allowed to be without any picks if we want that way.

guys, FBB doens't ALLOW to be without a 1st in both the 2nd and 3rd season after this one. There's no way around this.
FBB doesn't allow to trade more than 5 assets at once
FBB doesn't allow to split FA exceptions

That's the limitations of the PROGRAM we use for the sim.

but still if we can do it like we can obviously with the programm, just like other rules we invent, we could do that. Anyway just a suggestion, everything works fine with me.

Tom...

1) People did make a deal about the Blazers/Hornets deal.  Bods stated in that thread that he made a mistake and was going to allow it.

2) I started a thread under questions asking if the rule had changed.  Bods said he hadn't decided.  Almost everyone read that to mean the rule HAD NOT CHANGED.  Only you seem to read that as the rule could be circumvented.

3) Even your trading partner questioned it and only went through with the deal under your assurances.  In short you pushed this through although the rule hadn't changed.

4) If the pick didn't matter then why not use the 2021 one and avoid all the trouble?

well, 2 corrections:

2) he siad he hasn't decided AND he allowed that deal. To me that sounds like he "hasn't decided if he will KEEP the new procedure". But if you're into law you know, stuff like that can easily be interpreted either way.

3) I didn't push anything through. The commish "pushes trades through", we ordinary GMs can only SUGGEST these and hope for his approval. The reason why the other pick is mentioned at all: I wanted to assure myself the Nuggets would do it with either pick, to avoid problems with the 24hr rule. That's all. The rest was the commish' decision.


But I still don't understand why everyone implies I had criminal intentions and acts like I just got AI for Andre Miller. Hey, I probably avoided giving the #22 pick in 2021 by giving the #22 pick in 2020, which is clearly in the Nuggets favor, since it's a year earlier.

Well, IMO if he hasn't decided to change a rule then the rule is still in effect.  If the local govt talks about changing the speed limit it doesn't mean you can drive faster because they talked about it or that one driver got away with it.  The law (rule) remains in place until officially changed.

He allowed the other trade because he made a mistake (those do happen) and didn't want to backtrack after saying it would work.

Just because the program allows something doesn't mean this league allows it.  Case in point: the hard cap.

It isn't the fact that you got away with a "steal"...it is the fact that basically everyone else was working under different rules.  I avoided offering my picks in trades because the rule in place is: you cannot trade picks if you end up with two years without one.

I have a great idea


DEREK: please move the 2020 1st back to Boston and move the 2021 1st to me instead. I dont want everyone to be upset over this, and would like the issue closed. Everyone makes very valid arguments on why this shouldnt have been allowed.

That's not true, doug.

IF the government suddenly allows speeding up to 75mph (it doesn't fine drivers anymore exceeding 55mph and says so) and openly declares "we will think about raising the speed limit to 75mph",
- would you have to fear paying for speeding at 75mph? No.
- would speeding at 75mph be legally allowed? No.
- would you and everyone else exceed 55mph? Probably yes.

I confess I was driving at 75mph. But in no way I was "forcing" the gov to allow 75mph only for ME. The facts are the same for everyone. The rule hasn't changed but it is allowed.


Now what does that mean anyway, the commish has erred and allows it.
We have that rule, we have it for a long time, everyone knows it (especially veteran GMs like Blazers and Hornets) , it's posted, and it's been here since the league started.
So what if Derek mistakenly told the deal is ok. If he was wrong, that shouldn't set the ruleset out of order. Yet it did in this case, and this way it should be for everyone. Why stick to a rule that was only THOUGHT to be FBB mandatory but in reality isn't.

The truth is, i was not the first one to "break" the rule, I was the third one.

@Nuggets:
the idea is nice, but it would mean the Hornets/Blazers deal has to be rolled back as well, and all this fuzz about a future pick isn't worth it.

Just shut up.


Answer my pm and redeem yourself!

Actually, Tom, I didn't even come close to saying it would be allowed.  Never.
http://forums.ssbabasketball.com/index.php?topic=5875.msg40223#msg40223


I even made it a point to specifically mention why I allowed that ONE deal to go through.  Never once did I say the floodgates were open on a new rule.

Anyway, the issue's settled:
http://forums.ssbabasketball.com/index.php?topic=5925.0


Unfortunately I'm not at my computer 24/7, so I can't checked things 24/7.  Patience.

Ha, no. That was for the Celtics, not you.

well, considering you sent me three last night, I just figured :)

I have no time. I'm a busy man. :)