Spurs - Lakers deal

[BullsGM3]

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 

[HornetsGM]

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.

[HornetsGM]

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 

Highly doubtful.

[NetsGM]

I think it's unfair to cancel this trade when no one spoke up about CPU trades in the "questions" thread.

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.

[SpursGM-old]

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.

[BullsGM3]

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 

Highly doubtful.

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.

[PacersGM]

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.

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.

[KingsGM-old]

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!

[BullsGM3]

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.

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.

[NetsGM]

at least you could have send me a pm that we possible have a gm who is going to take over

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

And i can´t see the point of not allowing cpu trades, since we allow cpu draft picks, FA picks ...

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.

the argument no one would take that team after such a trade has no substance for me.

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. 

We all know that cpu controlled teams are a mess

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.

[WizardsGM]

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.

[HornetsGM]

I think it's unfair to cancel this trade when no one spoke up about CPU trades in the "questions" thread.

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.

So what's the deal, can we offer or not?

After today we shouldn't have any computer run teams.

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.

[HornetsGM]

you can always offer up to the comp but expect 99% of your offers rejected,

[NetsGM]

I think it's unfair to cancel this trade when no one spoke up about CPU trades in the "questions" thread.

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.

So what's the deal, can we offer or not?

After today we shouldn't have any computer run teams.

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?

[NetsGM]

you can always offer up to the comp but expect 99% of your offers rejected,

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).