Build a Franchise (Season 6) Discussion thread continued

[br7knicks]

I’m no longer taking public trade flirtations as serious interest. Seems every time I get one of these declarations and I then PM the person, it ends up being a pump fake. I’ve found that serious trade interest almost always happens exclusively via PM.

That's fine. That's why I said might be, and followed it up with, I don't know who's on my team.

Then proceeded to look at my team, and realized I was fine. I was strapped at that position for a while then discovered I'm fine.

Have everything on your end figured out before quoting me expressing possible interest. Turn your possibles into definites.

i thought, even being over the cap, i could take on $1 people, like how i can go and get a FA for $1. that's why i thought i could take one from another team, as long as they're not over $1

[Deeeez Knicks]

Not part of that deal, but some of the protections do get pretty complex and can be tough to figure out... always have to read the fine print

And the main point is the rule change gives people a chance to figure it out because tbh it sucks that if this person agreed to the trade literally an hour earlier they would've been SOL and it also sucks that for a whole 12 hours 3 teams thought the trade would be made and made inquiries based on it. This way we have a uniform way of tackling this specific issue.

I'm not sure the details of that one so can't comment too much. It does suck when a deal falls thru though so feel for all involved.

In general not sure i like the idea of a 2 hour window. But open to ideas and maybe not understanding it fully

[2010]

That's fine. That's why I said might be, and followed it up with, I don't know who's on my team.

Then proceeded to look at my team, and realized I was fine. I was strapped at that position for a while then discovered I'm fine.

Have everything on your end figured out before quoting me expressing possible interest. Turn your possibles into definites.

i thought, even being over the cap, i could take on $1 people, like how i can go and get a FA for $1. that's why i thought i could take one from another team, as long as they're not over $1

In your cap situation you can only take on a $1 player by signing a free agent. You cannot trade for any $1 player on a multi-year deal without sending a $1 player contract out.

[SOUL]

Everyone doesn't and it's unfair to always expect someone to. It makes no sense to me either but for when it happens we need rules in place for how to proceed. I think a buffer period is what's most fair for everyone.

True, I thought about that earlier. Although rare, it can and does happen. But I also think it's something that can be fixed if there is error in language and both teams are like "Wait, that wasn't what the deal was!", and should be able to be worked out via a simple PM to bish. So maybe it doesn't really need an official rule because then it could open teams to reneg on deals just because they had a last second change of heart, which wasn't what happened here.

More specifically, a specific trade was discussed where 2010 assumed I owned a specific pick, and I never had that pick. I assumed I was getting my pick from him back, but then I double checked the trade language and noticed that it wasn't me getting the pick back, but benefitting me as if I did.. which I never had.. thus me making a trade that not only benefits another team not involved altogether, but me trading an all-star for free with no benefit at all, basically nothing that was discussed in the actual trade. I had copy pasted 2010's trade for ease's sake but if I sent in my own version it the language would've been different, so I didn't notice the specific language since it was never actually laid out in that way, just both people were operating under different assumptions and wires got crossed and no one was truly "at fault".

I would argue when it comes to good faith trading where both people agreed upon a certain thing, but language happens otherwise, it should be a fixable thing. The issue comes if moves are completed and then nobody notices something. So maybe a rule can be made there, but it's pretty niche. Cause if the trade went through as it WASN'T intended, and wasn't able to be fixed, I would literally ask for a GM to replace me. That's how bad it would've been.

If it went through, the trade is basically like those eBay things where it's like "You're getting a picture of a PS5, not the actual PS5." Which wasn't 2010's intention or my intention, so why should it go through if it's caught? So that's why I think it doesn't need to be a rule, because there could be more issues of teams renegging deals that they suddenly don't like and screwing teams intentionally in bad faith rather than fixing errors to reflect the actual trade.

[ribs]

Read on Twitter

[SOUL]

Read on Twitter

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1073790607255052288%7Ctwgr%5E08ae3cdccbea310ffbb84cb48efdd265075215fd%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nba.com%2Fnews%2Ffallout-bizarre-trevor-ariza-dillon-marshon-brooks-trade

[2010]

Everyone doesn't and it's unfair to always expect someone to. It makes no sense to me either but for when it happens we need rules in place for how to proceed. I think a buffer period is what's most fair for everyone.

True, I thought about that earlier. Although rare, it can and does happen. But I also think it's something that can be fixed if there is error in language and both teams are like "Wait, that wasn't what the deal was!", and should be able to be worked out via a simple PM to bish. So maybe it doesn't really need an official rule because then it could open teams to reneg on deals just because they had a last second change of heart, which wasn't what happened here.

More specifically, a specific trade was discussed where 2010 assumed I owned a specific pick, and I never had that pick. I assumed I was getting my pick from him back, but then I double checked the trade language and noticed that it wasn't me getting the pick back, but benefitting me as if I did.. which I never had.. thus me making a trade that not only benefits another team not involved altogether, but me trading an all-star for free with no benefit at all, basically nothing that was discussed in the actual trade. I had copy pasted 2010's trade for ease's sake but if I sent in my own version it the language would've been different, so I didn't notice the specific language since it was never actually laid out in that way, just both people were operating under different assumptions and wires got crossed and no one was truly "at fault".

I would argue when it comes to good faith trading where both people agreed upon a certain thing, but language happens otherwise, it should be a fixable thing. The issue comes if moves are completed and then nobody notices something. So maybe a rule can be made there, but it's pretty niche. Cause if the trade went through as it WASN'T intended, and wasn't able to be fixed, I would literally ask for a GM to replace me. That's how bad it would've been.

If it went through, the trade is basically like those eBay things where it's like "You're getting a picture of a PS5, not the actual PS5." Which wasn't 2010's intention or my intention, so why should it go through if it's caught? So that's why I think it doesn't need to be a rule, because there could be more issues of teams renegging deals that they suddenly don't like and screwing teams intentionally in bad faith rather than fixing errors to reflect the actual trade.

Yeah, this wasn’t a bad faith scenario. Just a miscommunication over pick language / ownership.

Wish the reworked deal could’ve gotten done for all parties’ sake but it is what it is. The show goes on!

[Buzzard]

Everyone doesn't and it's unfair to always expect someone to. It makes no sense to me either but for when it happens we need rules in place for how to proceed. I think a buffer period is what's most fair for everyone.

True, I thought about that earlier. Although rare, it can and does happen. But I also think it's something that can be fixed if there is error in language and both teams are like "Wait, that wasn't what the deal was!", and should be able to be worked out via a simple PM to bish. So maybe it doesn't really need an official rule because then it could open teams to reneg on deals just because they had a last second change of heart, which wasn't what happened here.

More specifically, a specific trade was discussed where 2010 assumed I owned a specific pick, and I never had that pick. I assumed I was getting my pick from him back, but then I double checked the trade language and noticed that it wasn't me getting the pick back, but benefitting me as if I did.. which I never had.. thus me making a trade that not only benefits another team not involved altogether, but me trading an all-star for free with no benefit at all, basically nothing that was discussed in the actual trade. I had copy pasted 2010's trade for ease's sake but if I sent in my own version it the language would've been different, so I didn't notice the specific language since it was never actually laid out in that way, just both people were operating under different assumptions and wires got crossed and no one was truly "at fault".

I would argue when it comes to good faith trading where both people agreed upon a certain thing, but language happens otherwise, it should be a fixable thing. The issue comes if moves are completed and then nobody notices something. So maybe a rule can be made there, but it's pretty niche. Cause if the trade went through as it WASN'T intended, and wasn't able to be fixed, I would literally ask for a GM to replace me. That's how bad it would've been.

If it went through, the trade is basically like those eBay things where it's like "You're getting a picture of a PS5, not the actual PS5." Which wasn't 2010's intention or my intention, so why should it go through if it's caught? So that's why I think it doesn't need to be a rule, because there could be more issues of teams renegging deals that they suddenly don't like and screwing teams intentionally in bad faith rather than fixing errors to reflect the actual trade.

I don't think we need a new rule. Most of these trades are discussed to death for multiple days. If you don't read and know the full details, that's on the GM who missed the trade specific details. I like that once its sent in, it's a done deal; provided its a legal trade. My two cents

[2010]

Everyone doesn't and it's unfair to always expect someone to. It makes no sense to me either but for when it happens we need rules in place for how to proceed. I think a buffer period is what's most fair for everyone.

True, I thought about that earlier. Although rare, it can and does happen. But I also think it's something that can be fixed if there is error in language and both teams are like "Wait, that wasn't what the deal was!", and should be able to be worked out via a simple PM to bish. So maybe it doesn't really need an official rule because then it could open teams to reneg on deals just because they had a last second change of heart, which wasn't what happened here.

More specifically, a specific trade was discussed where 2010 assumed I owned a specific pick, and I never had that pick. I assumed I was getting my pick from him back, but then I double checked the trade language and noticed that it wasn't me getting the pick back, but benefitting me as if I did.. which I never had.. thus me making a trade that not only benefits another team not involved altogether, but me trading an all-star for free with no benefit at all, basically nothing that was discussed in the actual trade. I had copy pasted 2010's trade for ease's sake but if I sent in my own version it the language would've been different, so I didn't notice the specific language since it was never actually laid out in that way, just both people were operating under different assumptions and wires got crossed and no one was truly "at fault".

I would argue when it comes to good faith trading where both people agreed upon a certain thing, but language happens otherwise, it should be a fixable thing. The issue comes if moves are completed and then nobody notices something. So maybe a rule can be made there, but it's pretty niche. Cause if the trade went through as it WASN'T intended, and wasn't able to be fixed, I would literally ask for a GM to replace me. That's how bad it would've been.

If it went through, the trade is basically like those eBay things where it's like "You're getting a picture of a PS5, not the actual PS5." Which wasn't 2010's intention or my intention, so why should it go through if it's caught? So that's why I think it doesn't need to be a rule, because there could be more issues of teams renegging deals that they suddenly don't like and screwing teams intentionally in bad faith rather than fixing errors to reflect the actual trade.

I don't think we need a new rule. Most of these trades are discussed to death for multiple days. If you don't read and know the full details, that's on the GM who missed the trade specific details. I like that once its sent in, it's a done deal; provided its a legal trade. My two cents

Yeah, I don’t think a new rule is necessary either. In this scenario I never contested SOUL’s issue cuz it was an honest miscommunication and not him just flaking out. I worked with him to restructure the deal and clear up the issue. But ultimately we just couldn’t close the deal on the reworked trade. It sucks, but we all move on.

Only way I would’ve contested the withdrawal of his agreement is if it were a case of getting cold feet. That wasn’t the case here. It was a pick language issue.

[bishnykfan]

TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT

The San Antonio Spurs have agreed to trade Gary Harris and Cameron Payne to the Chicago Bulls in exchange for Delon Wright and Tyus Jones.

[bishnykfan]

Not part of that deal, but some of the protections do get pretty complex and can be tough to figure out... always have to read the fine print

And the main point is the rule change gives people a chance to figure it out because tbh it sucks that if this person agreed to the trade literally an hour earlier they would've been SOL and it also sucks that for a whole 12 hours 3 teams thought the trade would be made and made inquiries based on it. This way we have a uniform way of tackling this specific issue.

I'm not sure the details of that one so can't comment too much. It does suck when a deal falls thru though so feel for all involved.

In general not sure i like the idea of a 2 hour window. But open to ideas and maybe not understanding it fully

Having just gotten home from my 11 hour work day, I see 28 PMs in my inbox and figured something happened...reading the last couple of pages before opening any of these PM's I'm not sure I understand...maybe I'll see better after reading what happened via PM. But as for a rule change...I don't understand what it would entail? Two hour window for what exactly?

[SOUL]

I don't think we need a new rule. Most of these trades are discussed to death for multiple days. If you don't read and know the full details, that's on the GM who missed the trade specific details. I like that once its sent in, it's a done deal; provided its a legal trade. My two cents

Yeah but if what's discussed for days isn't worded correctly thus making a new trade altogether, then I don't see how that is accurately depicts a true scenario from occurring. No one here is in the business of a "gotcha" (well, let not me )

Hell, I gave up a 1st rounder when I first joined the league for someone to take on Ulis.. who I could've just put on my EL. That was me just being bad.

For instance, if this went through.. I would be tanking and you would receive a top 10 pick via me, instead of me having the pick and tanking for myself. In that case, would you have agreed to send me that pick while you received the San Antonio pick from 2010 to accurately reflect the trade that was made?

I fail to see how a legal trade should benefit someone else when it was never discussed. Ribs just showed an actual example of that happening in the NBA, so it definitely does happen. Hell, even trades got rescinded in the NBA like the Chris Paul due to competitive advantage concerns and all those teams AGREED to a bad trade willingly

[Smash3]

I fail to see how a legal trade should benefit someone else when it was never discussed.

Y'all might as well post the trade here because I am confused.

[2010]

I fail to see how a legal trade should benefit someone else when it was never discussed.

Y'all might as well post the trade here because I am confused.

Here’s the major details in a nutshell (not including the supporting trade elements or any player names):

• I was under the impression that Sacramento owned their 2023 pick, which I have rights to swap with my San Antonio pick

• The reality is Indiana actually owns Sacramento’s 2023 pick

• I originally set up a deal structure where I would relinquish the right to swap Sacramento’s pick (while still keeping the San Antonio pick), if Sacramento traded me a certain star player which I would be rerouting elsewhere

• However since Sacramento didn’t actually own their 2023 pick (Indiana owns it) the swap relinquish would’ve meant the now tanking Sacramento Kings would likely end up being a top 10 draft pick that Indiana would receive

• Once SOUL brought this miscommunication/oversight to my attention (that Indiana owns his 2023 pick) which came after we all agreed and sent the trade in to bish, we tried to restructure the deal

• The restructured deal involved me receiving a 2023 Indiana 1st (that SOUL forgot he even owned) in exchange for me sending SOUL the 2023 San Antonio Spurs 1st (with the swap rights now fully intact — allowing him to tank and receive his own likely top 10 pick) + me rerouting SOUL two additional 2nd round picks (2024 and 2025)

SOUL said no to the reworked deal (which I believe was a very fair rework — but he is within his right to decline) so the deal died.

No bad faith dealing or snake oil salesmen stuff involved.

In the original edition of the trade, the one who would’ve made out like a bandit (unbeknownst to him) would’ve been Buzzard! (NOT ME)

[Buzzard]

I don't think we need a new rule. Most of these trades are discussed to death for multiple days. If you don't read and know the full details, that's on the GM who missed the trade specific details. I like that once its sent in, it's a done deal; provided its a legal trade. My two cents

Yeah but if what's discussed for days isn't worded correctly thus making a new trade altogether, then I don't see how that is accurately depicts a true scenario from occurring. No one here is in the business of a "gotcha" (well, let not me )

Hell, I gave up a 1st rounder when I first joined the league for someone to take on Ulis.. who I could've just put on my EL. That was me just being bad.

For instance, if this went through.. I would be tanking and you would receive a top 10 pick via me, instead of me having the pick and tanking for myself. In that case, would you have agreed to send me that pick while you received the San Antonio pick from 2010 to accurately reflect the trade that was made?

I fail to see how a legal trade should benefit someone else when it was never discussed. Ribs just showed an actual example of that happening in the NBA, so it definitely does happen. Hell, even trades got rescinded in the NBA like the Chris Paul due to competitive advantage concerns and all those teams AGREED to a bad trade willingly

I don't know the details so I cannot comment on them. But I am a firm believer in "reading is fundamental". Every time someone says they are sending me a pick and/or removing protections I check their draft pick page to make sure they can do what they said they would do.

A GM and I had a issue last season over a 2nd round pick. Ended up, they did not own a 2nd that season. We sent the trade in not knowing and Bish rejected it. I will never waste my time like that again. I read every part of the pick clauses now. #1 to make sure they have it. #2 to make sure I will get exactly what they said I would get.

[SOUL]

Having just gotten home from my 11 hour work day, I see 28 PMs in my inbox and figured something happened...reading the last couple of pages before opening any of these PM's I'm not sure I understand...maybe I'll see better after reading what happened via PM. But as for a rule change...I don't understand what it would entail? Two hour window for what exactly?

sorry bish.

To make it (sort of) simple:

1. The trade I assumed was happening was simply Jrue for 2010's San Antonio pick, so I can tank. The San Antonio pick had the Kings swap rights (aka mine), able to swap with Indiana (who owns my pick). It was discussed via PM with me making sure that I had full control of that pick. And me getting confirmation, which I assumed was me receiving the pick. Easy enough, was going to submit my end...

2. 2010 told me to copy + paste the version he sent in because it was part of a bigger trade (this is where we both **** up), so I said sure, that works. so I sent it. It wasn't until I triple checked it, and he thought I owned that Indiana pick, so he wanted to remove the swap rights so that I would benefit from it... only that Indiana has the pick. That wasn't what was discussed at all, and is the opposite of "having full control of my pick." I had saw the "Sacramento receives 2023 1st rounder" and assumed I was getting that pick back, not that Toronto was keeping the pick AND removing swap rights. That's not something I agreed to prior:





I assumed 2010 was sending me the SA pick, he assumed he was just removing rights on a pick I had. Should I have triple checked everything like a lawyer? Sure, but it was a special scenario where we both thought different things entirely. No snaking or "gotchas" by anyone.

3. So that's where we are now. If the trade goes through it means:

• I lose Jrue for literally nothing.
• Raptors still keep a Spurs swapless 1st rounder.
• I am now tanking for another team altogether in Indiana

If the trade goes through, then there's no reason for me to play anymore because I'm tanking for another team in a trade I didn't agree to happening

[bishnykfan]

TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT

The Boston Celtics have agreed to trade Bradley Beal to the Denver Nuggets in exchange for Andrew Wiggins, Walker Kessler and a 2023 2nd round draft pick (From Phoenix).

[2010]

I’m just waiting on the Embiid bomb to drop…

[SOUL]

Damn beal bomb

[E-Balla]

Everyone doesn't and it's unfair to always expect someone to. It makes no sense to me either but for when it happens we need rules in place for how to proceed. I think a buffer period is what's most fair for everyone.

True, I thought about that earlier. Although rare, it can and does happen. But I also think it's something that can be fixed if there is error in language and both teams are like "Wait, that wasn't what the deal was!", and should be able to be worked out via a simple PM to bish. So maybe it doesn't really need an official rule because then it could open teams to reneg on deals just because they had a last second change of heart, which wasn't what happened here.

More specifically, a specific trade was discussed where 2010 assumed I owned a specific pick, and I never had that pick. I assumed I was getting my pick from him back, but then I double checked the trade language and noticed that it wasn't me getting the pick back, but benefitting me as if I did.. which I never had.. thus me making a trade that not only benefits another team not involved altogether, but me trading an all-star for free with no benefit at all, basically nothing that was discussed in the actual trade. I had copy pasted 2010's trade for ease's sake but if I sent in my own version it the language would've been different, so I didn't notice the specific language since it was never actually laid out in that way, just both people were operating under different assumptions and wires got crossed and no one was truly "at fault".

I would argue when it comes to good faith trading where both people agreed upon a certain thing, but language happens otherwise, it should be a fixable thing. The issue comes if moves are completed and then nobody notices something. So maybe a rule can be made there, but it's pretty niche. Cause if the trade went through as it WASN'T intended, and wasn't able to be fixed, I would literally ask for a GM to replace me. That's how bad it would've been.

If it went through, the trade is basically like those eBay things where it's like "You're getting a picture of a PS5, not the actual PS5." Which wasn't 2010's intention or my intention, so why should it go through if it's caught? So that's why I think it doesn't need to be a rule, because there could be more issues of teams renegging deals that they suddenly don't like and screwing teams intentionally in bad faith rather than fixing errors to reflect the actual trade.

Yeah I know it's unintentional, but I'm a stickler for codifying rules. We can have an extenuating circumstances clause because I'm sure this isn't the first and won't be the last time this has happened.