GM a Team Part 3 (Transactions) unsticky plz

[Duncanfan]

-= original quote snipped =-



Trade Approved

How can you approve it when the Heat pick was dealt to Minnesota in the off-season? Agreed it was protected and all, but as per the rules, a pick can't be traded twice unless it becomes clear on draft day who's getting that pick and then it can be dealt. No?

[zong]

-= original quote snipped =-




How can you approve it when the Heat pick was dealt to Minnesota in the off-season? Agreed it was protected and all, but as per the rules, a pick can't be traded twice unless it becomes clear on draft day who's getting that pick and then it can be dealt. No?

im thinking they are putting in compensation, like conditions if the pick were to be returned

[Duncanfan]

-= original quote snipped =-



im thinking they are putting in compensation, like conditions if the pick were to be returned

conditions or not, a pick that is owed to someone else (until draft order is determined) can't be traded again to another team. once the draft order is determined, than it can be traded, thats what my understanding it atleast.

[dockingsched]

the only reason they wouldn't be able to trade the pick is the two consecutive picks rule. they aren't trading the pick twice. the wolves only get the pick if its non-lotto so whatever the heat want to do with the pick if its in the lottery has nothing to do with wolves.

[revprodeji]

But you cannot trade that pick until the lotto is determined. I know, MN has had this scenario the last couple years. Thus the Heat cannot trade a pick until it is confirmed that they own the pick. Which I believe is the end of the season.

[dockingsched]

But you cannot trade that pick until the lotto is determined. I know, MN has had this scenario the last couple years. Thus the Heat cannot trade a pick until it is confirmed that they own the pick. Which I believe is the end of the season.

as far as i know the reason that mn couldn't trade the pick was because of the two consecutive years rule. the wolves couldn't trade an 08 pick because they already potentially owed an 09 pick. its perfectly ok to trade a pick twice as long as there are protections that make sure the same pick isn't owed to two teams (ie: if pick is in lotto, it goes to team a, if not in lotto, it goes to team b). the problem is the two consecutive picks rule.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

There is no consecutive 2 years rule in this league, so that's not the problem.

And I made it very clear that the Kings wouldn't get the pick if it's not in the lotto.

[clydestudent1276]

I am going to start keeping track of the picks but there is no trading picks more than 4 years away. So that means no picks from 2012 on. Just to keep the amount of picks down. You can trade 2008,09,10,11 picks.

[Duncanfan]

There is no consecutive 2 years rule in this league, so that's not the problem.

And I made it very clear that the Kings wouldn't get the pick if it's not in the lotto.

There is a consecutive pick rule in this game. I checked with other guys already

[zong]

There is definitely a consecutive 2 year rule, or otherwise this game will get out of hand with teams stockpiling dozens of 1st rounders and throwing out players to tank for the 08 draft

[dunkonu21]

What would be the point of tanking in this game, the pick order is determined by the real life standings.

[zong]

What would be the point of tanking in this game, the pick order is determined by the real life standings.

exactly, thanks for agreeing on my point, the consecutive picks rule must stay!

[roseorbust]

saying where vetoing to much is a stretch, there has only been a couple of trades vetoed, and they have been some SERIOUSLY lopsided deals

[babyjax13]

Just making sure this doesn't get buried bay all the debating, The Wizards/Bucks deal on page 23 needs to be confirmed.

[#1knickfan]

As long as both teams understand the situation I don't see a problem in allowing it. I am going to start keeping track of the picks but there is no trading picks more than 4 years away. So that means no picks from 2012 on. Just to keep the amount of picks down. You can trade 2008,09,10,11 picks.

Well that's kinda screwed up because the Philly GM had a deal he liked a lot get canceled over something like this. Because the Knicks draft pick has such heavy protections that they would have to finish the season with a 90% winning percentage to give Utah a chance at the pick this season but according to the rules Utah has to be protected against that extremely unlikely event. Therefore, technically speaking our deal couldn't be done until the pick was officially the Knicks.

Maybe you have come around and realized that trades shouldn't be held up by ridiculous technicalities but thats too late in my opinion. You have to follow the precedent a previous ruling had set otherwise it is very unfair to the people whose trades were canceled because it took a while to come around.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

-= original quote snipped =-



exactly, thanks for agreeing on my point, the consecutive picks rule must stay!

Huh? What does tanking have to do with this? The Kings GM is trying to rebuild. What does that have to do with tanking? He now has 2 likely lotto picks.

And the PDX/MIA trade on pg. 24 needs to be accepted. (In 40 minutes.)

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

And also, Knicks GM, you didn't make it clear in your trade that the Sixers wouldn't get it if the pick was 24-30.

[babyjax13]

I think we should move the debate into the main page.....

[#1knickfan]

And also, Knicks GM, you didn't make it clear in your trade that the Sixers wouldn't get it if the pick was 24-30.

I didn't bother because it would be a waste of time. How could the Knicks have possibly finished this season with even the 6th best record in the league without Duncan, Marion, Nash, Wade and Artest forcing their teams to cut them so they could sign with the Knicks for the minimum.

[LeQuitterNotMVP]

^^^
OK, well how would the Heat? You need to make it clear in your post the restricitons. I said the Kings would ONLY get the pick if it was 4-14. So that doesn't interfere with the T-Wolves' slim chance of getting the pick. And the Kings' GM understood that. You didn't state that in your trade post.