**Official Gm a Team trades/transactions Thread**

LeQuitterNotMVP · Post #41 » by **LeQuitterNotMVP** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:49 am

TMACFORMVP wrote:David Padgett $442,114

This is to approve that trade with the Spurs.

Approved.

sterncohen · Post #42 » by **sterncohen** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:50 am

TMACFORMVP wrote:The Miami Heat, Atlanta Hawks and New Orleans Hornets have agreed upon a three way trade.

Atlanta Receive
-Julian Wright
-Hilton Armstrong
-Mario Chalmers
-Morris Peterson
-Rasual Butler
-2010 Miami 1st
-2009 Cleveland 2nd

Hornets Receive
-Shawn Marion
-Thomas Gardner
-Jamaal Magloire
-Joe Johnson

Heat Receive
-David West
-Mike James
-
Trade ID #4771955

Sorry, guys, but two of the three commissioners who aren't involved in this trade have agreed to veto it. Happy to explain by e-mail if anyone has a question about our thinking.

Post #43 » by **dockingsched** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:53 am

the vultures already trying to jump on the hawks gm after the horrible josh smith trade eh?

Post #44 » by **TMACFORMVP** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:00 am

zong · Post #45 » by **zong** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:01 am

dcash4 wrote:the vultures already trying to jump on the hawks gm after the horrible josh smith trade eh?

one would assume so, but this trade was basically agreed in principle yesterday afternoon

*delete for banter!*

LeQuitterNotMVP · Post #46 » by **LeQuitterNotMVP** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:25 am

dcash4 wrote:the vultures already trying to jump on the hawks gm after the horrible josh smith trade eh?

That one was iffy, but Dunleavy is still a solid player, Hibbert is a guy who I think can develop into a solid C, and he dumped Claxton's contract. But this one was downright awful. Johnson for crap?

Post #47 » by **TMACFORMVP** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:46 am

Then how were you so eager to approve our trade if zong approved yours?

zong · Post #48 » by **zong** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:49 am

LBJ4MVP23 wrote:zong, approve my trade and I'll approve your trade.

Great job editing your post too, by the way. Pure instinct.

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #49 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:54 am

Wow, its pretty ridiculous that the commissioner's are making deals to help them advance. Thats screwed up.

Post #50 » by **CellarDoor** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:02 am

agreed. Maybe public vetos are the way to go.

randomhero423 · Post #51 » by **randomhero423** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:06 am

public vetoes always get out of order.

i'd just keep it the way it is, we got reliable people.

zong · Post #52 » by **zong** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:08 am

What also ridiculous is how LBJ4MVP23 is throwing his own rules out the window.

-- If you are voting to veto, e-mail all three of the other commissioners with your explanation. (Didn't get any from LBJ4MVP23, after all, he did beg me to approve his trade so he'll approve mine, then decides to pull a fast one and veto mine after someone ELSE approves his own trade.)
-- These veto e-mails should be sent to all commissioners (Still didn't get any explanation.)
-- If there's no second vote to veto within a reasonable period of time, we should assume that the trade is approved and any of the commissioners should post the approval.

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #53 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:13 am

zong wrote:What also ridiculous is how LBJ4MVP23 is throwing his own rules out the window.

-- If you are voting to veto, e-mail all three of the other commissioners with your explanation. (Didn't get any from LBJ4MVP23, after all, he did beg me to approve his trade so he'll approve mine, then decides to pull a fast one and veto mine after someone ELSE approves his own trade.)
-- These veto e-mails should be sent to all commissioners (Still didn't get any explanation.)
-- If there's no second vote to veto within a reasonable period of time, we should assume that the trade is approved and any of the commissioners should post the approval.

Well, I don't think you can basically approve your own trade. The Hawks got absolutely shafted in that deal and it should have been vetoed. I'm upset that the commissioners are making deals though...or trying to.

randomhero423 · Post #54 » by **randomhero423** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:17 am

that ATL deal should have been vetoed.

but after hearing that....maybe a new system is needed. i don't want every traded that's vetoed to be lumped into a "conspiracy"

zong · Post #55 » by **zong** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:18 am

DGrangeRx33 wrote:Well, I don't think you can basically approve your own trade. The Hawks got absolutely shafted in that deal and it should have been vetoed. I'm upset that the commissioners are making deals though...or trying to.

Where was I trying to approve my own trade? He gave his explanation for why he accepted that trade, and the only commissioner thats trying to make deals with other commissioners pulled a fast one by editing his post :lol:

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #56 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:25 am

"...we should assume that the trade is approved..."

zong · Post #57 » by **zong** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:30 am

DGrangeRx33 wrote:"...we should assume that the trade is approved..."

Collective Reading Vs. Selective Reading, my friend.

If there's no second vote to veto within a reasonable period of time, we should assume that the trade is approved and any of the commissioners should post the approval.

#1knickfan · Post #58 » by **#1knickfan** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:38 am

Well considering how much faster trades have been getting approved what do you define as a reasonable time. The two trade negotiations I have done so far were approved by the other party at least 6 hours b4 I posted the deal. A couple other people emailed me early Friday to see if I wanted to switch off the Knicks but I didn't check their emails until after midnight that same day. I just had $hit to do and didn't get around to it. While as a commissioner (hypothetically speaking of course) I would go out of my way to check the site and my emails more often I would also be very upset if a deal was approved because someone assumed my consent instead of receiving my consent.

Post #59 » by **roc** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:39 am

That J Smoove deal was extremely iffy but it was a damn good trade in comparison to that pile of poo that got vetoed as it should have.

No issues with how things have played out so far. Just as long as there isn't a 4 way between 3 of the commisioners and the Atlanta GM we should be fine.

zong · Post #60 » by **zong** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:45 am

#1knickfan wrote:Well considering how much faster trades have been getting approved what do you define as a reasonable time. The two trade negotiations I have done so far were approved by the other party at least 6 hours b4 I posted the deal. A couple other people emailed me early Friday to see if I wanted to switch off the Knicks but I didn't check their emails until after midnight that same day. I just had $hit to do and didn't get around to it. While as a commissioner (hypothetically speaking of course) I would go out of my way to check the site and my emails more often I would also be very upset if a deal was approved because someone assumed my consent instead of receiving my consent.

well thats easy, no commish would approve a trade unless all parties agreed to the trade and theres a 6-12 hour approval period