GM a TEAM 11/12 - Discussion Thread

Post #281 » by **Gremz** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:08 pm

Has anyone heard from Sacramento? I've been trying to contact him with no success.

nikkoewan · Post #282 » by **nikkoewan** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:15 pm

hey guys, what do you think about rocdogg's post in the trade board regarding trades that have multiple parts of it to count as multiple trades instead of one(since we're counting number of trades due to a limit)? I think, deals like that should count only as one trade in the count. What do you think?

this way, the majority decides

Post #283 » by **roc** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:34 pm

I support this question and am willing to go by majority rule.

Post #284 » by **Klomp** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:44 pm

r0cd0gg wrote:I support this question and am willing to go by majority rule.

I'm on the fence. While it IS techically two separate deals, it is one overall trade agreement that involves tweaking due to the CBA. I'd lean towards it being one trade, but should be fine either way.

Warriorfan · Post #285 » by **Warriorfan** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:59 pm

multiple parts multiple trades

Post #286 » by **roc** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:04 pm

Klomp wrote:
r0cd0gg wrote:I support this question and am willing to go by majority rule.

I'm on the fence. While it IS techically two separate deals, it is one overall trade agreement that involves tweaking due to the CBA. I'd lean towards it being one trade, but should be fine either way.

actually there are 4 separate deals in the post hence why I wanted to get public opinion.

Post #287 » by **TMACFORMVP** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:05 pm

I think it should be one trade, only because we're counting trades. I think it takes a little fun out of the game if we can't be creative in our trades if it doesn't work just outright - since it's the same deal anyway. But I'm probably biased in that view (though I've had that stance from the beginning).

Post #288 » by **Klomp** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:46 pm

Minnesota really likes the team its assembled. We might tinker with the roster a bit, but nothing major is expected unless we are blown away by an offer. The likeliest trades will happen in the frontcourt at PF or C.

RR9 · Post #289 » by **RR9** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:06 pm

One the block for expiring contracts or draft picks: andray blatche, amir johnson, aijinca, telfair, and cook. please send offers over to vwu3 on AIM.

Blazer50 · Post #290 » by **Blazer50** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:53 pm

Pistons back on email and IM - and willing to trade.

Post #291 » by **MadNESS** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:40 pm

Brooklyn has officially place Monta Ellis on the block.

We're looking for a PF or C.

We can add 2012 Houston first, Big Baby, Sundiata Gaines, Kevin Serephin, ect.

Cantmesswithness8@yahoo.com
Bness8888 = aim

mtamasi · Post #292 » by **mtamasi** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:04 pm

Need help getting within roster limits?

Houston is shopping a package of PF Luis Scola, PG Johnny Flynn, C Joel Pryzbilla and a future 1st.

We are looking for an upgrade at PF.

mtamasi@hotmail.com

Post #293 » by **roc** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:41 pm

mtamasi wrote:Need help getting within roster limits?

Houston is shopping a package of PF Luis Scola, PG Johnny Flynn, C Joel Pryzbilla and a future 1st.

We are looking for an upgrade at PF.

mtamasi@hotmail.com

sorry to be a downer but...

All teams need to be within roster limits BEFORE and AFTER making a trade.

If you are below 12 you need to sign some FAs and if you are above 15 you need to waive players. IF a trade will put you over then waive players 1st and if it will put you under, sign players 1st.

That is exactly what happened in my trade with CLE. I would have went below so I had to sign a player before the trade.

mtamasi · Post #294 » by **mtamasi** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:07 pm

r0cd0gg wrote:
mtamasi wrote:Need help getting within roster limits?

Houston is shopping a package of PF Luis Scola, PG Johnny Flynn, C Joel Pryzbilla and a future 1st.

We are looking for an upgrade at PF.

mtamasi@hotmail.com

sorry to be a downer but...

All teams need to be within roster limits BEFORE and AFTER making a trade.

If you are below 12 you need to sign some FAs and if you are above 15 you need to waive players. IF a trade will put you over then waive players 1st and if it will put you under, sign players 1st.

That is exactly what happened in my trade with CLE. I would have went below so I had to sign a player before the trade.

yep, no problem. i was just waiting for my Kaman trade to be approved to update the roster. i have twelve now, this is just a suggested package anyways.

edit: 13 with the Bynum trade...

RR9 · Post #295 » by **RR9** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:13 pm

On the block for draft picks, expirings, and/or decent prospects:

Amir Johnson $5,500,000 /// $6,000,000 /// $6,500,000 /// $7,000,000
Daequan Cook $3,000,000 /// $3,250,000 /// $3,500,000 /// $3,750,000
Sebastian Telfair $2,500,000 /// $2,750,000 /// $3,000,000 /// $3,250,000

IM me at vwu3!

Blazer50 · Post #296 » by **Blazer50** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:24 pm

Detroit Pistons are making Jose Calderon, Hedo Turkolou and Chuck Hayes available in the right deals.

nikkoewan · Post #297 » by **nikkoewan** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:34 pm

any more comments on the trade count issue? (most GMs seem to think they should just be counted as a single trade)? Would really love to have everybody's comments on the issue as it will help rocdogg's decision incredibly

Koponen · Post #298 » by **Koponen** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:47 pm

nikkoewan wrote:any more comments on the trade count issue? (most GMs seem to think they should just be counted as a single trade)? Would really love to have everybody's comments on the issue as it will help rocdogg's decision incredibly

Definitely of the opinion that a 3-part trade should count as one trade, not three. The idea of the trade limit is to limit the number of deals made, and I believe that a multi-part trade is all part of one deal. Just because some fancy accounting has to be done, doesn't mean that a trade is inherently more substantial than a simple trade. A multi-part trade is semantically considered one deal when reported, anyway, so I think the specifics of the trade shouldn't matter so long as it all goes down at once.

-Kees- · Post #299 » by **-Kees-** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:53 pm

Koponen wrote:
nikkoewan wrote:any more comments on the trade count issue? (most GMs seem to think they should just be counted as a single trade)? Would really love to have everybody's comments on the issue as it will help rocdogg's decision incredibly

Definitely of the opinion that a 3-part trade should count as one trade, not three. The idea of the trade limit is to limit the number of deals made, and I believe that a multi-part trade is all part of one deal. Just because some fancy accounting has to be done, doesn't mean that a trade is inherently more substantial than a simple trade. A multi-part trade is semantically considered one deal when reported, anyway, so I think the specifics of the trade shouldn't matter so long as it all goes down at
once.

Agreed. My vote is for a multipart deal only counting as one.

Karmaloop · Post #300 » by **Karmaloop** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:05 am

Could we just start a new thread for rule discussion? I feel like the last few pages have been flooded with rules stuff, and hurting the actual discussion part.