GMAT Winter Edition: Discussion

[immortalone23]

My bad. Indiana is looking to trade our young talent for a star.

analyticanomaly@gmail.com

[MadNESS]

My bad. Indiana is looking to trade our young talent for a star.

analyticanomaly@gmail.com

I've sent you about 5 emails in the last 3 days.... zero responses....

[MadNESS]

Lakers:

PG: Russell Westbrook / Jameer Nelson
SG: Gordon Hayward / Will Barton / DeAndre Liggins
SF: Kevin Durant / Luc Richard Mbah a Moute / Richard Jefferson
PF: Donatas Motiejunas / Anderson Varejao
Cc: Tyson Chandler / Festus Ezeli / Javale McGee

+ picks. Looking to make some stuff happen in the next 9 hours!

-----------------------------

Seattle:

PG: Dante Exum / Monta Ellis
SG: Malik Monk / Tim Hardaway JR.
SF: Chandler Parsons / Lance Thomas / Solomon Hill
PF: Dario Saric / Miles Bridges / Noah Vonleh / Dorian Finney-Smith
C: Enes Kanter / Skal Labassiere

+ Picks. Looking to move Parsons, Ellis, THJR., Hill, Thomas and Kanter to contenders for youth and picks!


Cantmesswithness8@yahoo.com

[BdeRegt]

^is definitely ridiculous. I never got why we allow trades with nothing in return. We should just not play with the restrictions on trading if going to allow the above. I'd love to eventually play a GMAT that strictly follows CBA.

Whats actually the problem with the trade? I dont get that. I know its not CBA rules because otherwise we couldnt trade players multiple times but despite the fact that a player cannot be traded multiple times, its perfectly legal according to the CBA.

As you guys know, I never have a problem with vetoing a trade if there is an issue. Dont think a GmaT that STRICTLY follows CBA is going to work. There would be not enough of trading.

Moving this over here, it is illegally because both teams would violate roster sizes. You also can't trade nothing. I think you could follow the full CBA. There would be less deals but that isn't a problem. This trade should be allowed as we have been allowing maneuvering like this. This trade just took it to an extreme.

[Dan Verze]

^is definitely ridiculous. I never got why we allow trades with nothing in return. We should just not play with the restrictions on trading if going to allow the above. I'd love to eventually play a GMAT that strictly follows CBA.

I can understand allowing guys we add to be traded right away (though it's still a little ridiculous because people just sign 3 random bums, attach them to a pick, and get a slightly better bum that is making like $4M) but to be able to trade back immediately... and for nothing? A little ridiculous imo.

Lets discuss this here guys.

A) trading players for nothing
Dont see a problem in that. If a player is worth nothing, I can trade him for nothing. Happens in real life too. If I want to trade 7 vet min guys what am I going to do? Asking the GM if he can give me 7 highly protected 2nds?

B) signing players and trading them
Thats what we have always done. Typical win-now-moves - win-win for all trading partners.
I agree that it is not realistic but its a game.

If guys want to follow strict CBA, we can do this next time. I think the game will be boring because there wont be a lot of trading (just like in real-life).
We shouldnt change rules during a game though imo.

[Tfence92]

^is definitely ridiculous. I never got why we allow trades with nothing in return. We should just not play with the restrictions on trading if going to allow the above. I'd love to eventually play a GMAT that strictly follows CBA.

Whats actually the problem with the trade? I dont get that. I know its not CBA rules because otherwise we couldnt trade players multiple times but despite the fact that a player cannot be traded multiple times, its perfectly legal according to the CBA.

As you guys know, I never have a problem with vetoing a trade if there is an issue. Dont think a GmaT that STRICTLY follows CBA is going to work. There would be not enough of trading.

Moving this over here, it is illegally because both teams would violate roster sizes. You also can't trade nothing. I think you could follow the full CBA. There would be less deals but that isn't a problem. This trade should be allowed as we have been allowing maneuvering like this. This trade just took it to an extreme.

This^ We allow it with our rules here but it's just pushing it to the extreme as bde says. It's fine though you can approve it.

[MadNESS]

^is definitely ridiculous. I never got why we allow trades with nothing in return. We should just not play with the restrictions on trading if going to allow the above. I'd love to eventually play a GMAT that strictly follows CBA.

Whats actually the problem with the trade? I dont get that. I know its not CBA rules because otherwise we couldnt trade players multiple times but despite the fact that a player cannot be traded multiple times, its perfectly legal according to the CBA.

As you guys know, I never have a problem with vetoing a trade if there is an issue. Dont think a GmaT that STRICTLY follows CBA is going to work. There would be not enough of trading.

Moving this over here, it is illegally because both teams would violate roster sizes. You also can't trade nothing. I think you could follow the full CBA. There would be less deals but that isn't a problem. This trade should be allowed as we have been allowing maneuvering like this. This trade just took it to an extreme.

In the "offseason" you are allowed to go way above and way below the roster numbers. We are technically in the offseason since there was never an announcement to be within 12-15 men.

[Tfence92]

^is definitely ridiculous. I never got why we allow trades with nothing in return. We should just not play with the restrictions on trading if going to allow the above. I'd love to eventually play a GMAT that strictly follows CBA.

I can understand allowing guys we add to be traded right away (though it's still a little ridiculous because people just sign 3 random bums, attach them to a pick, and get a slightly better bum that is making like $4M) but to be able to trade back immediately... and for nothing? A little ridiculous imo.

Lets discuss this here guys.

A) trading players for nothing
Dont see a problem in that. If a player is worth nothing, I can trade him for nothing. Happens in real life too. If I want to trade 7 vet min guys what am I going to do? Asking the GM if he can give me 7 highly protected 2nds?

B) signing players and trading them
Thats what we have always done. Typical win-now-moves - win-win for all trading partners.
I agree that it is not realistic but its a game.

If guys want to follow strict CBA, we can do this next time. I think the game will be boring because there wont be a lot of trading (just like in real-life).
We shouldnt change rules during a game though imo.

No one has ever been traded for nothing under the current (or even past) cba.

[Tfence92]

Whats actually the problem with the trade? I dont get that. I know its not CBA rules because otherwise we couldnt trade players multiple times but despite the fact that a player cannot be traded multiple times, its perfectly legal according to the CBA.

As you guys know, I never have a problem with vetoing a trade if there is an issue. Dont think a GmaT that STRICTLY follows CBA is going to work. There would be not enough of trading.

Moving this over here, it is illegally because both teams would violate roster sizes. You also can't trade nothing. I think you could follow the full CBA. There would be less deals but that isn't a problem. This trade should be allowed as we have been allowing maneuvering like this. This trade just took it to an extreme.

In the "offseason" you are allowed to go way above and way below the roster numbers. We are technically in the offseason since there was never an announcement to be within 12-15 men.

Yea, DV did say we could do 20 man off season rosters.

[Dan Verze]

^is definitely ridiculous. I never got why we allow trades with nothing in return. We should just not play with the restrictions on trading if going to allow the above. I'd love to eventually play a GMAT that strictly follows CBA.

Whats actually the problem with the trade? I dont get that. I know its not CBA rules because otherwise we couldnt trade players multiple times but despite the fact that a player cannot be traded multiple times, its perfectly legal according to the CBA.

As you guys know, I never have a problem with vetoing a trade if there is an issue. Dont think a GmaT that STRICTLY follows CBA is going to work. There would be not enough of trading.

Moving this over here, it is illegally because both teams would violate roster sizes. You also can't trade nothing. I think you could follow the full CBA. There would be less deals but that isn't a problem. This trade should be allowed as we have been allowing maneuvering like this. This trade just took it to an extreme.

Its legal cause we dont care about roster sizes now, we assume that we are in the offseason.

You can trade "nothing", not in real-life (Teams would add a draft right for a bum or a 59protected 2nd), but in this game its possible, plus one could argue that its not nothing its capspace lol.

Agree that this trade is an extreme which I take as a compliment cause it was very difficult to find a way to make this work and I was smart enough lol.

[BdeRegt]

Whats actually the problem with the trade? I dont get that. I know its not CBA rules because otherwise we couldnt trade players multiple times but despite the fact that a player cannot be traded multiple times, its perfectly legal according to the CBA.

As you guys know, I never have a problem with vetoing a trade if there is an issue. Dont think a GmaT that STRICTLY follows CBA is going to work. There would be not enough of trading.

Moving this over here, it is illegally because both teams would violate roster sizes. You also can't trade nothing. I think you could follow the full CBA. There would be less deals but that isn't a problem. This trade should be allowed as we have been allowing maneuvering like this. This trade just took it to an extreme.

In the "offseason" you are allowed to go way above and way below the roster numbers. We are technically in the offseason since there was never an announcement to be within 12-15 men.

Ya. If we did one following the CBA, we'd have to set dates throughout the process as we do rules as if we are in the off-season and half way through the season (trading recently signed FAs). I can look at running one like that if there is interest in following the CBA. This trade should definitely be approved for this game.

[Dan Verze]

Moving this over here, it is illegally because both teams would violate roster sizes. You also can't trade nothing. I think you could follow the full CBA. There would be less deals but that isn't a problem. This trade should be allowed as we have been allowing maneuvering like this. This trade just took it to an extreme.

In the "offseason" you are allowed to go way above and way below the roster numbers. We are technically in the offseason since there was never an announcement to be within 12-15 men.

Ya. If we did one following the CBA, we'd have to set dates throughout the process as we do rules as if we are in the off-season and half way through the season (trading recently signed FAs). I can look at running one like that if there is interest in following the CBA. This trade should definitely be approved for this game.

I would like a "real-life"-game! Should I open up a decision thread about this trade or do you guys want to approve it. If you are ok with that, please approve in the approving thread.

[BdeRegt]

In the "offseason" you are allowed to go way above and way below the roster numbers. We are technically in the offseason since there was never an announcement to be within 12-15 men.

Ya. If we did one following the CBA, we'd have to set dates throughout the process as we do rules as if we are in the off-season and half way through the season (trading recently signed FAs). I can look at running one like that if there is interest in following the CBA. This trade should definitely be approved for this game.

I would like a "real-life"-game! Should I open up a decision thread about this trade or do you guys want to approve it. If you are ok with that, please approve in the approving thread.

I think it should be approved if someone on the approver list wants to go ahead and do it.

[Diamondman07]

We need to run this game for more years, then let the repeater penalty start hitting. Lots of these teams are sooo far over cap it would be impossible for them to get under cap.

[Zion Wembanyama]

Clint Capela
Jusuf Nurkic
Boris Diaw

Looking to move this package by the deadline. Listening to all offers, but don't get mad if you're REJECTED.

luness.dutchman@yandex.com

[MadNESS]

We need to run this game for more years, then let the repeater penalty start hitting. Lots of these teams are sooo far over cap it would be impossible for them to get under cap.

We do that in OAt not GMAT

[Diamondman07]

We need to run this game for more years, then let the repeater penalty start hitting. Lots of these teams are sooo far over cap it would be impossible for them to get under cap.

We do that in OAt not GMAT

What is this Oat? This is my first game on the forum and i obviously had the wrong impression of how this worked.

[Tfence92]

We need to run this game for more years, then let the repeater penalty start hitting. Lots of these teams are sooo far over cap it would be impossible for them to get under cap.

We do that in OAt not GMAT

What is this Oat? This is my first game on the forum and i obviously had the wrong impression of how this worked.

He's joking that it'd be owners and not GM, since the GM isn't paying the luxury tax so they really wouldn't care lol

How would you propose putting owner constraints on teams when we don't know what an owner would do?

[MadNESS]

We do that in OAt not GMAT

What is this Oat? This is my first game on the forum and i obviously had the wrong impression of how this worked.

He's joking that it'd be owners and not GM, since the GM isn't paying the luxury tax so they really wouldn't care lol

How would you propose putting owner constraints on teams when we don't know what an owner would do?

I'm not joking. There is a game we play called Own a Team. It's more realistic. GMAT is about trading and having fun.

[PDXKnight]

PG: Emanuel Mudiay/JJ Barea/ Luke Ridnour
SG: Evan Fournier/ Seth Curry/Aaron Brooks
SF: Harrison Barnes/Jeremy Lamb/ Dillon Brooks
PF: Ersan Illyasova/Jordan Bell
C: Andre Drummond/ Alex Len/ Jeff Withey/Chris Boucher

A bit more than 3 hours left, Dallas is open to anything!

Ght4398@yahoo.com