Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 13:19:47 GMT -5
I really enjoy the league and wish you would reconsider. Also, I am not sure there is going to be enough votes to move to Indianapolis. Thanks for your time! "KINGS" GM It just needs some time with you guys in the league for me to understand and evaluate your motives for trades. You can try to rework your deal and convince other mods to approve it. And don't worry, I think you've read over this part for the relocation procedure:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 13:21:57 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I wasn't denying on a strategy... I was denying because it was an awful deal. No offense to either of you guys.. You are both good owners, but I haven't seen a trade that one sided since I traded my Ray Lankford baseball card for a Donruss, Ken Griffey Jr rookie card when I was 8.
Now, had Durant been Kobe in that deal, it might have made more sense, but even then, it is borderline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 13:40:29 GMT -5
Side note to that trade. It was also invaldi because Mahinmi was signed this month and it hasn't been 30 days... So you can't trade him yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 14:38:33 GMT -5
Honestly, it would have been acceptable, to me, if Teague and Selby weren't involved. I would still question it, since I believe that pick holds more value than Mahinmi (and I think the idea that Kobe will continue being "elite" through 2014 is questionable, at best), but it would have been close enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 16:12:12 GMT -5
I have two players on my roster in this league that haven't played a minute in the NBA (one is signed overseas) but would have to take hits to drop them. New owners have the ability to amnesty bad/unwanted contracts and take no hit when they join. If no one mentioned this to you, I'd ask for a chance to do it (since I believe there is a time frame to it).
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Mouse on Jan 28, 2012 1:38:45 GMT -5
I have two players on my roster in this league that haven't played a minute in the NBA (one is signed overseas) but would have to take hits to drop them. New owners have the ability to amnesty bad/unwanted contracts and take no hit when they join. If no one mentioned this to you, I'd ask for a chance to do it (since I believe there is a time frame to it). Yes this is true. If you weren't told that (it is in the rules) we can make an exception. PM me if you have questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 22:20:15 GMT -5
I really dont' like the new three team deal. I feel Knicks is getting killed and Russel Westbrook is worth more than Kyrie Irving.
|
|
|
Post by Munich Barons GM on Feb 3, 2012 15:22:52 GMT -5
I really dont' like the new three team deal. I feel Knicks is getting killed and Russel Westbrook is worth more than Kyrie Irving. I don't like it either ... NY weakens his team especially after the 2014 season when he'll lose kobe he gonna regret this deal ... and in the next 2 years kobe will win him nothing ... and the kings trade an old dude (ok he is not that bad) who has only 2 years left for a young guy, who he can resign for maybe the next 10 years and who gives him nearly the same as kobe in every cat than points and a first rounder. The only one who gives/gets nearly the same value is denver ... But i have to admit, at least it's a better trade than the last one between NY and Sacramento/Indiana.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2012 15:33:19 GMT -5
Look I don't like it either, I don't think it's a good trade, but it's not vetoable anymore in my eyes. Even if Kobe isn't a good fit for NY, it's still an asset which his team can use to get better. Maybe he can trade Kobe for Wall (just an example, not unthinkable), then the net gain after 2 trades would be great for his team.
I wouldn't give up Westbrook for Irving either, as I really doubt Irving will be as good as Westbrook, but that's hard to evaluate. Also, Kings is the clear winner with trading an old superstar for a young one and getting a first rounder too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 13:23:52 GMT -5
Isn't the 2 mill in cash only for the current year? If so, is that guy planning on making some big move that he needs the money. It looks like fluff to me. I agree completely with Amsterdam, I know I'm not a mod but don't like to watch bad deals get done without saying something. Rod has had multiple chances and hasn't showed flashes of anything that people talk him up to be. Unless he gets out of Dallas he still won't get a shot ahead of the ageless kids who u know that franchise cherishes his leadership and presence on the floor. Carlisle is a good coach and not one to play potential over for sure in the bag play from his PG. I will be shocked to see this get approved, but then again, I shouldnt be as this wouldn't be the worst trade yet It's good that you voice your opinion, but please keep it in the trade discussion thread. when i put up a trade block post of everyone available, roddy was either the most asked about guy or second asked about guy. i got some really good value offers for him so this is not the only guy who thought roddy has some high potential. i just want to point that out since right now there are strong personal opinions of value of a player being throw around and that is all they are, personal opinions. looking at the 2011 draft thread, there were some guys taken in the lottery that i would not have taken until late first round at best. that is just a difference in opinion but shows how different people see potential. second thing id like to say is in response that only an stated. he mentions owner newness of seattle but i am newer. how can he like my side so much as a newer owner and hold being a new owner againast the other guy? that seems like cherry picking no? I know there's personal opinion involved, but those are formed around the actual numbers and facts. Those numbers lie so far apart that in my opinion they can't be brought close enough together by just personal view. I know that is also just my opinion, but I'm a mod and I have a say in this. On the "new owner" factor, I take that into account for Seattles side because I feel that is the losing side. If however, the losing side has an owner with a good track record I could be willing to give it a pass because I could be fairly sure the owner knows what he's doing. This isn't the case with Seattle. The reason why I don't factor it in on your side is because it isn't necessary to adjust for your side, because it's good already. Wether or not you have a good track record doesn't matter for your side since I think it's good anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 18:15:14 GMT -5
You put way too much weight on me factoring in if an owner is new or not. I only apply that when evaluating a trade that is way off in my eyes. You should see it like this: if I just look at the trade in a vacuum, I would have vetoed it. But, because I know owners have different kinds of strategies and opinions differ, I am willing to let some vetoable trades pass because I can be sure the owner knows what he's doing. So, I can make an exception to my rule, only in thise case you don't apply for this exception. That doesn't make it unfair, the trade just stays vetoable in my eyes.
Also, you're getting the wrong picture about owners needing to think and value like me. I have my own strategy, but I can see merit in other strategies that aren't my favorite. For example, I don't like to trade good youth for veterans to win a championship, but if others do that I can perfectly understand.
And yeah, you can't predict the future. It could be Roddy breaks out huge and scores 50 points each game night in night out. However, 9 out of 10 times a guy like him will just fail and it will result in a big loss for the team that trades for him. I've seen that happen tons of times and it can screw up teams and therefor the balance in a league, which I want to prevent. There are mods that vote on these trades for a reason, they are in the league for an extended period of time and know very well how players are valued here. Also, I'm just 1 of the mods, so my veto doesn't mean anything on it's own. If 2 other mods veto as well, that means something and only then your trade is vetoed. I just want the others to review this trade thorougly, so we as a mod team can make a good decision on wether to pass this or not.
In the end, I'm doing this for your team, because I think you can get much higher value for a guy like Conley.
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Feb 22, 2012 0:57:19 GMT -5
OK so just so we are clear...we are trading a proven talent in Conley and TWO picks (2nd rounders or not) for Roddy, a guy who hasn't proven a damn thing and to this point is LITERALLY just hype plus some cash that I'm sure doesn't even get used or is needed for the year...this officially might shock me more than any other of questionable trades I've seen in this league
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Feb 22, 2012 11:15:33 GMT -5
Agreed with everything Mavs is saying there...probably not a good statement to make about just saying ok to another trade just cause you used a veto...do you guys only get one a week? Haha
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 12:08:40 GMT -5
You put way too much weight on me factoring in if an owner is new or not. I only apply that when evaluating a trade that is way off in my eyes. that is what bugs me, you don't have the same rules for everyone. You blame me for not trusting a new owner to know what he's doing? Because that is what this is about. If an owner who I know takes good care of his team is making a trade I question, I can rely on my faith in him as a good owner to approve his move because there is probably something more to it that I don't see. I can't have that faith in new owners. I don't know if you have done enough research to make your decision for the trade or have a good enough strategy to make the most of a trade that seems really bad in a vacuum. And yeah, that might suck for new owners but it sucks a whole lot more for the entire league if a new guy joins, makes a careless trade with a huge risk and maybe some reward, it doesn't pan out, he leave and the team is screwed. That is what I want to prevent. If you don't like it, try to make better trades for your team. It's not that I base my decision on how much I like you, but how your team will fare. Ok I was a bit too blunt there and not too serious in my explanation. I just didn't like the deal but I didn't think it was too far off to veto it. Also, it shows I don't just veto a deal I don't like myself. Moreover, there's are certainly different levels of disliking a deal, with one warranting a veto and another not, so just the fact that I don't like 2 deals doesn't mean I should judge them the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 23:49:27 GMT -5
Wow... in one week, the two teams that have been stockpiling assets flip those assets into high-level players. I like this deal for both teams. I think my move for Wall was the better one, GB, but I'm biased ;D 1-0 You also gave up a bit more. And we both view Walker differently. Haha. Remember when people were questioning my fantasy basketball strategy a couple of years ago. Haha. Well, look at me now...look at me now. Haha. The plan has gone according to plan. Works in fantasy baseball, works in fantasy basketball. Oddly, in fantasy football...it never works.
|
|