Magic/Hornerts trade

[NetsGM]

The only reason I allowed this trade was because I was going to experiment with a new rule,

If this was the only reason that the trade was allowed then it shouldn't happen.  If any rules are going to be open for experimentation then all GMs should have the same opportunity. 

This is just my opinion:
- If the then commish told them the trade was going to go through, it has to go through.  You can't back down from something that was already agreed upon.
- There shouldn't be experimentation.  You either officially change the rule, or you don't.
- I personally don't like the trading of future assets.  Just too much book-keeping for a job that's already a lot of book-keeping.

So, if I were commish, this trade would go through (because it's already been approved), but in the future it wouldn't be allowed.  And I'm not too worried about other GM's not getting the chance.  Neither team got a huge competitive advantage over the deal, the rest of the league can recover.

[HawksGM]

This is just my opinion:
- If the then commish told them the trade was going to go through, it has to go through.  You can't back down from something that was already agreed upon.
- There shouldn't be experimentation.  You either officially change the rule, or you don't.
- I personally don't like the trading of future assets.  Just too much book-keeping for a job that's already a lot of book-keeping.

So, if I were commish, this trade would go through (because it's already been approved), but in the future it wouldn't be allowed.  And I'm not too worried about other GM's not getting the chance.  Neither team got a huge competitive advantage over the deal, the rest of the league can recover.

I am willing to do all the bookeeping for this, I even had a little excel sheet made up for it.  But it's up to Pacers, if he wants to institute this rule, I will do the bookeeping for it.

[CelticsGM]

well, since this trade has been officially approved i don't see any point in discussing this after the fact.

the new commissioner sees things differently, thats fine. this was approved by the old one, already carried out (partly) and had an influence on FA and player movement. A rollback would be the wrong decision IMO.

[SpursGM-old]

well, since this trade has been officially approved i don't see any point in discussing this after the fact.

the new commissioner sees things differently, thats fine. this was approved by the old one, already carried out (partly) and had an influence on FA and player movement. A rollback would be the wrong decision IMO.

I agree that it still should be allowed.

However in the future if 1 GM comes up with an innovative approach that would lead to a rule change then ALL GMs should be made aware of it.  Knowing that you could include future picks might have changed negotiations on other deals.  And it DID give these two GMs an unfair advantage in that they were negotiating under a different set of rules than the rest of us.

[HornetsGM]

I asked the Magic to check with the Hawks GM to make sure that this trade would go through. I was extemely hesitant to do the trade at first, but decided to go through with it once the Hawks Gm gave his consent. As previously stated, I gave up valuable cap space in this trade, and vetoing this trade now would cause me to lose that bargain without any cap space.

Overturning a trade that a previous commissioner approved of strikes me as very unfair, especially considering the harm that would result. The other option, waiting for one season and making an entry in the rules prohibiting this type of trade, would be much more fair.

Believe me, I will remember this trade and will post it at the appropriate time. There will be no need for record keeping.

[NetsGM]

Believe me, I will remember this trade and will post it at the appropriate time. There will be no need for record keeping.

That's exactly the situation I think should be avoided at all costs.

[WizardsGM]

Thought I would chime in on how future considerations works in my league(s).


I allow GMs to say future considerations in the trade, or even list exactly what pick they are giving in the future

BUT, resolving the future considerations when they are legally allowed to be traded is fully up to both GMs, not the commish. They have to post the transaction when it is to be completed and indicate it is to tie up a previous debt, and both GMs have to re-accept.

[NetsGM]

They have to post the transaction when it is to be completed and indicate it is to tie up a previous debt, and both GMs have to re-accept

Don't you think this opens up teams to being screwed over by other GM's?

[WizardsGM]

They have to post the transaction when it is to be completed and indicate it is to tie up a previous debt, and both GMs have to re-accept

Don't you think this opens up teams to being screwed over by other GM's?

Absolutely. And that is the possible deterrant. Its up to the GMs to trust each other. Luckily in RBSL we have a great group of GMs that wouldnt do that.

[NetsGM]

I never pretend to fully know anyone except for family.  In the end, you never know what someone is capable of.  I've always been of the mindset that we should prevent GM's from screwing each other.  This isn't the NBA.  In the NBA, if a GM did that, other teams wouldn't trade with them.   The owner would fire him.  GM's don't want this.  Other GM's would jump at taking the job.

Here, this is a hobby.  We're not getting paid, there's no deep fear of being fired.  It's not as easy to replace a GM (heck, we still have one open team).  So I think we should do what we can to make sure GM's don't get screwed, and is why I always stayed away from rules such as that.

[PacersGM]

well, since this trade has been officially approved i don't see any point in discussing this after the fact.

this had to be discussed since we never allowed future considerations and i won´t change that rule.
Even if it isn´t a written rule everyone knew it and kept their trade offers that way.
I have no doubt that both gms knew that they will get an unfair advantage by making such a trade.
IMO the fact that only the commish and the trade partners had knowledge about the new rule gave them as much advantage or disadvantage as processing this trade back.
i had countless trade talks with the celticsgm for example and they all were cancelled because he couldn´t trade me a pick.

But as bods already posted it wasn´t my decision.
I will process the trade because hawks as commish agreed to it.

In the future no trades like that are going to be allowed.

[PacersGM]

They have to post the transaction when it is to be completed and indicate it is to tie up a previous debt, and both GMs have to re-accept

Don't you think this opens up teams to being screwed over by other GM's?

Absolutely. And that is the possible deterrant. Its up to the GMs to trust each other. Luckily in RBSL we have a great group of GMs that wouldnt do that.

Not only trust.
in fact if the gm steps down and new one is in, has he to honor this trade or not?
and what do you call future considerations? lets say i trade my pick in 2030 is this still allowed?
or how about cash? can i trade cash like a credit? for example trade $2000 because i knew i will have that kind of money in the future.

i like it more simple: you can only operate with what you own. Nothing more or less. That should be enough for every creative gm to make a trade.

[HawksGM]

I don't think it would be that difficult to make future considerations, or conditioned picks a possibility in this league.  The simple reason is that Derek's system of bank transactions would serve as a great back way of checking what stipulations were, in case the bookeeper's work was questioned.  As long as the stipulations were clearly stated at the time of the trade, I wouldn't see a problem with it.

[WizardsGM]

For cash trades, I only allow up to the amount the team has earned but not been awarded for DCs and attendance. I dont let them go in a negative any other way.

And regards a pick too far ahead - would another GM be satisfied accepting a draft pick 15 years down the road? If that GM is dumb enough to accept that, that isnt my problem.

[HornetsGM]

Believe me, I will remember this trade and will post it at the appropriate time. There will be no need for record keeping.

That's exactly the situation I think should be avoided at all costs.

I don't see the harm in this limited instance. I have no problem with the decision not to allow deals like this in the future, but the bottom line in this case is that it would be very unfair to overturn a decision by a previous commissioner.
If we can't rely on the word of the Commish for deals, than what are we supposed to rely on? I wasn't trying to get any advantage. There was no "bad faith" involved. I looked at the rules (there is nothing in there), and I also made sure that it was ok with the commissioner. What else could I do?