Transaction Committee - Recuse

[Deleted]

billy, Reggie Miller, Stan Van Gundy, Blake Bowman Donald Trump Keith Van Horn Allan Houston

Hello gentlemen, 

I feel that in order to have 100% transparency with this committee it's members should actively recuse themselves if they have any interest in a player involved with a particular trade.

What I mean by this is, if a GM on the TC hopes to sign or trade for a player they should recuse themselves & let an impartial GM come in to judge the transaction at hand.

It's pretty tough to be totally unbiased if you see a player you really want going to a rival team.

Or maybe, now a GM on the TC sees a player's market worth & can use this info to block & then offer something just a bit better down the road.

Now, if a GM does chooses to stay on the TC & in turn, does to veto a trade... 
They should forego any right to sign or trade for that player over a set amount of time or maybe until that player has actually moved to another team.
(I don't know which would work best but, I'm sure there is a logical solution?)

Also, I don't think it's too difficult to imagine several scenarios where this could be the case.

But, for argument's sake, perhaps a GM on the TC wants to land a RFA in the offseason but, they're being traded now. It's in the TC member's best interest to block the trade.

To avoid this, a TC member can tell the commish that they're out & he can find a suitable replacement to be an impartial judge. (There are 30 of us so, getting one or two others shouldn't be a problem)

Although, if a TC member does stay on & vetoes the trade they've then forgone their right to sign the player in the near future.

Moreover, a GM should be able to request that a particular GM not sit on their TC.
There's clearly already bad blood & we're not even done the 7th round of the draft.

I'd welcome any feedback on these ideas & if it's not welcomed by most then I'd ask for alternative solutions to address having the TC be as unbiased & transparent as possible.


Thank you,
@oshaughnessy

[billy]

Moved to general discussion.

[Frank Reynolds]

Jun 20, 2015 19:51:09 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

billy, Reggie Miller, Stan Van Gundy, Blake Bowman Donald Trump Keith Van Horn Allan Houston

Hello gentlemen, 

I feel that in order to have 100% transparency with this committee it's members should actively recuse themselves if they have any interest in a player involved with a particular trade.

What I mean by this is, if a GM on the TC hopes to sign or trade for a player they should recuse themselves & let an impartial GM come in to judge the transaction at hand.

It's pretty tough to be totally unbiased if you see a player you really want going to a rival team.

Or maybe, now a GM on the TC sees a player's market worth & can use this info to block & then offer something just a bit better down the road.

Now, if a GM does chooses to stay on the TC & in turn, does to veto a trade... 
They should forego any right to sign or trade for that player over a set amount of time or maybe until that player has actually moved to another team.
(I don't know which would work best but, I'm sure there is a logical solution?)

Also, I don't think it's too difficult to imagine several scenarios where this could be the case.

But, for argument's sake, perhaps a GM on the TC wants to land a RFA in the offseason but, they're being traded now. It's in the TC member's best interest to block the trade.

To avoid this, a TC member can tell the commish that they're out & he can find a suitable replacement to be an impartial judge. (There are 30 of us so, getting one or two others shouldn't be a problem)

Although, if a TC member does stay on & vetoes the trade they've then forgone their right to sign the player in the near future.

Moreover, a GM should be able to request that a particular GM not sit on their TC.
There's clearly already bad blood & we're not even done the 7th round of the draft.

I'd welcome any feedback on these ideas & if it's not welcomed by most then I'd ask for alternative solutions to address having the TC be as unbiased & transparent as possible.


Thank you,
@oshaughnessy

I agree but i dont think that if they're interested in a player being traded they will recuse themselves. Theres no way of telling if they are interested in a certain player so we won't know if they reject the trade in a bias way. 

[Allan Houston]

I think we should encourage informal, etiquette rules that committee members recuse themselves if they can't be impartial. But a hard rule on the matter is tough to establish. How do we define the "near future"? It'll be an arbitrary demarcation, and puts undue restrictions on committee members. GMs can fairly quickly re-evaluate their positions, and go from being honestly impartial to interested in a player in a short period of time.

And BK made a good point to me that there is a lot going on in the league right now. Let's chill with pushing any motions until things calm down a bit.

[Deleted]

I agree but i dont think that if they're interested in a player being traded they will recuse themselves. Theres no way of telling if they are interested in a certain player so we won't know if they reject the trade in a bias way.

That's the thing, IF they do reject it then they can't get the guy later on.
If they want a crack at the player then they can excuse themselves or let the trade through.

Also, Frank Reynolds you've already told me to "Eat a Dick" & I've told you to "Go fuck a crusty sock" so, I bet neither of us wants the other judging their trades, right? ;) *highfives 

[Deleted]

How do we define the "near future"?

One season or until the player's moved to a new team?

Seems about right...

[Frank Reynolds]

I think it would be interesting if we had no transaction committee or if everyone had a say

[Reggie Miller]

I see your concern.. As a TC Ialways think what's best for the teams that are involved in the trade and not being biased.. We're only protecting the league just like what billy said about some GM that makes a very crazy trade that make the team worse and then when it is worse.. The GM will be inactive or will be disinterested with the team and that will leave him to be resigned as a gm so we will have to look amother gm for that team but it will be too hard because of the team composition that was made by the previous GM.. We want to keep this league healthy.. I appreciate your concern and I acknowledge it.. TC should avoid being unfair.. I have experience my trade on the other league being rejected by other TC and I also thought they are being biased but as I analyze more yhe rejected trade I am enlighten and happy that the trade didn't push through because it is a bad one for my part.. I laso think that before a TC makes a decision on whether the trade should be accepted or not , they should have an explanation on his decision so that the GM that are involved in the trade will understand. We should be open minded on these situation to avoid unwanted arguments..

[Donald Trump]

Don't worry the TC members and Player agents all swore a vow to all the Gods that they won't be biased in any of the deals and signings hehehe

Seriously though i think your idea will be very difficult to execute? this will mean that for every deal that took place everyone will now be in doubt if the TC member that accepted or rejected a deal has a hidden intention and every member of the TC will be skeptical to do a deal for themselves that involves a player that was in a previous deal because the other people might that a conflict of interest happened hehehe.

What have you done to the TC Ainge?! we're now doomed! hehehe just kidding so maybe we should just recruit 5 members who wont be handling any team and is not friends with anyone here on the league and their full time jobs will be TC members and Player Agents?

[Deleted]

What have you done to the TC Ainge?! we're now doomed! hehehe just kidding so maybe we should just recruit 5 members who wont be handling any team and is not friends with anyone here on the league and their full time jobs will be TC members and Player Agents?

Hmm, I wonder if the Pinoyhoops guys not in our league & the D720 players not in their league could cross manage each other's TC then?

That's good idea you just had Donald Trump!

[Deleted]

I'm not sure if you've ran your own Dynasty league or what that makes you think that you are feel so entitled to your opinion but the rules of the league are in place for a reason, after YEARS OF REAL EXPERIENCE RUNNINGS THIS SHIT. Please get out of your own ass and trying to revolutionize everything. You seem to have a ton of new ideas and generally disagree with everyone; I'm not sure why you feel the need to create conflict but please stop, because the majority of the people here already know how things should be ran around here, may be you should try observing for a season before you come up with these revolutionary ideas.

[Keith Van Horn]

So, what you are saying is that if I reject a trade, I should not be able to sign one of those players involved in the trade that I rejected, for one full year?

The people selected for the TC were selected BECAUSE they can be unbiased in situations regarding what you described.

Say I want one of your players. We are in deep, heavy trade talks. There's a good chance that I'll know if you're negotiating with another GM. How will I know this? Well, you'll end up telling me something like, "GM X is offering me this, please step up your offer". And, if I want the player, I'll step up. Or, I'll say something like, "I don't want the player that much"

If I reject something in the TC, it is because I feel that the trade is unfair. It can be unfair to you, or unfair to the league. One of the main reasons why a trade can be rejected, is if it leaves a team without any tangible assets (draft picks, cap space, "good" players).

I really could care less if a player that I want is traded; if you chose a deal that isn't mine, so be it. There's a good chance that I can go acquire a player of equal caliber with the trade that I offered you, so long as the trade that I offered was fair. It is like this, I go to the store, and they're out of Coke. I still have the money to buy the Coke. And Pepsi is priced the same. So, I'll buy the Pepsi.

To my knowledge, there is no RFA in here, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume there is, since you brought it up. So say you trade away a player that will be a RFA in the upcoming off-season. I am interested in this RFA, and you trade him. I feel the trade is bad for you. I reject the trade. However, you trading the RFA doesn't effect my ability to sign him in the off-season. The team you traded the RFA to has just the same chances of signing him in the off-season as I do, and as you did (until you traded him, because obviously a RFA you traded away wouldn't want to come back to your team).

In the scenario above, I don't see why I would reject the trade to suit my purpose of signing him in the off-season? The odds of me signing him in the off-season are just the same before and after the trade. The trade being rejected gives me no added benefit of signing the RFA. If you are implying that the RFA would be more likely to re-sign with the team you traded him to, well, that team had the same odds before the trade. If anything, he has worse odds now because the team that wanted him in the off-season, but traded for him now, lost assets in the trade. Sure, that team now holds the ability to match a contract offer, but so did you, before you traded him!! My odds didn't change, the situation didn't change, the team could still match the offer, regardless of if the trade is accepted or rejected. Do you see the point I am making? AND if I really wanted to sign the player as a RFA in the off-season, I would be offering you a trade!! Furthermore, IF I REALLY WANTED HIM, I would make my offer the best offer. And the only reason you wouldn't take the best offer, is if YOU had animosity towards me and my team.

See, the idea of your argument is a nice idea at the base of it. But when you think about it in depth, you have to realize that everyone in the league is going to be biased to a point. You may not want to trade with me because I am in your conference, and you don't want to give me Player X because you don't want me to be good. And that's fine. That's commendable. But the people chosen to be on the TC were chosen because they can be the least biased in these situations.

I am not going to reject a trade because I am mad you didn't choose my offer. If I wanted you to choose my offer, I would make it the best offer. And in the end, I would only have myself to blame for not getting the player. I wouldn't act like a 12 year old and reject the trade. I wouldn't break the toy because you wouldn't let me play with it.

[billy]

All the of the concerns here that have been voiced are very real.

Yay, verily, in all forms of human governance we worry about corruption and oligarchical tendencies, and this sim league is no different.

However, I have 100% confidence in my Transaction Committee members and Player Agents to leave their GM biases at the door when making decisions in free agency and in the trading forum.

I have many different hats in this league, Commissioner, Transaction committee member, GM. It's important to look at things in the trade committee not as a GM of the pelicans, but as an unbiased trade committee member. I believe the TC I handpicked for our inaugural season will do that.

I specifically picked the people I did because I thought they would be more conservative. I went into this season knowing there would be many new people and lots of rejectable trades. And that is okay. Don't think a rejected trade doesn't mean the deal dies, work on it, and submit a new one. We are all learning our new roles here.



I've been thinking about the proposals you guys have been putting forward, and I'll get to all of them when I make an actual decision, but as far as having people outside the league voting on trades and being player agents, I think that might be too difficult to coordinate and absenteeism would be too rampant for it too work. Maybe after the league is a little bit older...

A lot of you seem very impatient and have to realize this a very very slowly developing league. There is only one game every couple a days, and this league will be here for many many years after everyone on the roster right now has retired. Rules will change, views will change, new knowledge will be gleamed, we will look back and see some super good trades that got rejected, and super bad trades that get accepted. Thats part of the fun.

To prevent corruption I have introducted rotating Trade committee seats, (alas, even some of the permanent seats will not be permanent) that rotate every season, and anyone can apply! Same goes for player agents. Having TC members recuse themselves from particular deals would cause too much delay and confusion I feel. I may bring in outside people to help with offseason free agency to help decide where some of the bigger free agents go, since its just a one or two week window I'm sure activity level among the outside people wouldn't cause too much of a delay in that case.


However, our TC has sworn and oath on their mother's graves to be 100% impartial and unbiased when giving their ruling on trades, and in free agency multiple player agents will look at the deals (it's outlined in the rules) to decide where free agents go. If you see any votes or actions from our TC members that makes you feel like they were being biased and unfair, please contact me directly through PM, and I will handle it myself. If I believe that the TC member has used their powers unfairly, they will be removed from their position. Threads calling out members of the staff, or other GMs only will make the league less fun and less fair overtime.

BK

[James K. Polk]

As long as the TC explain why they are vetoing or accepting a trade its okay

[Deleted]

I'm not sure if you've ran your own Dynasty league or what that makes you think that you are feel so entitled to your opinion

@mink2000, I am entitled(?) because much like you, I have an equal share in this league sir.

Now, why you'd take issue with a thread posted in the General Discussion - You can talk about anything forum is very odd to me & I'll leave it at that.

Please get out of your own ass and trying to revolutionize everything. You seem to have a ton of new ideas and generally disagree with everyone; I'm not sure why you feel the need to create conflict but please stop

This is dripping with irony... & I'm not going to squabble.

Ultimately, if you'd like to discuss the merits of what I posted above, re: the TC, I'd love to hear your take.

If not, I'll just say good luck in the draft mate.

[Deleted]

To my knowledge, there is no RFA in here, but for the sake of the argument

Do you remember when the Bulls submitted an Offer Sheet & snaked Brad Miller away from the Hornets because they didn't have the Cap space to re-sign him?

Well, if not (I am dating myself here) the Bulls essentially did the Price is Right & bid $1 dollar more than the Hornets had space & there was nothing the Hornets could do about it, no Bird's Rights.

Similarly, in our league the are no Bird's Rights for any player.
As a result, every RFA won't be on a team that has the Cap space to re-sign them if an Offer Sheet submitted by another team is too large.

So, GM's may be motivated to veto a trade & hope that the player winds up on the free market instead of landing with a team that does have the Cap space that can match any Offer Sheet which does come in.

I am saying it *MAY* look bad if a TC member vetoed a trade like this & then turned around to make a deal themselves or just went out & got that player now he was on the Free Market.

Note: I clearly do not know or believe anyone on our TC would be like that but, just for appearance's sake it may be a helpful idea to consider.

I mean, if you had your eye on a guy it's just human nature that a close call may go one way rather than another...

I wouldn't act like a 12 year old and reject the trade. I wouldn't break the toy because you wouldn't let me play with it.

I respect that, & again that's not my default stance on how I think people would act.
In the end, it is just an appearance / transparency thing more than anything else.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2015 16:15:26 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

I have an equal share in this league sir.

im not sure you understand what kind of league this is in the first place so before you start claiming 'equal share' of a league which you have no idea how things are ran, try learning the rules first and stop stepping on people toe's as your meet and greet.

you are basically telling everyone that already has a good idea what they are doing they need to change things. if you dont like the way things are done here, then leave. there are literally hundreds of people that would love to have your team and not act they're in a constant state of mensturation.

[Deleted]

Good luck in the draft @mink2000.


All the best mate,
-D.

[Keith Van Horn]

Jun 21, 2015 16:38:20 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

To my knowledge, there is no RFA in here, but for the sake of the argument

Do you remember when the Bulls submitted an Offer Sheet & snaked Brad Miller away from the Hornets because they didn't have the Cap space to re-sign him?

Well, if not (I am dating myself here) the Bulls essentially did the Price is Right & bid $1 dollar more than the Hornets had space & there was nothing the Hornets could do about it, no Bird's Rights.

Similarly, in our league the are no Bird's Rights for any player.
As a result, every RFA won't be on a team that has the Cap space to re-sign them if an Offer Sheet submitted by another team is too large.

So, GM's may be motivated to veto a trade & hope that the player winds up on the free market instead of landing with a team that does have the Cap space that can match any Offer Sheet which does come in.

I am saying it *MAY* look bad if a TC member vetoed a trade like this & then turned around to make a deal themselves or just went out & got that player now he was on the Free Market.

Note: I clearly do not know or believe anyone on our TC would be like that but, just for appearance's sake it may be a helpful idea to consider.

I mean, if you had your eye on a guy it's just human nature that a close call may go one way rather than another...

I wouldn't act like a 12 year old and reject the trade. I wouldn't break the toy because you wouldn't let me play with it.

I respect that, & again that's not my default stance on how I think people would act.
In the end, it is just an appearance / transparency thing more than anything else.

We don't have RFA in here. Unless something changes. 

And RFA doesn't work like that in the NBA (anymore), because players are traded with their Bird Rights (BR's) still intact now. Example is Brandon Knight going to the Suns from Milwaukee at the deadline this past season. The Suns have his BR's and he will be an RFA this off-season. 

We would never implement a RFA system without BR's trading. It would be way too difficult of a process. Mid and Off Season contract negotiations and extensions are way more likely of a thing to happen than Restricted Free Agency. 

But...For the sake of the argument, because I like arguing, and we aren't really arguing, we are just discussing opposing opinions (please understand that we aren't ARGUING, when I say arguing, I mean more in terms of how a Lawyer presents a defense or prosecution rather than BF/GF or Mom and Dad arguing). 

Say you have Draymond Green and you want to trade him, and his RFA rights (the ability to match), to a team. And I wanted Dray. The team you are trading him to won't get his BR's, because he is in the last year of his deal, and therefore, per our rules, the acquiring team won't hold his BR's. I would be more inclined to pass the trade because I don't want a team to have his BR's. That way, in the off-season, I can offer him a lot of money. Especially if the acquiring team doesn't have cap to resign him, and I do. The acquiring team can't match a contract that I could offer. And that is good for me. Dray losing his BR's is great for me.

Now, let's say the acquiring team doesn't have cap space, but plans to make a series of trades to rid his team of the huge contracts. Would I be inclined to reject those trades that way he cannot have the ability to resign Dray? I mean yeah, if my whole point is to sign Dray in the off-season. But that is where the un-bias-ness has to come in to play. Billy picked the TC because he knows us and has played in a Sim League with us before and knows who we are and how we think. And Billy knows that I wouldn't do that. Not because I am a super moral driven person. But because I value the league. And I want the league to be fair. And the league to be good. And to thrive. And to be awesome. And it would be just stupid of me to decline a trade like that and jeopardize the league. I want this league to be as real as possible and to be as fun as possible. And I am a super competitive person, and if I did that sort of thing, to try and win, the win wouldn't sit right with me. Because even though I am competitive, it wouldn't be a real win. Because I used a special privilege to win. 

You will also see that once a player is traded with 2 or less years on his contract, meaning the traded player doesn't come with BR's, that player will bounce around a lot. Those players will be the ones available. Bird Rights are probably THE most valuable thing in the league. Bird Rights mean you don't need cap space. It essentially means you have more assets because you don't have the need for cap space, another asset. 

You will probably see a player traded with 3 years on his contract. And the price for that player will be high, if he is a good player as well. And then you will probably see that same player be traded a year later, without his Bird Rights, and the price paid will be considerably less than the previous price. And once a player loses his BRs, those players get bounced around a lot. 

In another league, I acquired Dray and Bledsoe on the last year of their deals this season. I paid a good price for those players. But considerably less than I would have paid if they had three years on their deal. I did this knowing I would need to resign them, and I did this because I had the cap space. Bledsoe and Dray are valued highly in our league. No one on our TC in there felt inclined to reject the trade because they wanted to make a play for those guys in FA and I have lots of cap space. I know how to be a good member on the TC, and a good member of the league. I also know how to separate my bias, and I want to win, but I want to win correctly. Because winning in an unfashionable manner wouldn't sit right.

Also, you'll be able to tell if a trade is fair just as easily as I will. Does my opinion matter more because I am on the TC? Yeah it does. But that doesn't mean your opinion is wrong, or that I don't share in your opinion. You'd be able to tell pretty easily if a TC member is intentionally veto'ing trades to suit his own needs. And if this were to happen, we have 5 other people on the TC to cancel out his opinion. One TC member's opinion matters, but it doesn't really matter if it is out voted 5-1. The dude veto'ing the fair trades will be very easy to spot. 

There will probably be a lot of trades that get veto'd. That's just the way it is in the beginning. My most important thing as a TC member is to protect the best interest of the TEAM, not the GM. Because it is the TEAM that stays. Not the GM. GM's will make a series of trades, realize that they weren't so good, or that their plan failed, and leave. And leave that team in ruins. And it is my job to make sure that that doesn't happen. 

So until we know who the guys are that are committed, we will probably veto trades that are a bit sketchy. Like, say you draft this good team. And then you realize about halfway in to the season that you're only competing for the 7th seed in the East. And that you have no real way of winning a championship this season, and your players are old veterans. And you want to trade these guys away and compile young assets; that is a good decision in a lot of people's eyes. But say we, as the TC, don't feel you're getting enough value out of those players. We will likely decline the trade and ask you and your trade partner to revisit the trade. I mean, it is basically us telling your trade partner that he needs to add more in to the deal. The veto is good for you. But say we see that you're trying to dismantle your team and we veto the first trade or two in this process, and some time passes, a week maybe, and then, we as a TC understand that maybe the league doesn't value the players you are trying to trade as much as we do, we will then be more forgiving in the trade posts and allow you to do so. 

It is why new GM's have a waiting period to make trades. Because when you're a new GM, every other GM will be messaging you trying to rip you off. Now, say you have a team full of youngsters and you think you can trade them away and make a nice push. But you're not getting good guys on good contracts and we feel you can get more for your young guys, we will veto the trade. And again, it is a good thing. It is us telling your trade partner to add more in to the trade. 

The TC veto'ing a trade is the best negotiating tactic in the league. Say some dude is low balling you. And you're telling him you want more. But finally, you're just like fuck it, I need to trade these guys, to either get better earlier in the season, or to get worse earlier in the season, for playoff and lottery purposes. So you throw the deal up in to the Trade section. And we are like, wow this trade sucks. This dude is ripping you off. Now, you go in to the PM and tell that dude he's an idiot and if he wants to get these players off of you, he needs to add more in to the deal. Or you can just simply tell the dude low-balling you that the trade will get rejected. He will probably think as a TC member and look at the fairness of the trade, and realize the same thing you have realized. 

As a trading partner, you want to make a fair trade. Everyone is trying to fuck over everybody. But at some point, you'll realize that that isn't a good idea. Because the dude making the bullshit offers will eventually piss everyone off over a period of time and he will lose negotiating partners. 

My biggest advice when negotiating, is to come to a fair offer. And don't accept anything when you're stoned. 

[billy]

We do have RFA in this league. The RFA is only for rookies and their 5th year is a qualifying offer :) other than that I agree with what you said.

No BR trading though.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2015 19:39:31 GMT -5 billy said:

We do have RFA in this league. The RFA is only for rookies and their 5th year is a qualifying offer :) other than that I agree with what you said.

No BR trading though.

We don't have RFA in here. Unless something changes.

You see we're in an odd spot bc we don't have Brid's Rights on any of our players so, you can't sign a RFA to a contract IF it puts you over the Cap.

People can put in an Offer Sheet that is larger than the other teams Cap space & the Brad Miller thing comes into play.

EDIT: Keith Van Horn I didn't get too far into your post b/c as billy said, we do have RFA & no Brid's Rights.

If you'd like to give me a snapshot of anything else I missed?
Copy paste & I'd love to read... TY!

[billy]

Jun 21, 2015 19:49:12 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

Jun 21, 2015 19:39:31 GMT -5 billy said:

We do have RFA in this league. The RFA is only for rookies and their 5th year is a qualifying offer :) other than that I agree with what you said.

No BR trading though.

We don't have RFA in here. Unless something changes.

You see we're in an odd spot bc we don't have Brid's Rights on any of our players so, you can't sign a RFA to a contract IF it puts you over the Cap.

People can put in an Offer Sheet that is larger than the other teams Cap space & the Brad Miller thing comes into play.

Yeah it's a bit different.

[Deleted]

Keith Van Horn In short, may we agree that if a TC member vetoed a trade & then shortly after arranged a trade for a player involved it could appear that they might have vetoed the trade for their own gain?

Not saying people will, only pointing out what it could look like from the outside.

So, allowing a TC member to step away if they wanted, might be something the TC could discuss. 

I understand that's all a League Front Office decision.

I made a suggestion & I'm glad you are taking the time to talk it out with us.

TY.

[billy]

Jun 21, 2015 19:49:12 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

Jun 21, 2015 19:39:31 GMT -5 billy said:

We do have RFA in this league. The RFA is only for rookies and their 5th year is a qualifying offer :) other than that I agree with what you said.

No BR trading though.

We don't have RFA in here. Unless something changes.

You see we're in an odd spot bc we don't have Brid's Rights on any of our players so, you can't sign a RFA to a contract IF it puts you over the Cap.

People can put in an Offer Sheet that is larger than the other teams Cap space & the Brad Miller thing comes into play.

EDIT: Keith Van Horn I didn't get too far into your post b/c as billy said, we do have RFA & no Brid's Rights.

If you'd like to give me a snapshot of anything else I missed?
Copy paste & I'd love to read... TY!

You should read it it is still very applicable

[billy]

Jun 21, 2015 20:06:03 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

Keith Van Horn In short, may we agree that if a TC member vetoed a trade & then shortly after arranged a trade for a player involved it could appear that they might have vetoed the trade for their own gain?

Not saying people will, only pointing out what it could look like from the outside.

So, allowing a TC member to step away if they wanted, might be something the TC could discuss. 

I understand that's all a League Front Office decision.

I made a suggestion & I'm glad you are taking the time to talk it out with us.

TY.

That'll only look bad if you're a distrusting person. Deals happen and fall through all the time. As long as the TC members reasons for vetoing the trade makes sense then it isn't a problem. TC members don't vote all the time (we only need 4 out of 6 votes) so if they think it'll be a problem they can just not vote. We don't need a process for a problem that doesn't exist.

Like I said this system works fine elsewhere and we are using the same people, so just relax and enjoy the league no one is out to get you or anyone else, especially the staff.

[Keith Van Horn]

Jun 21, 2015 19:49:12 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

We don't have RFA in here. Unless something changes.

You see we're in an odd spot bc we don't have Brid's Rights on any of our players so, you can't sign a RFA to a contract IF it puts you over the Cap.

People can put in an Offer Sheet that is larger than the other teams Cap space & the Brad Miller thing comes into play.

EDIT: Keith Van Horn I didn't get too far into your post b/c as billy said, we do have RFA & no Brid's Rights.

If you'd like to give me a snapshot of anything else I missed?
Copy paste & I'd love to read... TY!

Ok so we do have RFA and no BR trading. Please read what I wrote, as I spent the better part of what I wrote on what would occur if we had RFA and no BR trading. I didn't claim to know the rules, which obviously I don't know all of the rules. billy , RFA should probably be under the Rules section, as when I went there last night, there was nothing on RFA. I did not look hard though. 

So we have RFA and no BR trading. Covered this in what I wrote. I think this is a slippery slope, and if we have RFA, we need to have in-season and off-season contract negotiations and extensions. 

RFA just means there's easier ways to keep your rookies. Chances are, if you have a guy on a rookie deal, and you get to where he has less than 3 years remaining on his deal, meaning if he is traded, he won't have BR's with the acquiring team, that acquiring team will be smart enough to clear cap to sign the player. And if a team offers an outrageous contract, you won't want to match it. 

billy , we also should have a max extension........as this would be the way it is done in the NBA. That way you don't have people offering 40 million a year to Anthony Davis. It would be fucking stupid if we don't have max extensions how there is in the NBA. 


@oshaughnessy if you're going to be a dick about things and stop reading something when somebody is wrong at the first inclination of things, and make it known, you're not going to fair well in the league. You're going to end up being THAT guy that no one wants to deal with, and it looks like you're already half way there.

[billy]

Jun 21, 2015 20:10:08 GMT -5 Keith Van Horn said:

Jun 21, 2015 19:49:12 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

You see we're in an odd spot bc we don't have Brid's Rights on any of our players so, you can't sign a RFA to a contract IF it puts you over the Cap.

People can put in an Offer Sheet that is larger than the other teams Cap space & the Brad Miller thing comes into play.

EDIT: Keith Van Horn I didn't get too far into your post b/c as billy said, we do have RFA & no Brid's Rights.

If you'd like to give me a snapshot of anything else I missed?
Copy paste & I'd love to read... TY!

Ok so we do have RFA and no BR trading. Please read what I wrote, as I spent the better part of what I wrote on what would occur if we had RFA and no BR trading. I didn't claim to know the rules, which obviously I don't know all of the rules. billy , RFA should probably be under the Rules section, as when I went there last night, there was nothing on RFA. I did not look hard though. 

So we have RFA and no BR trading. Covered this in what I wrote. I think this is a slippery slope, and if we have RFA, we need to have in-season and off-season contract negotiations and extensions. 

RFA just means there's easier ways to keep your rookies. Chances are, if you have a guy on a rookie deal, and you get to where he has less than 3 years remaining on his deal, meaning if he is traded, he won't have BR's with the acquiring team, that acquiring team will be smart enough to clear cap to sign the player. And if a team offers an outrageous contract, you won't want to match it. 

billy , we also should have a max extension........as this would be the way it is done in the NBA. That way you don't have people offering 40 million a year to Anthony Davis. It would be fucking stupid if we don't have max extensions how there is in the NBA. 


@oshaughnessy if you're going to be a dick about things and stop reading something when somebody is wrong at the first inclination of things, and make it known, you're not going to fair well in the league. You're going to end up being THAT guy that no one wants to deal with, and it looks like you're already half way there.

The rules were buried in another thread but I made them their own thread the other night.

In season extension will come in a future year (2015?!)

And there is a max contract rule it's 25% or 30% via the Derrick rose rule. Just like real life.
It's all in the rules.

[Deleted]

Like I said this system works fine elsewhere and we are using the same people, so just relax and enjoy the league no one is out to get you or anyone else, especially the staff.

billy I'm not making demands here...
I saw something the I felt should be pointed out.
People had their say & a decision has been reached.
That's exactly the way these things should work.
Mission accomplished.
:) *thmbsup

[Deleted]

Keith Van Horn

Danny Ainge (Celtics GM) if you're going to be a dick about things and stop reading something when somebody is wrong

I know the internet is a cynical place but, I wasn't being a cock, promise.

If the tone came across as anything other than me looking for a tl;dr outside of the RFA stuff, I apologise to you sir.

[Keith Van Horn]

Jun 21, 2015 20:06:03 GMT -5 @oshaughnessy said:

Keith Van Horn In short, may we agree that if a TC member vetoed a trade & then shortly after arranged a trade for a player involved it could appear that they might have vetoed the trade for their own gain?

Not saying people will, only pointing out what it could look like from the outside.

So, allowing a TC member to step away if they wanted, might be something the TC could discuss. 

I understand that's all a League Front Office decision.

I made a suggestion & I'm glad you are taking the time to talk it out with us.

TY.

Yeah, any TC member should step down from a trade discussion if they feel they have too much invested in the trade. Or rather than stepping down from voting, they can just wait the vote out and see if their opinion is needed. 

Like I said, it will be really easy to tell if someone is vetoing things for their own personal gain. Like really easy. I believe the rule is as long as a trade gets 3 accepts, it passes. So 5 people vote and 2 have accepted, and 3 have declined, and the "in question" TC member has yet to vote, if he doesn't vote, it gets declined. If he votes reject, it gets declined. He should recuse himself from the discussion in that case. And then what happens? It has 3 rejects, billy can you clear this up? What happens if a trade goes 2-3 accepts rejects, and the 6th recuses himself. Does it go to a league vote? Or is it rejected? Are there even 6 people on the TC? Why am I paying attention to this when TRUE DETECTIVE IS ON!!!>> THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME?!

In all seriousness though. It will be easy to tell if someone is using the TC for his own gain. And that person will be kicked from the TC, and probably the league. You need to relax and understand that the people Billy chose will do their job correctly. And if a TC member has ulterior motives, justice will be felt. The people weren't picked because they are Billy's BFF's. The people were picked because they do their job correctly and well. And because they know Sim Leagues and they know how a good one works, thanks Ian, and because they are trustworthy and active and smart. Billy and I will argue. He will get on my nerves. But it will be ok. 

If a TC member is involved in a trade, they don't get the chance to vote. Measures have been taken to insure that no one is capable of cheating the system from the inside. Just relax and have faith. Let the league get going and things start happening before you get these brilliant ideas about how to reinvent the wheel. Can things be improved upon? They always can be. But what is there to improve on? Nothing. Nothing has happened yet. There hasn't been one game simmed. It is just fantasy draft time. And unless a GM trades away his whole team to a dude for nothing, chances are the trades will pass. Regardless of if I vote no, or Blake is MIA.