Celtics / Hawks trade

[CelticsGM]

Hawks trade
$100

Celtics trade
a big virtual thanks



Celtics agree!

[HawksGM]

Hawks trade
$100

Celtics trade
a big virtual thanks



Celtics agree!

Hawks agree

[NetsGM]

Excuse me?

[NetsGM]

I seriously question the validity of this trade.  The only way this can make sense, IMO, is as future consideration for a previous trade where Celtics needed to wait for his perfect offseason attendance to complete.  As has been discussed numerous times, future consideration deals are not allowed.

[CelticsGM]

this isn't a future consideration, this is a "shared-true-potential" deal.

I know something he wants to know and he pays something for that. I think we've had this before and there wasn't any problem doing that.

(hey, looking back it was YOU doing it before in what finally can be called one of the worst trade in this league ever:
 Sixers-Pistons Trade  ? on: 23 January 2008, 09:25:41 ?
-------------------------------------------------------
Sixers Trades
2025 1st rounder

Pistons Trades
325 GM points


that 76ers pick ended up being the #1 pick in this past draft, and it was sold for the $925 the Sixers received in fact.

ouch ...)

[SixersGM]

this isn't a future consideration, this is a "shared-true-potential" deal.

I know something he wants to know and he pays something for that. I think we've had this before and there wasn't any problem doing that.

(hey, looking back it was YOU doing it before in what finally can be called one of the worst trade in this league ever:
 Sixers-Pistons Trade  ? on: 23 January 2008, 09:25:41 ?
-------------------------------------------------------
Sixers Trades
2025 1st rounder

Pistons Trades
325 GM points


that 76ers pick ended up being the #1 pick in this past draft, and it was sold for the $925 the Sixers received in fact.

ouch ...)

Ouch..

I almost went to the rehab because of this trade..

Anyway, I know the trade is valid because Hawks and I have discussed about this before.

[NetsGM]

this isn't a future consideration, this is a "shared-true-potential" deal.

Yes, it actually is.  The potentials were purchased two weeks ago, under the assumption that you would get the $100 when Hawks got his bonus.

Ours was different.  I had bought the true potentials and posted the trade at the same time.  Because of that, there was no future consideration, everything was done at the same time.  We just didn't have time before the sim for the money to change hands. 

See the difference?  The problem has never been the selling of true pots, but on the reliance of future considerations, which has always been expressly forbidden, and IMO should remain to be forbidden.

[CelticsGM]

well, if this is the official stance of the league as well it will be reworked. I'm sure we find a 2nd rounder as compensation from my side that can later be moved back to me (oh what a complete idiocy for such a minor deal)

and on a personal note:
1) if $100 are moved from one GM to another I don't think it's the business of the league to question such a deal. If I want to help out another GM with some money I think it's our business only.
2) if that money is repaid later it's our business as well.
3) If TWO GMs agree on a loan, or whatever you call it, if you feel that's something that has to be INVESTIGATED by the league you're overshooting the mark.


I still don't believe this is one of those, but i'm only happy that never ever before has a trade been made here that was compensation for some earlier deal. oh man ...

[NetsGM]

So in otherwords what you're saying is since you disagree with the rules, they should not apply to you?

This is EXACTLY the problem.  This rule's practically unenforceable, since there are ways to mask future compensation.  We rely on GM's not to circumvent the rule and to respect the rules, and WHY the rules exist.  Unfortunately, we can't count on that to happen.

[CelticsGM]

no, bods.

first of all I didn't find anything in the rules section about future considerations ... and furthermore, this IS NO future consideration deal. This is - from the start - a deal for exactly $100 that have to be paid once the paying team has received the money for it's offseason attendance.

From my understanding "future considerations" means some unknown asset/player/whatever that will be specified LATER ... and thus is unable to track, and might make a deal horrible one-sided.

You really think we qualify in that regard ?

[PacersGM]

TOM i can see your point but you are wrong about the future consideration. Future consideration means that you offer something you can only do in the future like a future pick, money. imo we always made it clear that it isn?t allowed to use assets that you don?t own now. the only exception is using your DC money during the regular season in advance. how would you react if i trade for a star by using 'let's say 1000 cash i will earn in the next 3 years'.

Why didn?t you ask me or bods before the trade if it is allowed? why didn?t you post it in the first trade with the hawks? we had several deals here like that (players trade later in the season, draft picks after the draft..). i think i can accept such a deal but now it looks like you are getting money for nothing. no one knows if it is just a gift.

[CelticsGM]

ok, let's cancel this. I don't want to kill the balance of the league.


So can you please tell me if THIS would have been the way to do it ?

2-part Celtics-Hawks deal

trade 1:
Hawks trade Christian Clark & Hawks 2027 1st round pick & $80
Celtics trade Jamal Shirley & Celtics pay for trade exception ($400)

trade 2 (waiting till day 1):
Hawks trade $100 (for trade exception)
Celtics trade nothing


So like any deal that has to WAIT to be done, this part 2 has to wait too.


Would that meet the league requirements ?



(and I'm not even discussing that the Hawks could have spent the $100 right away since the trade came right before FA when the Hawks already has achieved the perfect offseason attendance after submitting draft list and FA offers, but we decided to wait until the money did show up on the bank account)

[NetsGM]

From my understanding "future considerations" means some unknown asset/player/whatever that will be specified LATER ... and thus is unable to track, and might make a deal horrible one-sided.

No.  Future considerations are something you do not physically have.  Because we do not want to put it in the league's hands to keep track of future debts, and we do not want the ability for GM's to be screwed.  For example, an easy scenario had be had the Hawks not gotten the bonus for perfect attendance.  A more lavish example would be if the Hawks "promised" behind the scenes to include a 2029 first round pick (which can't be traded yet), but then something came up in his personal life, and he had to quit the league, and now we're left with either the team the Hawks was going to give the pick to missing out on their first round pick, or the new GM to be obligated to trade a pick on a backdoor illegal deal the previous GM made.

It's been that way since virtually the first season.  There's no way you couldn't have known about it.

[CelticsGM]

a) I tried to explain that the Hawks already had achieved perfect attendance for drafting and submitting FA offers at the time of the trade, so this asset wasn't unknown, neither IF nor WHEN it would be possible to be traded.

But you prefer to react only to the "frustration parts" of my response


b) you still didn't answer if this would have been the way to do it:

2-part Celtics-Hawks deal

trade 1:
Hawks trade Christian Clark & Hawks 2027 1st round pick & $80
Celtics trade Jamal Shirley & Celtics pay for full trade exception ($400) for now with Hawks later adding $100 towards it (see trade 2)

trade 2 (waiting till day 1):
Hawks trade $100 (for trade exception)
Celtics trade nothing

??

[NetsGM]

No.  You're still trading something you don't have, and now you've put it up in the league's court to keep track of and enforce future considerations.

And this is EXACTLY MY POINT.  You're trying to find ways to circumvent the rules.  I had hoped GM's would respect the rules, but apparently that's out.