RR NBA Dynasty League - S1

[tucas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't someone mention before that if you were at 40 years, you could still continue to add/drop off the waiver wire but the consequence would be only keeping them for that year? Like if I had 40, I could keep rolling in 1 for 1 add drops? or is that against the rules?

Yeah you can do that.

[coastal]

Picked up Kirk Hinrich tonight (thought Terrence Jones was going to be great in Houston, then they send him to the DLeague!), who I originally drafted and then waived. Does that add a year to my total (ie does he count against my total twice?). Doesn't change much for me if it does - I've already destroyed my financial flexibility and ability to make trades for this season and figured some guaranteed production would be better than another prospect I won't be able to keep.

[Sig]

Any open spots left?

[joey_hesketh]

Any open spots left?

As of now, no. Sorry.
If by some unfortunate turn of events a manager needs to 'sell' their team, then we will consider you for a 'buyer'.

[Soft Euro]

Glad to see I wasn't the only one confused. As per Soft Euro's request, here's what I posted on our yahoo league page as a possible solution to the particular trade in question.

"I wasn't thinking of the 1 year players I dropped as continuing to count against the cap. In the trade in question, I received 6 years of contracts back, and then sent 5 years to the other team. At the time of this trade I guess I was at 40 years (had 37 in my head).

Would an acceptable solution be me amnestying Al Harrington? He has a one year contract, which would off-set the additional year I received in the trade. My subsequent pick-up of Meyers Leonard would then leave me at 41 years, with one empty roster spot."

Anyways, there it is. I think it's a reasonable solution to this particular circumstance.

Cheers.

That solution would only make more of a mess in my opinion by allowing another move against the rules.

[Soft Euro]

As you know the trade between Tucas and Coastal wasn't possible under the cap rules, but this was, unfortunately spotted too late by the commissioner. Nevertheless we need to fix this. We're going to do this after the games of this week not to mess with anyones current match-up.

Tomorrow we'll make the following rosterchanges which will be reflected on your rosters for next monday.

Coastal
remove: Josh Smith, Meyers Leonard
add: Glen Davis, Luol Deng

Tucas
remove: Raymond Felton, Luol Deng
add: Grant Hill, Josh Smith

WJF
remove: Glen Davis
add: Raymond Felton

Ás far as I know it's the first time any of us makes rosterchanges as a commissioner, so I'm hoping we get this done cleanly.

[tucas]

Actually I have a solution that doesn't involve anyone giving up anything. The original trade was grant hill and josh smith for glen Davis and Luol Deng. He received 1 year too many. What if we just pretend grant hill wasn't apart of the deal remove the one year from coastal and add the year back onto mine.(coastal dropped hill after so it would just be like me dropping hill after the trade which I would've done anyways.)

[tucas]

The way I see it is if this trade is rescinded the same trades will take place again, minus grant hill. It's an easy solution that's being made harder than it needs to be.

[Soft Euro]

Actually I have a solution that doesn't involve anyone giving up anything. The original trade was grant hill and josh smith for glen Davis and Luol Deng. He received 1 year too many. What if we just pretend grant hill wasn't apart of the deal remove the one year from coastal and add the year back onto mine.(coastal dropped hill after so it would just be like me dropping hill after the trade which I would've done anyways.)

The way I see it is if this trade is rescinded the same trades will take place again, minus grant hill. It's an easy solution that's being made harder than it needs to be.

We are at the beginning of a Dynasty League; you probably understand that some rules need to be worked out better when we see them in practice.

I actually thought about your proposel, but I don't like it. One side adding more players to allow the trade under the cap rules is in my opinion basically cheating the system. I have to run this by Apollo and Joey, but my opinion is that these kind of 'fixes' should not be allowed.

I'm in the process of creating a more complete rulebook and after it's cleared by Joey and Apollo I'll publish it online. Still, we are likely to come across situations which are not covered by the rulebook. We'll have to look at those situations and see if there needs to be a new rule added to the rulebook.

[Sig]

As of now, no. Sorry.
If by some unfortunate turn of events a manager needs to 'sell' their team, then we will consider you for a 'buyer'.

What if by some "unfortunate" turn of events causes one of the managers to go missing (thus rendering him unable to further lead his team) were to take place? And what if said manager's campaign was to be sabotaged and taken over via digital code encryption devices?

[tucas]

I actually thought about your proposel, but I don't like it. One side adding more players to allow the trade under the cap rules is in my opinion basically cheating the system. I have to run this by Apollo and Joey, but my opinion is that these kind of 'fixes' should not be allowed.
.

Im sorry I may be misunderstanding your post. Are you saying your against making a trade work by adding or subtracting players to make it under the cap if you failed to make it work under the cap originally? I don't see what's wrong with that aslong as the trade remains fair.

[tucas]

For example grant hill may not play a game this season. If grant hill isn't involved in the trade it doesn't make it any less fair than it was prior to.

[joey_hesketh]

What if by some "unfortunate" turn of events causes one of the managers to go missing (thus rendering him unable to further lead his team) were to take place? And what if said manager's campaign was to be sabotaged and taken over via digital code encryption devices?

Suppose those would be grounds to bring you on board, yes. Lol

[coastal]

We are at the beginning of a Dynasty League; you probably understand that some rules need to be worked out better when we see them in practice.

I actually thought about your proposel, but I don't like it. One side adding more players to allow the trade under the cap rules is in my opinion basically cheating the system. I have to run this by Apollo and Joey, but my opinion is that these kind of 'fixes' should not be allowed.

I'm in the process of creating a more complete rulebook and after it's cleared by Joey and Apollo I'll publish it online. Still, we are likely to come across situations which are not covered by the rulebook. We'll have to look at those situations and see if there needs to be a new rule added to the rulebook.

I feel that two viable alternatives have been presented by tucas and myself, neither of which adversely affect any other team in the league. I think you're being dogmatic, although selectively so based on your line "I actually thought about your proposal, but I don't like it" (refering to tucas' solution).

Neither of us intended to "cheat the system" as you put it. For my part I simply did not have an understanding of the fact that one year contracts would continue to count against my cap. I apologize for this, but it seems there are at least a couple of other people who had this same misconception.

I'm glad you're leaving yourself the option of future a la carte rule modifications by mentioning that future situations will undoubtedly arise which are not covered by the nascent rulebook. If you like those proposals, I mean.

[coastal]

That solution would only make more of a mess in my opinion by allowing another move against the rules.

Actually, this is not against the rules.

Had I realized I was going to be one year over the cap prior to the trade (or had it been brought to my attention prior to the trade going through) I could have amnestied Al Harrington, gained the year I needed, and then the trade would have gone through without comment. Yes, the modification is being made late, but retroactively applied it fits perfectly into the previously established rules. This is not "another move against the rules."

I would ask that the other commisioners consider this as a viable alternative. I get it, rules are rules, but this manages to work within them.

cheers.

[coastal]

Last thing. Why would you remove Meyers Leonard? He had nothing to do with this trade. I could choose to drop another player.

You're making an easily resolvable situation (and one which is resolvable within the [evolving] rules) more complicated.

[joey_hesketh]

My Two-cents:

As Coastal says, neither intentially "cheated the system", and Myself or Apollo really should have caught it.
I've always been of the opinion that a 'fix move' would suffice for the this one time.

I'm fine with either solution presented by Coastal or Tucas, so long as the rules going forward are now understood by everyone (and thanks to Soft Euro's new CBA, we should have a much clearer path going forward), and its made clear this is a one time fix. It's a young league and mistakes will be made; just keep the fix simple and lets move on.

[Soft Euro]

'@Coastal:

You can only amnesty a player during the off-season, not during the season; "Each team has a one time amnesty clause available for use. This will allow you to cut one player in the off-season without any salary cap implications." link

About Meyers Leonard, you can simply drop another player and pick him up again.

[joey_hesketh]

'@Coastal:

You can only amnesty a player during the off-season, not during the season; "Each team has a one time amnesty clause available for use. This will allow you to cut one player in the off-season without any salary cap implications." link

This is a good point Euro.

As the Commissioner that is ultimately responsible for missing this, I'll apologize for the inconvenience it will end up being, but it won't be hard to make the moves again in a Cap friendly way.

[Soft Euro]

The moves have been processed and I sent the managers involved a mail about it. They'll need to reset their rosters from monday onwards.