Spurs - Lakers deal

[NetsGM]

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).

[HornetsGM]

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?

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.

[WizardsGM]

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.

[SpursGM-old]

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.

[SpursGM-old]

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.

[WizardsGM]

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 

[SixersGM]

 

[NetsGM]

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.

[SpursGM-old]

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.

[NetsGM]

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.

[HawksGM]

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.

[PacersGM]

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.

[NetsGM]

as i posted before and still believe in it, as a gm you have to take what you get

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

And i never liked the fact that CPU controlled teams are out of the pool.

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.

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.

Erm...why?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BucksGM]

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.

[CelticsGM]

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)