As for Fully, this is a relatively young league and it's complexity will bring about a lot of issues. With that being said though, I feel like everyone is trying to work through the dilemmas that arise and when some people are the benefit of those issues they're going to be defensive to protect it. I feel like as it stands everyone is actively trying to resolve this and if your dead-set on going theres obviously nothing that can stop you, but I just ask you to reconsider, not take what's been said personally, and to help in the process of resolving this.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SKYWALKER WINS RR NBA Dynasty League - S3
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
mcHAPPY wrote:You gave me ability to sign Capela to multi year deal and keep Napier bird rights should I trade Matthews. I call that something.
It can be added to list of things that need to be addressed.
1) dates
2) roster sizes in season
3) roster sizes out of season
4) legality of player for cap year trades (or nothing as some call it)
5) number adds per week in season/playoffs
Anything else?
Comment
-
tucas wrote: View PostAs for Fully, this is a relatively young league and it's complexity will bring about a lot of issues. With that being said though, I feel like everyone is trying to work through the dilemmas that arise and when some people are the benefit of those issues they're going to be defensive to protect it. I feel like as it stands everyone is actively trying to resolve this and if your dead-set on going theres obviously nothing that can stop you, but I just ask you to reconsider, not take what's been said personally, and to help in the process of resolving this.
Please find someone to take over for me as soon as you can. I'll update my team for a couple days but don't want to have to do it for very long.
Comment
-
mcHAPPY wrote:Please don't bring up keeping this tight to NBA with the way the waiver wire was changed. It is a weak argument.
mcHAPPY wrote:Why would I have to find a protected pick? There was nothing in the rules stating this deal was wrong or illegal. Changes or clarifications in the summer would be more than welcomed if the majority decides.
mcHAPPY wrote:And you made me an offer of Lin for "nothing" just yesterday. These types of deals mustn't be all that bad.
Thanks for sharing that though with everyone.
Comment
-
mcHAPPY wrote:I am not sure how to get everyone to weigh in.
jbml has made appearance in thread lately therefore all owners appear to be actively involved except KIR and drizz.
Comment
-
mcHAPPY wrote:And there is the real issue again: you want money put on it.
As for making it up, the rules are there. If you can show me where I violated rules I'll humbly apologize.
It's pretty funny that the list of 1-5 for things that need to be discussed are all your issues.
Comment
-
Fully wrote: View PostIt's not personal, trust me. I just don't agree with how one of the commissioners seems to be making it up as he goes to serve his own cause better and I don't have all day to sit online and argue with him about it. And if I'm doing this just for the 'fun' of it, and I no longer find it enjoyable, it's time to pack it in.
Please find someone to take over for me as soon as you can. I'll update my team for a couple days but don't want to have to do it for very long.Last edited by tucas; Mon Jan 26, 2015, 01:29 AM.
Comment
-
I believe this is going nowhere quick. We've heard enough from both sides to know how each person interprets the rules and I think a vote would just be our best course of action at this point, instead of these pointless back and fourths. I don't believe anything can be said to change another's mind on the subject so continuing any longer without a vote would just be redundant.
Comment
-
mcHAPPY wrote:It was me.
After watching numerous trades get pushed through immediately, including a trade of your own which I did not approve, once it met CBA requirements I was under impression fair game, no?
But to steal one of your fav questions what does that have to do with anything?
And good job on kicking the hornets nest as I've attempted to build common ground to move forward.
And those were pushed through because none of any of the deals I made were questionable what so ever.
Comment
-
Joey wrote: View PostYou said Tucas should have weighed in Earlier ... I thought that was Tucas "weighing in".
And those were pushed through because none of any of the deals I made were questionable what so ever.
Comment
-
1) dates
I think for the most part the dates are down except within respect to issue #3. If I'm missing something else I'll address it.
2) roster sizes in season
I vote there should be no restrictions on trades forcing equal numbers of player to be exchanged so long as the team is filled back to 15 via the wire ASAP.
3) roster sizes out of season
I vote on no restrictions on roster sizes out of the season, but looking at how early free agency was discussed last offseason I don't think 2 days is enough. People need time to adjust their draft strategy. I'm willing to vote for a 15 man max roster a week before our draft.(gives a week of preseason to see your players play)
4) legality of player for cap year trades (or nothing as some call it)
I vote in favour of cap year trades.
5) number adds per week in season/playoffs
I don't see an issue in this anymore with the addition of our waiver wire this season. I vote no restrictions.
6)Money in future seasons.
I vote against it. Could get sticky if someones in charge of holding the money and tensions boil.
Also please refrain from arguing votes as thats clearly already been done. Minds have been made up so votes should be cast and left at that.Last edited by tucas; Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:06 AM.
Comment
-
As fun (read: not fun) as reading through this thread has been, I do feel the need to weigh in once more on something tucas said. The NBA CBA is by definition a document of the things you CAN do, not the things you CAN'T. So if something is unclear in the NBA CBA, it is illegal. This came up recently with Faried's contract extension - the wording was unclear about whether or not he could extend for the full 5 years as designated player if he did not get the max salary. As such, it was by default decided that he could not, and his deal was reworked (it had already been signed, but was deemed illegal by the NBA head office) to 4 years in length.
Now, this is not meant to be an argument one way or the other here, but in the interests of future discussions, I think we should have a clarification of this sort written into the CBA - if a situation is not explicitly covered by the Dynasty CBA, what is the default decision. If we have a clause like that in place, discussions like this need not be rushed. Whichever way it is written (all unwritten things are illegal, or all unwritten things are legal), we'd know how to treat the situation immediately, and a vote could be had at an appropriate time about possibly including/excluding that scenario for the next season. Perhaps, if this seems like a reasonable thing to have in place, we should add the intent of the clause (automatically illegal vs automatically legal) to the list of items to be voted on.
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View PostAs fun (read: not fun) as reading through this thread has been, I do feel the need to weigh in once more on something tucas said. The NBA CBA is by definition a document of the things you CAN do, not the things you CAN'T. So if something is unclear in the NBA CBA, it is illegal. This came up recently with Faried's contract extension - the wording was unclear about whether or not he could extend for the full 5 years as designated player if he did not get the max salary. As such, it was by default decided that he could not, and his deal was reworked (it had already been signed, but was deemed illegal by the NBA head office) to 4 years in length.
Now, this is not meant to be an argument one way or the other here, but in the interests of future discussions, I think we should have a clarification of this sort written into the CBA - if a situation is not explicitly covered by the Dynasty CBA, what is the default decision. If we have a clause like that in place, discussions like this need not be rushed. Whichever way it is written (all unwritten things are illegal, or all unwritten things are legal), we'd know how to treat the situation immediately, and a vote could be had at an appropriate time about possibly including/excluding that scenario for the next season. Perhaps, if this seems like a reasonable thing to have in place, we should add the intent of the clause (automatically illegal vs automatically legal) to the list of items to be voted on.
I vote automatically legal followed by a vote.
If it's voted against things can be rescinded. No need to delay matters by making everything illegal.
Comment
Comment