Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 21:11:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 23:13:21 GMT
I'm just talking about how Jeremiah just obviously assumed Reggie Jackson will leave, and therefore the trade is bad for Indiana. If Indiana resigns (he would sign an extension if this trade happened in real life) Reggie Jackson, then this trade is a slam dunk for him. However, the stigma in our league is that unless you have bird rights you basically have no advantage in free agency, and that's a bad bad thing for realism & competitive balance. If this trade happened in real life, Reggie Jackson would 100% sign a huge extension to stay in Indiana, but the way this league works, everyone seems to just think he would bolt... Getting 100% about face outcomes from the way real life works isn't a good thing. It just also distorts player value a lot from what it should be. Because Reggie Jackson would never have agreed to sign an extension with this Indiana team. You're so full of it. No way Reggie Jackson would turn down a max deal of guaranteed money only a few months into a season. Especially if he was the piece the franchise was building around.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 30, 2016 23:23:10 GMT
Because Reggie Jackson would never have agreed to sign an extension with this Indiana team. You're so full of it. No way Reggie Jackson would turn down a max deal of guaranteed money only a few months into a season. Especially if he was the piece the franchise was building around. Over the past two seasons Indiana has probably traded two entire teams worth of players. What is he building around? He has had building blocks in the past then traded those blocks for established talent. Then trades that talent for slightly worse building blocks than he had in the first place. I don't know what player would want to sign for Indiana. Its even more inconsistent of a roster than the Spurs. He followed the money in real life but he didn't go to a terrible dumpster fire of a situation either.
|
|
Larry Bird
Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on Jan 30, 2016 23:47:45 GMT
I accept. I would love to resign Jackson as my starting PG of the future. I am already working on clearing cap and building young players. I will build around Portis, Sullinger, Martin, Henson, and hopefully Jackson.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 30, 2016 23:47:45 GMT
I wouldn't have the cap space in the off season. I work in a profession that is based off ethics, so yes, I do know what it means. I think you abused a loophole, that's all.
|
|
Larry Bird
Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on Jan 30, 2016 23:53:42 GMT
I have never had anything to really build around. The closest thing was Paul George and I traded him before he ever exploded as a superstar.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 30, 2016 23:58:16 GMT
I accept. I would love to resign Jackson as my starting PG of the future. I am already working on clearing cap and building young players. I will build around Portis, Sullinger, Martin, Henson, and hopefully Jackson. There you go Jeremiah Hill
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 30, 2016 23:58:24 GMT
I wouldn't have the cap space in the off season. I work in a profession that is based off ethics, so yes, I do know what it means. I think you abused a loophole, that's all. Is this where i write a bunch of legal jargon to act like I know what I am talking about?
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 2:22:01 GMT
I wouldn't have the cap space in the off season. I work in a profession that is based off ethics, so yes, I do know what it means. I think you abused a loophole, that's all. Is this where i write a bunch of legal jargon to act like I know what I am talking about? Hahah you must be confused a lot if you think anything I said qualifies as "legal jargon." And don't act like you're not a few cleared contracts away from being able to sign him. That's why you were trying to trade for him. You'll have 75 on the books after Durants cap hold. Don't try and disguise your true intentions here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 21:11:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 2:32:07 GMT
My official view on this trade is that I think Sacramento would've gotten more for their buck for RW by just accepting Mirotic for him.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 31, 2016 2:33:03 GMT
Bruh.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 31, 2016 3:13:34 GMT
I feel like James doesn't know what "ethics" mean. If a rule is going to be created forbidding you from doing such an act, it is unethical.
We saw last free agency just how wild and risky it will be. Westbrook without BirdRights is going to be crazy.
I feel like trading for Westbrook would only be advantageous for a team if it will put the team over top and have them contending for the championship. I don't think Charlotte is one of those teams. And I don't really think because a player is on a team for 6 months it gives the re-signing team that big of an advantage.
But hey, what do I know. Westbrook will have a lot of suitors this coming off-season, will CHA be the best team with a lineup of WB, Middleton, Wiggins, Ibaka, and Noel? Who knows, that's up to the PA's.
Think Sacramento gets a decent haul for Westbrook, not a very good one, but not enough to say he shouldn't have done this, considering WB would likely surely leave.
I don't really know why Indiana is in this, but he gets the second best player in the trade, Reggie Jackson, so that's good on him.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 31, 2016 3:43:27 GMT
So, OK. LOTS of things here, too much to respond to but, I usually can't help myself so I'll touch on a couple of them, just because I feel like it.
I don't think James should be in trouble in any way for the sign then trade thing he did. Did we all sort of know it felt fishy, including James? Yes. Was there a rule against it? No. This isn't the first time something like this has happened - Josh Barber's Lance Stephenson Release-then-Sign is a prime example. Anyone could have done it, in James' case, lots of people have done it. Really, he ended up helping the league by pointing out, through his actions, that we need a rule to help our realism here.
About the whole "team trading for a player should have an advantage re-signing" thing.
#1) I think that it should be another of the MANY factors. I don't think Larry automatically gets Reggie Jackson to re-sign this off-season, just b/c he traded for him. That's sort of how some people are making it sound. Should he show some appreciation and understand that Larry seems to value him, b/c he traded for him? Absolutely. Should it be a slam dunk re-sign? Not at all. Larry better fight for him and present the best team situation plus money. If it comes down to nearly a tie in every other way, then yes, I would expect Larry to win his services due to showing loyalty for a little bit longer.
#2) I do think we as an overall league-mind have valued these expiring and even 2-year players too lowly b/c of the danger of them leaving. This goes hand-in-hand with #1's concept, of course. I think there is obviously still a danger, it's still riskier to acquire 1- and 2-year player contracts, but if you do your job and put a good team around the player, have a good vision for the future, show good decision-making and appropriate levels of loyalty/devotion to your star/key players, you greatly increase your chances of keeping those players. Making posts about how much you appreciate them helps! Will the PA have read them? Maybe, maybe not. Could you link to them during negotiations to prove your long-standing devotion and appreciation of said player? Absolutely! Will the league as a whole have a better understanding of your devotion to the player, and understand why a PA may lean towards your team if most other factors were the same or similar? Yes, indeed!
So, to sum those up - trading for a player shows you like them and value them, it should factor in negotiations. But, you better have one of the best team situations for that player and his personality, or you will still likely lose him. If most other things are equal or similar, you've greatly increased your chances, but understand it's still not a slam dunk!
Finally, I'm going to accept this as a TC member. SAC gets 3 BR pieces, one being young AND proven AND with some upside left (Otto), one being a legit, stabalizing presence that can anchor his team for a few years down low (RoLo), and another having a very cheap contract and having proven himself more than worth that deal, and is a long-term bench piece (KOQ). In addition, 3 1st round picks and 3 2nd round picks, which his team of minimal depth can REALLY use. He may even be able to flip guys like Bazemore/Barton/Bayless for some value, or possibly get that (possibly small) advantage I have referred to above. I'm both impressed with his ability to get this much for RW, and surprised James is willing to give this much knowing it's far from a lock RW returns.
Understanding that RW will only have a limited number of legitimate suitors, though, I completely get it, especially considering the plethora of talent he had to deal from.
Larry's side is the one I'm most apprehensive about, when it's all said and done. That DAL 2018 1st is one we're all watching closely as it floats around the league right now. Dallas is aging, BUT he did pull in enough talent this offseason to likely keep that pick from being a total prize. Still a piece that held some legit value for a team like Larry's, but he takes the risk on RJax and adds some (possibly small) advantage when it comes to his attempt to (re-)sign RJax this offseason.
So yea, all told, this is an exciting trade! And, I think it's good enough for RW. It's been long enough, we've seen other trades fail, maybe this isn't even as much as he got before, maybe it's more, I honestly don't remember, but I think it's been proven that Julius isn't fielding offers at an alarming rate for a player who is a large flight-risk for many people.
Accept.
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Colangelo on Jan 31, 2016 4:03:45 GMT
If we allow this deal with Kyle being traded, I'm for it. I accept. BTW james, Westbrook - Wiggins - Ibaka,
|
|
|
Post by Danny Longley on Jan 31, 2016 12:41:07 GMT
I don't hate any single part of the deal enough to reject.
I think Charlotte would be in good position to re-sign Westbrook - good young core, an actual teammate in Ibaka, top of the conference - so I'm not too torn up about the ton of stuff he's giving up. If anything, I'm surprised neither of KCP or Noel are in the deal.
I don't personally like Indiana's side - wouldn't do it myself but I think Jackson would be more concerned with getting his numbers than playing on a top-tier team, so I guess he's at least got a shot at retaining Reggie.
I'm still not a fan of Sacramento dealing Westbrook, it's not like he's got an issue IRL playing with another ball-dominant star, and it's still early in the season - but if he's so convinced that he's going to lose him then this is an okay return - not great by any means, but okay. It's at least better than what he's getting off the BOS trade IMO.
Soooo yeah, accept.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 31, 2016 13:22:26 GMT
Russell Westbrook for Otto Porter and some bad firsts... incredible. Will Barton has value too.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 31, 2016 14:30:48 GMT
Wow, uber trade. I don't think anybody needs to be angry with James Kay for signing Nate Wolters and trading him. Things like that have been happening for a long time, it's only now I've put a rule against it, and I actually do not consider it as bad as needing to sign players on-the-fly when a trade takes your team below 12 players, which happens all the damn time. Kings - three 1sts, some promising youth and others for an expiring Westbrook. Hornets - the risk of an expiring Westbrook for the 1sts, 2nds and promising youth including Reggie Jackson whose stock is at a high right now. Pacers - expiring Reggie Jackson for youth and a pick. I think the Pacers get the worse end of the deal but not enough to reject. The Kings are minimising the risk of attempting to re-sign Westbrook and getting a really good return considering all factors here. Julius Erving loses a generational talent but gains some control over his team's destiny and finally makes his own mark on Sacramento which now identifies the Kings as his team, rather than the team left to him by Vlade, I know that's important to GMs. The Hornets give themselves the inside track on re-signing Westbrook, I can't really see any other team who would be better placed to take him on board this Off Season, and they also give themselves even more of a boost this year by adding RW to their lineup, adding yet more talent and more Ws to their efforts. I'm a bit bummed because it was me who put the idea into James Kay's head about getting Westbrook, but I guess Erving and Kay preferred this deal to the one I offered I might have to stop trying to trade for Wiggins now! Also bummed because my trade for Westbrook was rejected last off season, and I don't see how Charlotte are giving up particularly more than I would have done. It kinda reminds me of my trade for Paul George that got rejected back in 2012, which was followed 40 days later by Alex English's trade for Paul George, but so it goes. I accept.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 31, 2016 14:58:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 21:11:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 16:10:07 GMT
Julius, you just got a 2nd chance, don't blow it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 31, 2016 16:26:41 GMT
Awww. I really liked this trade.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 31, 2016 16:31:43 GMT
Can you refix the draft page?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 31, 2016 17:25:52 GMT
Can you refix the draft page? I'm out right now, I'll roll back the changes I made when I'm back in 30 mins.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 31, 2016 17:54:21 GMT
Can you refix the draft page? Done this now. The trade is completely reset now.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 31, 2016 18:03:54 GMT
Can you refix the draft page? Done this now. The trade is completely reset now.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 20:23:41 GMT
Ian NobleHey so I updated the trade, this wasn't as trade-breaking as it sounded originally lol. Didn't need to go "back to the drawing board" or anything. Just added the expirings of Jefferson and Felton. SAC will still have to cut 2 players and I will have to sign 1. Salaries work under 125% rule - I send out $30,817,099 in salary and receive $37,988,375 - which is less than 125%: $38,521,373. This is a minor detail and shouldn't require re-voting or anything, IMO, just making it all work within the rules.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 20:26:51 GMT
I'm a bit bummed because it was me who put the idea into James Kay's head about getting Westbrook, but I guess Erving and Kay preferred this deal to the one I offered I might have to stop trying to trade for Wiggins now! Also bummed because my trade for Westbrook was rejected last off season, and I don't see how Charlotte are giving up particularly more than I would have done. It kinda reminds me of my trade for Paul George that got rejected back in 2012, which was followed 40 days later by Alex English's trade for Paul George, but so it goes. I accept. Hmmm... I think this offer is a lot better than yours, Ian, plus I only get WEstbrook for one year. You would've had him for two, which I think also makes a difference. IMO you offered two picks and I offered three first rounds and a bunch of 2nd rounds + Porter Bazemore >> Payne Napier Bennett. Also, I've been trying to get Westbrook for quite some time haha. I think he'll definitely want to stay with the Hornets.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 20:30:41 GMT
If we allow this deal with Kyle being traded, I'm for it. I accept. BTW james, Westbrook - Wiggins - Ibaka, don't get me wrong I love Wiggy, but I might be more excited about Middleton KCP Noel than Wiggy.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 20:35:30 GMT
I feel like James doesn't know what "ethics" mean. If a rule is going to be created forbidding you from doing such an act, it is unethical. We saw last free agency just how wild and risky it will be. Westbrook without BirdRights is going to be crazy. I feel like trading for Westbrook would only be advantageous for a team if it will put the team over top and have them contending for the championship. I don't think Charlotte is one of those teams. And I don't really think because a player is on a team for 6 months it gives the re-signing team that big of an advantage. But hey, what do I know. Westbrook will have a lot of suitors this coming off-season, will CHA be the best team with a lineup of WB, Middleton, Wiggins, Ibaka, and Noel? Who knows, that's up to the PA's. Think Sacramento gets a decent haul for Westbrook, not a very good one, but not enough to say he shouldn't have done this, considering WB would likely surely leave. I don't really know why Indiana is in this, but he gets the second best player in the trade, Reggie Jackson, so that's good on him. That's not true at all... Rules/laws aren't the sole instructor of ethics/morals. Smoking weed is against the law lol does that mean smoking weed is unethical? I don't believe so. This rule was not so much as rule as a new bureaucratic regulation. I'm sure you're going to go after Westbrook in the off-season as well, so discrediting my "ethics" as a GM surely plays in your favor. As Ian and others have said, nothing I did was unethical and had been done plenty of times by plenty of other GMs in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 31, 2016 20:43:03 GMT
I feel like James doesn't know what "ethics" mean. If a rule is going to be created forbidding you from doing such an act, it is unethical. We saw last free agency just how wild and risky it will be. Westbrook without BirdRights is going to be crazy. I feel like trading for Westbrook would only be advantageous for a team if it will put the team over top and have them contending for the championship. I don't think Charlotte is one of those teams. And I don't really think because a player is on a team for 6 months it gives the re-signing team that big of an advantage. But hey, what do I know. Westbrook will have a lot of suitors this coming off-season, will CHA be the best team with a lineup of WB, Middleton, Wiggins, Ibaka, and Noel? Who knows, that's up to the PA's. Think Sacramento gets a decent haul for Westbrook, not a very good one, but not enough to say he shouldn't have done this, considering WB would likely surely leave. I don't really know why Indiana is in this, but he gets the second best player in the trade, Reggie Jackson, so that's good on him. That's not true at all... Rules/laws aren't the sole instructor of ethics/morals. Smoking weed is against the law lol does that mean smoking weed is unethical? I don't believe so. This rule was not so much as rule as a new bureaucratic regulation. I'm sure you're going to go after Westbrook in the off-season as well, so discrediting my "ethics" as a GM surely plays in your favor. As Ian and others have said, nothing I did was unethical and had been done plenty of times by plenty of other GMs in the past. Just because a bunch of people are/were doing it, doesn't make it ethical, either, James. Re: 2009 United States Financial Crisis
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 20:43:13 GMT
Ian Noble Hey so I updated the trade, this wasn't as trade-breaking as it sounded originally lol. Didn't need to go "back to the drawing board" or anything. Just added the expirings of Jefferson and Felton. SAC will still have to cut 2 players and I will have to sign 1. Salaries work under 125% rule - I send out $30,817,099 in salary and receive $37,988,375 - which is less than 125%: $38,521,373. This is a minor detail and shouldn't require re-voting or anything, IMO, just making it all work within the rules. When did it become 125% and not 110%? Dynasty Five's Trading Regulations. Keep all trade offers and negotiations limited to Private Messages (PMs) between teams. If you are over the cap after a trade, your incoming salaries must not exceed 125% of your outgoing salaries. IDK. Don't scare me like that lol.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 31, 2016 20:44:03 GMT
That's not true at all... Rules/laws aren't the sole instructor of ethics/morals. Smoking weed is against the law lol does that mean smoking weed is unethical? I don't believe so. This rule was not so much as rule as a new bureaucratic regulation. I'm sure you're going to go after Westbrook in the off-season as well, so discrediting my "ethics" as a GM surely plays in your favor. As Ian and others have said, nothing I did was unethical and had been done plenty of times by plenty of other GMs in the past. Just because a bunch of people are/were doing it, doesn't make it ethical, either, James. Re: 2009 United States Financial Crisis Haha cmon man, that wasn't my point at all. and those are far from analogous situations. You're grasping at straws now man.
|
|