Pacman
All-Star
Boston Celtics
2023 & 2031 BBS CHAMPIONS
Posts: 7,370
|
Post by Pacman on Sept 23, 2009 1:56:10 GMT -5
i wonder what skillz will say.
|
|
Play
All-Star
Los Angeles Clippers
Posts: 5,702
|
Post by Play on Sept 23, 2009 4:04:26 GMT -5
|
|
Outlawz
All-League
New York Knicks
Going back to basics
Posts: 7,853
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 23, 2009 4:22:12 GMT -5
I'm trying to really not say anything but this is the kinda stuff that bugs me. There's nothing set in stone. I don't care for skillz but he should get opportunity to offer more much like Mark did. That trade was a little worse. Got the guy fired and still gave kemp away cheaply. It seems like decisions are
done by case by case. I really don't mind if it fucks skillz over but fair is fair and you said you were fine setting the precedent that you did.
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Sept 23, 2009 4:24:20 GMT -5
skillz gets screwed? Karma!
|
|
Tigertecz
Starter
Golden State Warriors
Hello there
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by Tigertecz on Sept 23, 2009 4:34:32 GMT -5
Lol this is a great trade  |
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Sept 23, 2009 5:30:22 GMT -5
LOL, fuck this
|
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Sept 23, 2009 5:33:21 GMT -5
I really have no time now so i can't argue for long but at least have some consistency, jesus. Mark made a much worse trade against a new gm and he still got to rape the guy with a 2nd deal. Much worst trades have been put through.
Boone went up in SIX categories in TC. I'm sorry, but he's still 23, and he'd easily go top 5-7 in this draft. Add in Smith and Miller, and it's not ridiculous. I win, but so what.
I'd be fine with this if all trades like this were veto'ed but there has to be a precedent. It's soooo inconsistent.
Whatever, i brought this onto myself. Spence would have had no reason to punish me had i given dj the owed pick. BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Sept 23, 2009 5:44:56 GMT -5
Actually it sucks for Skillz, but this is just a veto. Pretty obvious Trunks needs to take a little more time to familiarize himself. Haha GTFO. I didn't even notice you changed your position LMAO. And what uproar? Two people called for a veto. Aar, outlawz, play all saw reason for it. I've seen a lot worse and I HAVE MADE a lot worse. Total bull shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Sept 23, 2009 5:46:17 GMT -5
lol @ trading a #1 pick for anything less than an established star at the least Also LOL'd at this, coming from the guy with a team in as bad as shape as i've ever seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Sept 23, 2009 5:47:13 GMT -5
Andres Kemp for Dustin Jackson, Cameron Dodge, Leory Walker, some picks. YEEE. Let me step in and make it more fair.
|
|
Outlawz
All-League
New York Knicks
Going back to basics
Posts: 7,853
|
Post by Outlawz on Sept 23, 2009 5:59:40 GMT -5
Owed picks can't be enforced so therefore he has no right to punish you. Don't remember the exact words but I know he said he was comfortable setting the precedent that he did and would live with it in the future. I was against it at the time because of this but fair is fair. Looking over the kemp deal I think that was worse. I think something needs to be done about rules and how they are enforced.
|
|
|
|
Post by SOME BIG ASS TDS on Sept 23, 2009 8:56:15 GMT -5
stfu
|
|
|
|
Post by SOME BIG ASS TDS on Sept 23, 2009 8:58:27 GMT -5
That was never among my options IMO. Precedent is important, and because I didn't say "One week trade ban" I felt the need to make the deal with Mark work. It is unfair to spend an hour with a new GM making a trade, only to have it disappear. So just voiding the trade was never really an option for me, making it more fair was. I stated numerous times yesterday that the trade would be reworked, but not put through as is. Actually it sucks for Skillz, but this is just a veto. Pretty obvious Trunks needs to take a little more time to familiarize himself. lol yeah Spencer I don't think you can say you've been consistent with the Kemp trade and this. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 23, 2009 10:42:55 GMT -5
I'm trying to really not say anything but this is the kinda stuff that bugs me. There's nothing set in stone. I don't care for skillz but he should get opportunity to offer more much like Mark did. That trade was a little worse. Got the guy fired and still gave kemp away cheaply. It seems like decisions are done by case by case. I really don't mind if it fucks skillz over but fair is fair and you said you were fine setting the precedent that you did. Trade veto decisions are case by case. You cant quantify value, or whether a trade is good or bad enough. It has to be case by case. Before it was easier to fire a GM and do a trade. Trunks is a good GM< but he made a bad trade. It was a different scenario. I will start posting that GMs have a trade ban, or I need to ok trades for a certain amount of time though. I am consistently shocked at how GMs I think are good can come in and make a bad trade. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 23, 2009 10:43:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 23, 2009 10:45:11 GMT -5
Actually it sucks for Skillz, but this is just a veto. Pretty obvious Trunks needs to take a little more time to familiarize himself. Haha GTFO. I didn't even notice you changed your position LMAO. And what uproar? Two people called for a veto. Aar, outlawz, play all saw reason for it. I've seen a lot worse and I HAVE MADE a lot worse. Total bull shit. I didnt say anything about an uproar in this post, not sure what youre saying. I just decided it was a bad trade and should be overturned. Precedent? I either fire the new GM or I protect the new GM. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 23, 2009 10:51:04 GMT -5
i wonder what skillz will say. lol, hell be upset |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 23, 2009 11:05:16 GMT -5
It's like some of you guys are just looking for a chance to bitch. Jesus, it's Spence's league, not yours. If he thinks a deal is a veto, he can veto it without giving a shit if a different trade got vetoed and then reworked. Stop aching for a chance to be negative. It doesn't impact you guys. Spence reworked the Kemp deal because he thought he could turn it into a fair trade. Big fucking deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 23, 2009 11:07:31 GMT -5
It's like some of you guys are just looking for a chance to bitch. Jesus, it's Spence's league, not yours. If he thinks a deal is a veto, he can veto it without giving a shit if a different trade got vetoed and then reworked. Stop aching for a chance to be negative. It doesn't impact you guys. Spence reworked the Kemp deal because he thought he could turn it into a fair trade. Big fucking deal. Your opinion on this means nothing to most people in the league cause the feeling from some is that I favor you and Mark. I used to favor everyone from NC, but I was pretty harsh with Dan on the simming incident, so now I just favor you and Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by SOME BIG ASS TDS on Sept 23, 2009 11:07:32 GMT -5
It's like some of you guys are just looking for a chance to bitch. Jesus, it's Spence's league, not yours. If he thinks a deal is a veto, he can veto it without giving a shit if a different trade got vetoed and then reworked. Stop aching for a chance to be negative. It doesn't impact you guys. Spence reworked the Kemp deal because he thought he could turn it into a fair trade. Big fucking deal. like my main man Outlawz would say NC clique stickin up for ecah other again |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 23, 2009 11:09:16 GMT -5
I'm trying to really not say anything but this is the kinda stuff that bugs me. There's nothing set in stone. I don't care for skillz but he should get opportunity to offer more much like Mark did. That trade was a little worse. Got the guy fired and still gave kemp away cheaply. It seems like decisions are done by case by case. I really don't mind if it fucks skillz over but fair is fair and you said you were fine setting the precedent that you did. Skillz has the chance to rework this deal. What's stopping him? What everyone fails to consider is that in one case Spence fired the guy, and in this case Trunks is a better-known GM (even if he's horrid) and will get the chance to stay. In one case, Spence controlled the team that dealt Kemp and did it because he thought it was the best way to resolve the situation. In this case, Trunks made a shitty deal and isn't being fired. The only precedent Spence set was that if a trade gets vetoed, the GM that got raped could feel obligated to rework the deal. He didn't do anything differently here. He vetoed a trade, just like he did last time. Whether or not that gets reworked is up to Trunks. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 23, 2009 11:09:31 GMT -5
It's like some of you guys are just looking for a chance to bitch. Jesus, it's Spence's league, not yours. If he thinks a deal is a veto, he can veto it without giving a shit if a different trade got vetoed and then reworked. Stop aching for a chance to be negative. It doesn't impact you guys. Spence reworked the Kemp deal because he thought he could turn it into a fair trade. Big fucking deal. like my main man Outlawz would say NC clique stickin up for ecah other again LOL, cause Im part of the NC clique! |
|
|
|
Post by SOME BIG ASS TDS on Sept 23, 2009 11:10:40 GMT -5
like my main man Outlawz would say NC clique stickin up for ecah other again LOL, cause Im part of the NC clique! na man i was talkin bout the kemp deal bro |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Sept 23, 2009 11:11:08 GMT -5
It's like some of you guys are just looking for a chance to bitch. Jesus, it's Spence's league, not yours. If he thinks a deal is a veto, he can veto it without giving a shit if a different trade got vetoed and then reworked. Stop aching for a chance to be negative. It doesn't impact you guys. Spence reworked the Kemp deal because he thought he could turn it into a fair trade. Big fucking deal. Your opinion on this means nothing to most people in the league cause the feeling from some is that I favor you and Mark. I used to favor everyone from NC, but I was pretty harsh with Dan on the simming incident, so now I just favor you and Mark. Yeah, but I don't care. It's a pathetic viewpoint and has no justification. We all saw what happened with Eldridge Webb, so Play, who's the king of whining about shit, really has no legs to stand on. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 23, 2009 11:11:11 GMT -5
I'm trying to really not say anything but this is the kinda stuff that bugs me. There's nothing set in stone. I don't care for skillz but he should get opportunity to offer more much like Mark did. That trade was a little worse. Got the guy fired and still gave kemp away cheaply. It seems like decisions are done by case by case. I really don't mind if it fucks skillz over but fair is fair and you said you were fine setting the precedent that you did. Skillz has the chance to rework this deal. What's stopping him? What everyone fails to consider is that in one case Spence fired the guy, and in this case Trunks is a better-known GM (even if he's horrid) and will get the chance to stay. In one case, Spence controlled the team that dealt Kemp and did it because he thought it was the best way to resolve the situation. In this case, Trunks made a shitty deal and isn't being fired. The only precedent Spence set was that if a trade gets vetoed, the GM that got raped could feel obligated to rework the deal. He didn't do anything differently here. He vetoed a trade, just like he did last time. Whether or not that gets reworked is up to Trunks. The main reason I didnt allow time for SKillz to rework the deal is that it wouldve held up the draft. To me, if Skillz wants to offer a fair deal for Archibald thatd be fine. Skillz is busy. If I wouldve waited for him to fix this deal the draft wouldnt have been started yet. |
|
