GM a Team Part 3 (Transactions) unsticky plz

[roseorbust]

-= original quote snipped =-

Look, my trade was vetoed for the same reason, and you guys made a huge stink about it. So, why should we now change the rules?

I NEVER SAID TO CHANGE THE RULES. NO RULES ARE BEING CHANGED.

I need you to use your brain here. The reason our deal was originally vetoed was because that their was still a chance, no matter how small, that the Jazz could have the pick. You are not allowed to have the same pick traded to someone at once. So the Hawks last year could not have traded the chance of them having the top 3 pick to someone else. The jazz DO NOT HAVE THE KNICKS PICK. There is no possible way that they could get the pick with the protections that are currently set on the pick. Therefore, the kinicks own the pick, and are fully allowed to trade it. Your trade you started to divide up the slots, If i recall you said that if it was like 10 to 16 the other team got it, but you already owed the pick to someone else.

Also, we are obviously not following the consecutive picks rule, since trades have been allowed were consecutive picks have been traded.

[grizzleGM]

The Portland Trail Blazers, Denver Nuggets, and Memphis Grizzlies Have Agreed on a Trade.

Courtesy of The Oregonian

Denver Trades:
Steven Hunter ($3,638,600)
Yakhouba Diawara ($687,456 minimum contract)
Anthony Carter ($770,610 minimum contract)

Total Outgoing: $5,096,666

Denver Receives:
Mike James ($5,826,893)
Steve Novak ($687,456, minimum contract)
Casey Jacobsen ($770,610, minimum contract)

Total Incoming: $5,826,893 (exluding Novak and Jacobsen)


Portland Trades:
Mike James ($5,826,893)
Marcus Vinicius ($687,456, minimum contract)

Total Outgoing: $6,514,349

Portland Receives:
Steven Hunter ($3,638,600)
Anthony Carter ($770,610 minimum contract)

Total Incoming: $4,409,210


Memphis Trades:
Steve Novak ($687,456, minimum contract)
Casey Jacobsen ($770,610, minimum contract)

Memphis Receives:
Marcus Vinicius
Yakhouba Diarawa

*Memphis receives less than incoming, and has cap space anyway



Portland accepts and welcomes Steven Hunter to the team.

Memphis accepts (sorry for the delay... storms knocked out my connection for two days.)

[sterncohen]

Seattle and Washington have agreed on a trade.

To Washington:
Nick Collison $5.750M (BYC)
Wally Sczerbiak $12.275M
Maceo Baston $1.830M
Total: $19.855M
Counts as $16.980M out because of Collison's BYC

To Seattle:
Brendan Haywood $5.000M
Desmond Mason $5.000M
Antoine Walker $8.329M
Total: $18.329M

Seattle's trade: (16.980 * 1.25) + .1 = 21.325 > 18.329

Washington's trade: (18.329 * 1.25) + .1 = 23.011 > 19.855

Seattle accepts

[Klomp]

Washington Accepts the deal with Seattle. We were hesitant to trade away a true 7' defensive center in Haywood, but to rid ourselves of Antoine Walker and to get a good trading chip in Szczerbiak is too much to pass.

[#1knickfan]

-= original quote snipped =-

Look, my trade was vetoed for the same reason, and you guys made a huge stink about it. So, why should we now change the rules?

I completely agree with you. I was under the assumption that the rules had been tweeked so that deals such as ours were now possible. It seems as if I might have been mistaken and therefore unless Utah and myself can resolve the pick situation then the deal should be rejected.

[bryant08]

All trades before the Washington and Seattle trade are accepted (excluding the one just mentioned to have a pick problem).

[deviljets7]

Trade: New Jersey and Utah

NJ Trades: Earl Watson ($5,800,000)
Utah Trades: Jarron Collins ($2,350,000) and Jason Hart ($2,300,000)

[Raptors90102]

Trade: New Jersey and Utah

NJ Trades: Earl Watson ($5,800,000)
Utah Trades: Jarron Collins ($2,350,000) and Jason Hart ($2,300,000)

Utah Accepts

[#1knickfan]

If this trade is vetoed, I will seriously have to question this game.

No offense but I really find this statement ironic considering you have called for vetoes on more trades than anyone else in the league.

[zong]

-= original quote snipped =-



No offense but I really find this statement ironic considering you have called for vetoes on more trades than anyone else in the league.

[bryant08]

-= original quote snipped =-

I NEVER SAID TO CHANGE THE RULES. NO RULES ARE BEING CHANGED.

I need you to use your brain here. The reason our deal was originally vetoed was because that their was still a chance, no matter how small, that the Jazz could have the pick. You are not allowed to have the same pick traded to someone at once. So the Hawks last year could not have traded the chance of them having the top 3 pick to someone else. The jazz DO NOT HAVE THE KNICKS PICK. There is no possible way that they could get the pick with the protections that are currently set on the pick. Therefore, the kinicks own the pick, and are fully allowed to trade it. Your trade you started to divide up the slots, If i recall you said that if it was like 10 to 16 the other team got it, but you already owed the pick to someone else.

Also, we are obviously not following the consecutive picks rule, since trades have been allowed were consecutive picks have been traded.

Maybe I should just give you the torch and you can run this game. Listen, we make rules here for a reason. Even the people making the trades understand them and your interference is not by any means whatsoever necessary. We've come to the conclusion that if you trade a pick with whatever protection YOU CAN NOT TRADE IT AGAIN NO MATTER WHAT.

[skorff26]

-= original quote snipped =-



Maybe I should just give you the torch and you can run this game. Listen, we make rules here for a reason. Even the people making the trades understand them and your interference is not by any means whatsoever necessary. We've come to the conclusion that if you trade a pick with whatever protection YOU CAN NOT TRADE IT AGAIN NO MATTER WHAT.

Couldn't they just put in a stipulation like, 2008 NY first round pick to philadelphia, if NY 2008 1st round pick goes to Utah, then NY shall convey its 2009 1st round pick to philadelphia instead...

I was trying to find an example of this, but there are currently none that I can find, but if I'm not mistaken last year there was a 2nd round pick that had stipulations like this on it. I could be mistaken but if they worded the pick like I stated as above, would then the trade be allowed to go through?

[#1knickfan]

Well I would have no problem with that and if thats possible I would certainly do it. But something about it just screams out that its too simple a solution to work.

[roseorbust]

Bryant, what I am saying is that the Knicks no longer have any obligations to owe Utah their pick. Their is no mathmatical way for the knicks to pick below 23 in the draft. This means that the 2008 pick belongs to the knicks, and that means the knicks can deal the pick.

Also, I agree that it's ironic that I'm really frustrated with a trade potentially being vetoed, but the trades I wanted to veto were in my opinion very unbalanced towards one side. This trade is being argued over because of a rule that doesn't even apply.

[#1knickfan]

Also, I agree that it's ironic that I'm really frustrated with a trade potentially being vetoed, but the trades I wanted to veto were in my opinion very unbalanced towards one side. This trade is being argued over because of a rule that doesn't even apply.

First of all, most of the trades you said should be vetoed weren't very unbalanced. As for our trade, I understand your reasoning but it is no different from our reasoning when we first made the trade in the beginning of the trade and we know how well that worked out. Why rehash the same arguments when it didn't work the first time. We'd be better served by trying to work around this rule or finding another deal that would work.

[roseorbust]

I'm not making the same arguement. Originally, the trade was vetoed because there was a chance that the Jazz would get the pick. however that is not the case anymore, because their is no mathmatic way that this could happen. That's why it doesn't need to be vetoed.

[bryant08]

I'm still reviewing the trade, at second look I don't think there is anything wrong with it. The pick with the different protection isn't being dealt, the protection is being taken off the two picks at the expense of the $3M.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

I'm still reviewing the trade, at second look I don't think there is anything wrong with it. The pick with the different protection isn't being dealt, the protection is being taken off the two picks at the expense of the $3M.

No, right below the trade where the pick protection is taken off, knicksfan said that Utah ended up not accepting.

[roseorbust]

it still is fine, bcause the knicks have the full rights to the pick now, since Utah can't get it in 08.

[#1knickfan]

-= original quote snipped =-

No, right below the trade where the pick protection is taken off, knicksfan said that Utah ended up not accepting.

Unfortunately that is exactly the case. Although our entire conversation over IM regarding eliminating the protections on the first 2 years of the pick spoke of nothing but cash compensation after I posted the deal he emailed me saying he wants my second rounder this year. He feels that because he is helping me facilitate this trade he should get something of value. I disagree because as he is not taking on any contracts or giving himself he shouldn't deserve anything of real value. In my opinion he is doing nothing more than using white out on a couple sentances and his rights to the pick will not be affected in any way shape or form. Because of such a vast but understandable difference of opinion I am not going to be able to get Utah to give up the protections and so as far as I am concerned this deal has been forced back to the drawing board if not killed for the second time.