SSBA

Spurs trade:
Steve Stipanovich + 2023 Spurs first

Lakers trade:
Sam Bowie


Spurs agree

is that a joke ? :S

No.  Here is the reply that commish sent me...

This is why I am against CPU trades....

You all need to make up your mind about Bowie.  Ratings wise these two players are very close - main difference is in rebounding.  And I added a future first. 

No way this is going through. :screwy:

Also..since edits aren't allowed...

Look at it this way.  The 2020 #4 pick + a 2023 first was traded for the 2021 #2 pick.

cpu trades shouldnt be allowed if this is how it works. 1st rounder ok, but stipanovich and that 1st arent worth bowie.

Nets 1st, Warriors 1st, Damon Coles for Laporte and Kellogg ? :)

woah woah woah

I just got a reply this morning that a guy is willing to accept the Lakers position.  He's going to register tonight when he signs up.

IMO CPU trades should not have been allowed in the first place.  Never should be, for this very reason.  The commish made his ruling, but this stinks.

Bowie was a reach, but still a valuable player.  Stipanovich is going to be out of the league in 4 years.  He's a negative defensively and on the glass, and only mediocre offensively.

As I said, we have a LakersGM as of tonight.  IMO it was also a mistake for the commish to open up trading with the CPU, but that is a decision that was already made.

I agreed that trade with CPU should never be allowed.  BTW, shouldn't we the GMs have a say in a rule change?

If the guy already accepted the position then the CPU shouldn't be allowed to make trades for the Lakers anymore.

But if we're going to go forward with this, congrats to Spurs, he made a great deal. Wish I thought of it and offered them McCormick or something.

I'm sure the GM may also think differently of taking the open position if he comes in and sees this happen to his team...

Exactly why CPU trades should NOT happen.

Here I offered this guy the team last night.  Gave him a link to the rosters.  He responds this morning, after I left for work, saying he accepts, and he'll sign up tonight.  During the time I'm driving off to work, and after he accepts the spot, the CPU trades the #2 pick in the draft.

I didn't want to announce we had a new LakersGM until he signed up, but this is EXACTLY why CPU trades are a bad idea.

fuc k fuck fuck fucking fuck...fuck!!!

Did anyone try to trade up to #2? I didn't realize that we were allowed to trade with CPU teams at the time, I bet I could have offered 6 and 11 and gotten MJ out of it  :bash:

I think it's unfair to cancel this trade when no one spoke up about CPU trades in the "questions" thread. Everyone knows that the CPU will sometimes make bad trades. We didn't cancel the terrible pick of Sam Bowie, why should we cancel this trade? Add to that the fact that we don't really know how good or bad this trade will be.
I agree with the commish that this trade should go through.

Highly doubtful.

I think it's unfair to:
1) Decide to change the way the league's been run for 15 seasons without putting it to vote
2) Make that declaration in one obscure thread in the questions forum, and not in the announcements forum or a more appropriate place.

This isn't like a new rule that was just being tried out.  There was a long thread discussing if it was possible.  And I sent a PM to the commissioner to ask what steps I needed to take.  He told me and I made an offer that was accepted.

And I am not sure why everyone thinks I got this great deal.  In every other thread Bowie is bashed as basically a bust.  So I traded a bust for a bust and tossed in a future first.  And if the CPU rejects 90+% of trades (as previously reported) then the CPU must have thought this deal had value.

Did you see what they just traded the #2 pick in the draft for? I would take Willis and McCormick over Stip and a late 1st two years down the line without even thinking about it.

at least you could have send me a pm that we possible have a gm who is going to take over. And i can´t see the point of not allowing cpu trades, since we allow cpu draft picks, FA picks ...

We all know that cpu controlled teams are a mess and if i remember right the Lakers had something like 10 top 5 picks here in SSBA even with a gm.

If a gm is creative enough to get the cpu accept a trade he should get rewarded with it not punished. There is no reason for me to make a difference between a trade between a bad gm and the cpu. In fact it is way harder to trade with the cpu than with a newbie here.
For example i had around 20 offers in the last 3 days with the lakers and only 2 were close enough to get accepted.

the argument no one would take that team after such a trade has no substance for me.
How would somebody feel if he knew he could have had better players through draft or FA or....
Take what you get and make the best out of it.

There's absolutely no reason to blame Spurs for anything. This is a perfectly legitimate move. I've tried to get Bowie in couple of offers but the fucking Lakers had no filler. I'm pissed!

He was bashed as a bust compared to Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley, not to the rest of the league. He was my 2nd choice at 6 after Willis among the people I thought I had a reasonable chance of getting. Don't kid yourself, you got a good deal as long as your team doesn't become bad in two years (which it won't). Congrats.

The guy posted on the GM Openings thread....


Draft picks are something that HAS to be done.  You can't proceed with the draft without doing so.  Trades are something that don't have to be done.  A CPU doesn't have the vision necessary to make trades that effect the future of a GM's team, and should not be trusted in the responsibility of making those decisions.  Because of this, the # of decisions the CPU has to make needs to be LIMITED to those absolutely necessary (Draft Picks and FA).  Anything else cripples the chances of prospective GM's.


Really?  How many LakersGM's have we had in the past?  How many have lost interest?  You don't see a correlation there?  It would be nice if, in a perfect world, we would find one person who would be willing to go through 4 years of shit basketball and stay interested.  That's obviously been a problem so far. 


Exactly.  We need to limit the # of decisions they have to make, so that they make less of a mess than necessary.  Drafting Bowie was a mistake.  Trading Bowie was a mistake that never should have happened.

Look at it from the new LakersGM's position.  He gets offered the spot.  He looks over the roster, agrees.  One of his players HE THOUGHT HE ALREADY HAD now gets traded without his approval.  How is that fair?  How are we to get people to sign up for these teams under these circumstances?  If we continue to allow GM's to trade with the CPU, every team that goes under CPU control for more than a week will be pillaged beyond recognition and won't have any semblance of being competitive.

Furthermore, the major problem I have is the way the decision was made.  In the past, rules that change the gameplay of SSBA have always been voted on.  It was then announced in the Announcements forum so everybody would be aware of the change.  This was not voted on.  15 years of SSBA was changed on a whim.  It was also not announced, so if you weren't regularly checking the "questions" forum, nobody had any idea it happened.

I dont think anyone blames the Spurs at all - we are just voicing our concerns over this being a horrendous rule that should have been put to a league-wide vote because its such a drastic change from the rules.

Looks like a pretty vehement defense of no CPU trades there... And if a 10+ response discussion (where both head admins responded) is not enough to put people on notice, then I don't know what is.

Um...what you quoted was before Pacers changed the rule.  I hadn't responded after that until this morning.

So you don't think it should have been put to vote or announced league-wide?

That's nice.  You just proved that PacersGM made the decision.  I never argued that he had previously made the decision, I'm arguing whether doing so without putting it to vote was the right decision, and whether it should have been announced league-wide, not stuck in page 2 of a thread in the questions forum (10 replies, once again, doesn't mean it was the correct way to make a decision, nor does it prove that it was effectively communicated to the entire league).

Let's contrast this.

When I stepped down as commish, I let the league nominate commish candidates.  When it came time to decide which one of the candidates, the league decided, based on vote, who would be the next commish.  This is how I believe decisions such as this should be made.

Making a change of league rules like this without putting it to vote and properly implementing it is a mistake, IMO.  Not only do I think this is the wrong decision, but I also think it was made the wrong way.  What's worse, not only is it the wrong decision, but we've also seen the exact worst outcome of the wrong decision (the prospective LakersGM getting screwed bigtime).

Yeah, it probably should have been, and I also think the trade sucks. But, IMO, the thread was enough to put people on notice that CPU trades were ok. I would vote against CPU trades if it were put to the league, but it seems unfair to me to reject a trade after the fact.

To me it just sets a very bad precedent on how he is going to run this league. He seems someone mention something in a question thread and decides to implement it on a whim without putting it out to the league to vote on.

I am sorry but I don't see this as a rule change.  There NEVER was a rule that CPU trades were not allowed.  I have been with this league since you started it Bods and that rule was never spelled out.  IMO this case is completely different than the scenario that the Hawks opened up by allowing the trade of future assets when it had been stated before that it wasn't allowed.  Hawks even admitted he was toying with a new rule.  This ISN'T a new rule.

Also Pacers said he had around 30 offers for the Lakers/CPU in the past couple days.  So a lot more GMs thought they could make a trade with the CPU than are letting on.  Or just a few kept sending repeated offers.  Either way several GMs thought that this type of trade was acceptable.

or they were all his offers  :lol:

 :cheers: :cheers:

Actually, CPU trades have never been allowed.  Here's a post from nearly a year ago:
http://forums.ssbabasketball.com/index.php?topic=5002.msg34927#msg34927
Here's a very definitive "no" posted 14 months ago:
http://forums.ssbabasketball.com/index.php?topic=4613.msg32623#msg32623

It was never officially in the rules KB, but it very much was an acting and enforced rule since the beginning.

this IS a new rule.

As for 30 offers, I would guess that was probably done by about 5-6 teams.  Remember, the CPU doesn't negotiate, so it makes sense just to keep making new offers.

I stand corrected...I thought that it was never decided.  And I checked with the commish on the basis of the thread in the question section which seemed too imply that these type of trades were allowed before.  If Pacers wants to rescind this trade...especially in light of a new Lakers GM...then I will go with his decision.

Well, like I said, I don't have an issue with you coming up with a trade.  The rule change was posted, and it was allowed.  You did what a GM should do.  What I have an issue with is the rule change itself.

yea, in my brief stint as commish, Lakers and Bulls were open, I didn't entertain offers for either, I was always under the assumption that we couldn't do it.

well if the new gm won´t take the laker's because of 1 trade made by the CPU i will take the laker's and he can take my team. as i posted before and still believe in it, as a gm you have to take what you get. And i never liked the fact that CPU controlled teams are out of the pool.
i mean if it is fair that other gms get better draft choices because the CPU sucks or FA will be easier or regular season DCs are allowed... it should be also fair that gms get an advantage if they can find a trade.


and it isn´t true that you let us vote on every rule or commish. as i remember you choose the last commish. it was your right to set the basic of the rules and we had the pleasure that big rule changes always were voted before. but it never was the rule that new rules need a vote before.
i remember several exception that you and the last commish allowed without even informing us and that were discussed pretty intense.

i have been in several leagues with cpu allowing trades and only witnessed about 2 trades in 3 years that took place and none was really so onesided like you would expect.
From my experience i had no problem to allow it.
in fact i have seen trades here that were by far worse than this one.

my post allowing cpu trades is several days old and not one gm told me that he has a problem with it even you bods. That leaves only 2 conclusions. Either no one believed me or it is the trade that cpu made - not the fact that it is allowed - that worries so many gms now.

it is simple to me. i made that post and i have to honor this. the only other choice is that the league decide that i made such a big fault that i have to step down as a commish.

That's the thing.  He's already been offered the team!  He's already "got" it.  He's already agreed to it.


You're right.  CPU controlled teams are not optimal for the league.  That's why I've always made the effort to fill these vacancies as quickly as possible.  The answer is not letting the CPU make more decisions, but getting the positions filled faster.


Erm...why?


You're right, Hawks wasn't voted on, but IIRC he was the only one to say he'd do it (others were nominated, but he's the only one who offered).

Also, it may not have been a rule that new rules needed to be voted on, but that doesn't mean that voting is the correct way to do things.


I hadn't seen your decision until this morning.  That's part of the problem.  There's the problem that a rule was just changed on a whim, and there's a problem that the rule was not ever really announced.  I don't scan the "Questions" forum on a daily basis.

Here's what I think needs to happen:
- The trade should go through.  It sucks, the new LakersGM is getting screwed before he even posts on the forum, but Spurs was told he could do the trade.
- Adding/Changing rules needs to be clearly defined in the rules.
- A vote should go on about CPU trades for the future.

Count me among those who didn't realize that trading with the computer was possible or allowed.  Count me among those who think this trade is an absolute joke.  And count me among those who think it shouldn't be processed.

well, if this league allows the (unfortunately) CPU controlled Lakers to get screwed by picking Bowie over MJ, it can also allow the (still) CPU controlled Lakers to do CPU controlled deals.

I have more problem with the first than with the latter happening ...


(and i KNOW how tough the cpu usually is)

So the way to fix the Lakers being screwed once, is to screw them twice?

Does that fix anything?

Or should we have stopped the draft until a LakersGM is found?

Or should Pacers have made the draft pick?

I don't understand the logic.  "Since they've already been screwed once, let's screw them as many times as we can".  Huh?  To me, it seems to be better to limit the amount of times the CPU can screw them.

Maybe the CPU screwed the Lakers 3 times...I mean Jose Siegal went to free agency.

IMO either we let the CPU completely run vacant teams or suspend the league any time we have less than 29 GMs.  But picking and choosing when the CPU can make deciaions and when it can't puts a lot of power in someone's hands.

no, it's not "ongoing" screwage I ask for. but continuity.

If you let the CPU run a team then let the CPU FULLY run that team, and that includes trading. What about the offers that are coming FROM the cpu, are they offered  to us? or are those held back?

IMO it's either "CPU does it all" or "Human protection for non-GM-led teams"



and honestly, i have human GMs seen making way worse decisions than these ...

How does it put power in someone's hands?  CPU handles FA.  CPU handles draft.  CPU handles dc's.  CPU handles signings.

Basically, CPU does everything except for trades.  IMO trades are something that require the vision of the GM, and shouldn't be done by the CPU.  Furthermore, when somebody IS SENT THE ROSTER, and agrees to the roster, and the CPU fucks him over, it's really not fair.

it isn't fair, and if a new GM was already in negotiations with the league, the trade should be rescinded.

and since i see the Pistons still as co-commish, this might just be an unfortunate chain of events ... so do what's fair for the new GM.

i guess this is the 1% the commish was talking about...1 out of 100 offers...fortunately it didnt took that many to fool the cpu  :lmao:

true but i didn´t knew that. If you had send me a message this morning about a new gm coming in for the lakers i would have stopped it.

I had no information about a new lakersgm. Just bad timing and comunication imo.


I disagree here. Either we take all faults of the cpu or the open teams should be run by a human group. for example you and me together. I can´t understand it is fair that cpu is drafting bowie over mj but not fair that the cpu trades with other gms.

 :bods: