SSBA

Celtics Send:
Orlando
Roan
Celtics 2025 1st
$200
(26.3 mill)

 for

magic sends:
Dwight
Aguirre
(29.5 mill)

Celtics agree.

Let's make a final run with Tyler and Dwight ...

too good to pass up. sorry pacers.

just make sure Dwight gets the well-deserved ring.

;)
haD a lot of offers for him but all of them depended on the fa. I wanted a definite deal, asap to get the rebuilding started asap.

...and....who else?

Celtics trying to advance deep into the playoffs?  :)

well i am not sure what to say now. we had an agreed deal days before and now you trade howard to the celtics. as long as i remember we value an agreement pretty high here.

normally i would challenge that trade and let the comunity decide what to do but i am too involved into it so i let bods decide what to do with this.

and if this trade goes trough it has to wait till day 31 because mark can´t be traded before this day.

i would be interested too how you can have an agreed deal with players you don't even have.

.. which is an INTENTION to do a deal at best, but can't be a done deal.

restrictions are enforced on extensions? this is a first for me

From what I can tell, this is what went down:
- Pacers and Magic went back and forth on a trade.
- Pacers and Magic made an agreement that included players that needed to be re-signed
- After explaining that the players needed to be re-signed, MagicGM agreed.  There was no ambiguity in the acceptance.  It was a simple "I agree".

As most probably know, I value agreements very highly.  Not only because the league should be filled with people you can trust, but more importantly because once you agree to a trade, you affect the decisions the other GM makes after that.

Whether or not the Pacers/Magic deal should be upheld really boils down to whether or not sign and trade deals are enforceable.  I believe these absolutely have to be enforced.  Why?

Imagine I message someone with cap space.  "Offer this guy this contract, let's do a sign and trade, and I'll trade you these players".  If the guy with cap space goes through and signs those players, then the other GM backs out, he's completely screwed.  He's now wasted his cap space, on players he didn't want, to contracts he didn't want.  Now imagine if a GM agrees to re-sign his previous players to expiring contracts, goes over the hard cap in the process, and then the other GM backs out.  The GM signing the players now lost a draft pick because of the dishonesty of the other GM.

Now, neither of these situations played out in this case because the trade was canceled before day 1 was run, but these are very real scenarios.  I'm very big on setting the correct precedent.  The deal was laid out, and was agreed to that Pacers would have to do a sign and trade.  Magic agreed to this.  Letting someone back out of an agreed to sign and trade deal would be the wrong decision.

Pacers/Magic deal is upheld.  This deal subsequently cannot happen because Dwight has already been traded.

From the Rules page:
Players signed can’t be traded for 60 days, unless they are traded in a sign and trade deal. Sign and Trade deals must be posted within 24 hours of the player being signed. Players given extensions following the playoffs (before the draft) aren’t subject to this rule and can be traded at any time

Nuggets is correct.  Mark is eligible to be traded at any time.

Good trade for both teams. Honestly im also glad that my unfaithful wife.. i mean.. player.. John Tyler is a step closer to championship. :)

Magic got one of the premiere SFs in the league with Woodridge. While A frontcourt of Dwight and Tyler seems to be one of the dominant frontcourt combo we've seen in this league.

sorry guys mark was traded from the heat to the magic on day 170. therefore he can´t be traded for 60 days. this has nothing to do with getting an extension.

how do you know what kind of deal i have with the magic? last time i checked you were the celticsgm.
and even if you are right you could have waited at least till my deal didn´t occur because i can´t sign the neccessary FA.
There was no need imo to post the deal now.

another case also has to be considered. because of my deal with magic i couldn´t make other trades as well. several of my players out in this deal and my cap space prevented me from making any other move.

This is pretty much a no-brainer in this league. When the Magic agreed to his deal with the Pacers, he implicitly agreed to wait for the FA signing.

well, I'm sure the Pacers could tell us what the deal is here: He will try to resign as many FAs to expirings
yes, i'm the Celtics GM. And all I know is that I made an offer to the Magic which he accepted.

He told me you were TRYING to sign a lot of FAs to match the 29 million in salaries, and here you come and state you can't even be sure you will be able to sign as many as you need. That is a done deal? Where one party gives "some expirings I hope to sign first that can be between 2 and 5 people that will be named later". That's you call a done deal here ???

Ridiculous.

I'm sorry my offer apparently beat your fictional proposal, but nothing more is it you made here.

oh, and I would LOVE, absolutely LOVE to see someone sign Shane Wedge to a $13.140.000 mill 2yr deal.
I wonder how long the Magic would have to uphold this joke of a deal then.

When would HE be entitled to go on with his life as Magic GM ? On FA day 3 (assuming you can't make the necessary signings which you wouldn't), after day 5 (when you still fail), on day 41 when you finally manage to make the necessary deal for expirings?

What if you can never get it done this season. Is he committed forever ?

The standards, the bar for what is a deal and what is a proposal has been lowered to an unbelievably low level now.
 :bash:



Oh, and good luck on winning another title. I'm sure an 68-14 team that has won more games than anybody else in the last 2 seasons couldn't have contended without another MVP on it's team.
 :hail:

You answered your own question in the post.

"yes, i'm the Celtics GM. And all I know is that I made an offer to the Magic which he accepted."

Only three people have seen the PM's.  Me, Magic and Pacers.  I'm not sure how you can call it a fictional proposal when you admit you haven't seen it.

Sign and trades have always been enforced.  This is no different because it affects you.


It's pretty obvious.  When the players Pacers and Magic agreed to are no longer obtainable in the FA market, the deal is no longer binding.


As I said, sign and trade deals are not new here.  We've been doing them for what, 16 sim seasons?  Just because it affects your team doesn't make it a special case.


Nope.  Sign and trades have always been a part of this league.

It's a shame.  Seeing as you're a commish yourself, I would think you would have the foresight to understand this.

I didn't know specific players were named for the S&T deal.

I was believing the talk between Magic and Pacers was about "getting enough expirings so the deal can work", which is NOT fulfilling the requirements for a done deal IMO.

If it's a specific deal with named players, that's something different, and I have no problem accepting that.

case closed for now ... from my side

I think it doesnt matter if players are named specifically or not. If MagicGM gives his written/verbal agreement that he will wait until Pacers attempts to fulfill the salary matching through FA, then he is binded to that until Pacers either successfully or unsuccessfully fulfills his end of the agreement. IMO he should have stated to Celtics that "if my current trade does not work out over the course of FA, then I will do this".

I can see how Tom can be irritated by this, Magic obviously led him on quite handily here. I have been on this end of it before as well, where another GM sort of screws you over, its not a good feeling.

Magic should have just PM'd Pacers and explained to him everything, instead of just going ahead and posting this deal first without saying anything. I'm not saying that would make it right, but I personally hate finding out that a deal with someone else is dead when I see another trade posted. It's just common courtesy, that's all. If Magic did all that, he might have actually gotten away with it...

quite funny: when the topic was my Orlando Woolridge contract extension you didn't give a shit on bods opinion (supporting the extension to be allowed)

Agreed.  An agreement is, well....an agreement.  If you agree to make a deal pending PacersGM finding an expiring in FA, then you've agreed.

wow...too many posts to read  :D imo... when one gm or both GM says POST IT then it is final... nothing is really final as long as there is no "POST IT" involve :D

there should be a rule or something...when you say "POST IT"...it would mean a final agreement  :D

erm...

tom has good points..

for me, pacers and magic gm should have made a thread and post it like:

Pacers:
expirings (try to sign from FA)

for

Magic:
Dwight

then that would be considered a final agreement...according to tom's post...pacers said he would try to sign...and trying means its not final either....

well you got your wish. but don´t worry i took care if that scenario would take place. i have enough expirings now to make the deal. in fact you did me a favor with your wish.

let's see how long that arrogance will prevail

what kind of arrogance????
i just took care in the conversation with magic that the deal could also be done without shane.
in fact it would have been pretty difficult to manage the cap with signing shane.

sorry heat can´t understand your view. We never ever posted sign and trades before they happened. In fact if i have an agreement the deal is done for me. If you want to get out of it ask at least.

as if anybody ever was let out of a deal where he get's ripped, just because he found a better deal for his team before it was posted.
hasn't happened before, will never happen.


Unfortunately ...

For the last time.  Pacers and Magic discussed specific players.  It was not "I'll try to get expirings".

Furthermore, IF someone does say "I'll trade you so and so for expirings, anyone", and they agree to that, it is binding without names.  Both parties have agreed to those conditions.


You're right.  It never will happen.  Unfortunately for some reason you're unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to comprehend why it shouldn't happen.

When someone agrees to a trade, that affects the future decision making of the other GM.  If I offer a trade, and the other guy says he accepts it, then I'm going to base my next moves on the assumptions that this trade is going through.  As I said in my first post on this matter, what happens if you agree to a sign and trade, I then sign those players to the contracts YOU wanted, then you decide to take someone elses offer?  Yeah, you may have gotten a better deal, but if we don't enforce the original agreement, you've now screwed the league.

Here's a novel idea.  If you don't like the trade, or if you want to continue to explore the trade market, DON'T FUCKING AGREE TO THE DEAL.

Yes, unfortunately ... it would mean you would have to talk to people and have mutual understanding of each others needs.

Imagine somebody telling you: "Hey, I think I made a mistake prematurely agreeing to our deal, could you please let me out of it, I found another deal that will benefit the future of my team more than this one"
And you answer would be: "Hey, no problem, you got to do what's best for your team, I understand that"

Wouldn't that be nice to happen ?


Honestly, how many GMs here would say that 2nd sentence when we just aquired a 30ppg All-teamer and former MVP for a couple of expirings ?

As you stated, never will happen. Which I think is a mirror of today's society ... and unfortunate.

It has nothing to do with "talking to people and have mutual understanding of each others needs."

This argument is crap, Tom.  And I'm pretty sure you know it is, but you're just carrying on because you wanted Dwight.  I almost feel like I shouldn't indulge you.

As I've said probably 15 times now, when you agree to a trade, it affects the other person in the deal.  This is the PERFECT example of why you should be bound to your agreement.  If Pacers had gone ahead and signed those players Magic wanted, it would have been completely and utterly unfair for Magic to be able to back out of an agreement. 

What you're saying is a mirror of today's society.  "Hey, I know we agreed to something, and I know I'm going to screw you by backing out of it, and I know you don't want those players that you signed as part of our agreement, and now you're stuck with them, and I know you made personnel moves based on our decision, but I changed my mind.  I have to do what's best for MY team, afterall.  I mean, why should I take responsibility for the decision I made?".

In fact, that last statement you made pretty much just made my point.  Thanks.

If you step back on it, and look at it from the league's perspective, not your own, you'd know that I am right.

of course you are right.

of course the other GM has the best for his team (a title?) in his mind too, and of course that's the reason such a "deal cancelling" won't happen. but that doesn't mean you can't ask, and with lesser deals you even could succeed.

That's why i asked, who would allow the other team to back out. Myself, most likely I wouldn't, even when knowing the other team (trade partner) is hurt more by keeping this trade up than it would hurt me cancelling it. But that's because i'm too much part of this society ...

... and in this society we're trained a "ME FIRST" attitude from the time we make our first steps.



But I wish it were different. I wish I were different, more open-minded and understanding towards others. Call me old-fashioned, a dreamer, I don't care, but I know i would enjoy living in that other world more.


(btw, if the international perception of the modern-day US is on target, I don't expect you Americans to understand one iota of what i'm talking about here ...)
 :cheers:

maybe that "Magic-Celtics [sorry pacers]" post should be moved to "Off Topic discussion".
it's not close to a "Completed trade " anyway ...

The point ends up being that if you agree to something, you've agreed to it. With Big Mike, I had discussions with a handful of teams concurrently. It's a pain, but each PM I had to communicate a non-commital approach while I was negotiating until I got the offer I liked. So I used language like "so, something like this...." or "would you be willing to consider this..' They are much different than "Ok, I'll do that", of "I agree." And when I communicated this way to the team who ended up NOT getting him, he followed all along and understood quite clearly. All it takes in the end is a quick PM to the other teams saying that you're going in another direction.

And besides, where's Magic in all this - he was more a part of it than Tom was?  :lol:

Oh, and go Nets go! And Celtics are going down!! (Tom, I still want to get a good rivalry going). And Hornets - I'm coming after you!

Now tom goes into his patronizing tone.

Tom, you don't know shit about me or the life I live.  So let's not even go there. 

Disregarding your little jab, your point is flawed.  In this scenario, MagicGM is the one looking out for himself. The view you support (I found a better deal, I don't care if it screws over PacersGM, I'm backing out of my agreement) is the one who's selfish and not thinking about others.

This is a matter of precedent.  By allowing Magic to back out of the deal, and thus screwing over PacersGM royally, it leaves the door open for others to do the same in the future.  There is ALWAYS a victim when an agreed to deal is backed out of even though both sides reached an agreement. 

Tom, don't sit here and lecture me on me not being able to understand, when you're sitting here arguing entirely for your cause with little regard to everyone else it's affecting.  You can take YOUR me first, condescending attitude and shove it up your ass.  You absolutely amaze me how when it affects you, you think about yourself first.  I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.  You might have your soap box and pipe dream, but at least on SSBA, you're about as self-serving as it comes.

lo and behold I am here. read third paragraph starting below for being mum.

first anD foremost, i believe we were always told what has been agreed on the completed trade boards is the deal.

secondly, in the deal pacers sent me, it never involved finley. i'm looking at the deal he pm'd me he mentioned about using money to buy an exception. but never did we talk about jim finley, nor did he pay an exception on the deal posteD.
sure sure. I started this problem. and I'm not in the position to tell whats wrong and right now. I just want to show you the cause for my statements below.

third, right now, I don't even care what I'm getting anymore in dealing dwight, hence the posting of my agreement on the pacers deal even if it did involved finley. there are certain reasons why, and I do not wish to divulge them in public.

I can't belive he wrote that. :lmao:

haha, yes, I have to agree once again ... unfortunately.

I'm guilty.

I have no idea why you take my jabs at society in general personally, but i sure didn't ride an attack against you or anybody here.

And I have no idea why you still believe I want MY deal to be done, i think i've posted numerous time that the correct decision has been made ... because i didn't know all the facts ... and that it's ok. It's just a little battle between Pacers and myself for SSBA supremacy in Austria now, nothing more.

All I say, and let me CAPS this, is that IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU COULD AT LEAST ASK THE TRADE PARTNER NOT TO POST A PREARRANGED DEAL for this or that reason, and if the other guy at least LISTENED to you. No RIGHT-2-UNDO a deal, no change of rules, just polite and friendly talk ... which will mostly end in a "NO", but hey, at least you did ask ...

Hey, it's ok, and i'm at peace with everything now (except for the Pacers running away with a title, but i'll take care of that later), and there's no need for bad blood between you and anybody.

You told me you had agreed to something with expirings, and mentioned something about a mid-season deal of Dwight you had told the Pacers was an option too ... which i took as a straw that "no deal has been finalized yet"

Just a misunderstanding on my part, and it's been clarified now.

We can all go on with our lives here.

Oh, and once again, thanks for letting me out of that other prearranged deal. Sometimes asking helps indeed ...
:-)

This is going to be my last post on this subject. 

Tom: Most people do not like posts where they are accused of not to be able to understand something and being inferior based on the geographic region they live in.  Trying to paint 300 million people in one brush and using it as part of an argument and an attack is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.

Once trades are agreed to, you cannot go back on your word.  If you agree to a trade, then find a better offer, you are not getting screwed.  You have made the decision to accept the trade, you have decided this was the best move for you, and it has been done under your own power.  If someone then offers you a better deal, it's not that you've been screwed, it's that you made a mistake.  It's entirely in your own hands.  Conversely, if someone agrees to a trade, then backs out of it, the other party is screwed.  Once a trade agreement has been reached, there are irreversible events that happen.  The other trade partner takes his player off the market, and cancels any outstanding discussions.  The player (possibly) signs players to complete the deal, and the player makes other personnel moves based on the completed trade.  If the deal is rescinded by the other party, they have been screwed, and it is completely out of their control.  Letting people back out of their agreed to deals would be a terrible precedent to set.  Once you say "I agree", which is a decision you made, then events transpire which are irreversible. 

See, here in America, we value commitments that we make.  I guess in Europe you wouldn't understand this.

(See, I can make broad derogatory insults based on culture and ethnicity too.  Aren't I special!)

I regret having offended the US as a whole here ... since even if how the world sees the US is valid in general, there are probably 100 million people that are the exact opposite ... especially all the friends here at SSBA, I would like to appologize to.

topic closed from my side too.

That's incorrect. We've always had the rule that once a GM accepts on offer, whether on the completed trades thread or via PM, that his acceptance is binding. It is arguable that since the Pacers did not actually have the players, that trade could not be accepted -- but I agree with Bods's policy argument as to why that argument shouldn't be accepted.

If this kind of unfortunate situation should arise again we should get all of the PMs together and make a determination as to whether an offer has been accepted, as your statement about Finley is troubling... But I suppose that train has left the station...

I would admonish (in my capacity as "Global Moderator"  :wink:) the Magic to be more careful in his language in the future. A blanket "I agree" is pretty strong.


I personally have let people back out of deals after they've accepted them. So yes, you're right, I don't understand your perspective... No wait, yes I do -- I believe your argument runs: "I don't believe in understanding and mutual respect, but I think you should so I can get what I want." What a "dreamer." 
:cheers:

thanks for supporting my dream, but as I said earlier, topic closed.

For you, maybe, but I don't see any lock on this thread.
I wasn't going to let myself be insulted without saying something about it (and no, your "you Americans" was not just a "jab at society in general" -- it was aimed at the Americans on this board who were arguing against you.)

no, it was clearly not directed against anyone on this board. We'ver had some good (political) discussions here and I hold the US guys here in high esteem.

It was just a poor comment towards your society, perfect to make a complete fool out of myself.


In fact, that ME FIRST attitude has nothing to do with the US, but society i general, I believe. But that's a discussion that has little to do with sim leagues and trading in those, so let's end it and move towards basketball again ... before we get to sociologically/philosophically ... and IVAN joins in.
 :cheers:

Tom get some sleep. You've been here all day long talking about WW2, 4th Reich, bombarding of Iraq and all that.

Ah, where would we all be without SSBA? Probably beating a dog or something. This is much healthier.  :D

lol, I'd have nothing to read on my 2 hour break between classes.  I'd be stuck in the cafe gorging myself with pizza.  I could read my textbooks, but my major is Recreation Management, it isn't very difficult.

ah, finally we're back at SSBA.

btw, watch "The Decline Of The American Empire" if you can, it's marvellous. A canadian movie by Denys Arcand, from 1986. The main topic is sex, of course, but it's a good one about what's wrong in our society. Nearly 20 years old and still valid.

I guess Math isn't something austrian's are taught.

But I wouldn't expect you Austrian's to be able to understand that :lmao:

damn, we're in 2007 already ? time flies ...
:-)

I'm just a tad hesitate to move all clocks forward here in Austria. Imagine the effect this could have on the Pacers team (located here too). They might age within minutes ... and I don't wanna be responsible for this, that shortly after DwightGate.
;-)

Tom vs the Eastern Conference;


http://www.yahoo.com/s/702927

O Canada
Our home and native land
true patriot love
in all thy sons command

with glowing hearts
we see the rise
the true north
strong and free

from far and wide
O Canada
we stand on guard
for thee

God keep our land
glorious and free
O Canada
we stand on guard
for thee

O Canada
we stand on guard
for
thee

pathetic

wow, you've now offended all of North America in one thread... I'm impressed!  :hail:

Well, I gotta agree with Celtics on this one :P

You god damn, self-loathing Americans. Even in a thread that is bordering on inane at this point in time, you can't even see past yourself to acknowledge Mexico. Cripes, with NAFTA, it's one of your best sources of cheap labour, Tom doesn't even make a sniff of a comment at them, and all of a sudden -- poof!!---they're not even a part of North America!

 :moon:

haha, oops.  :oops:

well, he got the Mexicans by implication since I think there are more Mexicans in the US than there are in Mexico now.

Waiting for Tom to chime in with "North Americans and their lax immigration law! Not in my (a)u(s)t(r)opia!"

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8720/americangeographyub3.gif)


??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

well done, fen, well done!



And glad this thread is finally where it belongs ...

I actually like Canuckia.  I just don't like the national anthem.

yea, I can even see Bill Wennington being offended. 3 guards in the anthem, but not one forward or C.

(maybe to honor the # of NBA MVPs from CAN, but we should tell them Dirk took the third from Stevie ...)

Croatia under evil doers section. :D

hey at least you exist. no Africa..... again the black americans are the forgotten people.
and what kind of country is over japan?

Bah at least its not about war and death and solving problems by killing people!

"Sure there may be death and destruction and mangled bodies lying all around it, but at least ol' glory is still standing! Cause isn't that what it's really about - how you really define your success as a nation - the flag is still waving!"

The songs not about the flag, but about freedom.  In fact, the word flag is only mentioned once, and not mentioned at all in the second, third or 4th verse.

Freedom gained through the death and destruction of others...

Um...

You do realize that it was the brits invading Fort McHenry, right?

Bah, bottom line is its about war...whats wrong with an anthem about upholding the values of freedom and bravery through peace?

There's too much violence in society these days, and when the time comes, I don't want my children exposed to so much of it.

I think more needs to be done about it. Like not having national anthems that are probably sung daily in schools (?) about violence.

Actually the first verse is usually the only verse sung.  And it was written from a POW viewpoint.  The writer (Francis Scott Key) was imprisoned by the British when THEY invaded the US.  He wrote about still seeing the flag flying after bombardment all night long.

The song is one of hope, freedom and defending one's country.

"One persons freedom starts where another persons freedom ends"

A new beginning always marks the end of the old beginning.

Philosophy can be such fun...


Or in the words of the Moody Blues:  I think...therefore I am...I think?

Big LOL at Magics photo. Funny.

Well from my own life experience about 99.999999 % of all people ive met in life told me Oh mexico, south america (few central).

Actually, while i was studying in Mexico ive read in newspapers that Los Angeles was 3rd biggest mexican city, after Mexico City (34.000.000) and Guadalajara (6.200.000) with population of about 5.7 mil mexicans LOL.