Clippers/Spurs

[pistolpetejr]

I'm not one to often vote Veto, but to get none of:

- picks
- prospects
- expiring

I feel like at least one of those should happen otherwise why not just keep the 1st team all league guy

He’s getting an expiring?

[jibbajabba614]

I’d really hate to but in. But trades like these are a reason I quit as a GM. Sad to see sometimes.

But I forget we are dealing with people we grow years to know. And both are reputable GMs so I vote no veto.

But I can see the upset

[dd10snoop28]

I don't think it's good form when the teams that got the better of the trade feels the need to defend the other team and justify why the deal is tolerable.

just deal with the fact that u benefitted from a lopsided trade. if it gets vetoed, so be it.

literally same thing as nuggets/grizz deal last season. nuggets rushed a deal, and then 3 pages of heezy trying to justify the trade.

[jibbajabba614]

Should be able to get an expiring and pick for each player.

Who would do that though? Spurs have already showed you can wear him down and not give up anything

Wear who down? Googs or spurs gm?

I think he means SpursGM

[pistolpetejr]

I don't think it's good form when the teams that got the better of the trade feels the need to defend the other team and justify why the deal is tolerable.

just deal with the fact that u benefitted from a lopsided trade. if it gets vetoed, so be it.

literally same thing as nuggets/grizz deal last season. nuggets rushed a deal, and then 3 pages of heezy trying to justify the trade.

I’m not defending him. I’m defending the fact that two vet GMs made a deal that they were good with. Were one of us not vets, I’d understand.

I’m defending the fact that other GMs want to raise the alarm rather than having come out and beat the offer in the first place. Spurs gave sufficient time for teams to offer and initiated talks with teams as well in order to gauge the framework for a deal, and no one did.

Now that a deal went through that isn’t liked, the brouhaha commences. Come on now.

[JB]

Don't think anyone would have a huge issue with this trade if it was for anyone but the Clippers. But because they're already good people feel the need to step in. Don't think it's vetoable. Not a good trade, but not vetoable.

Want to stick it to the Clips? No one trade for Gugs or Rose and watch one of his sick rookie scale guys walk when he can't afford them. Someone always bails GMs out though. Time is a flat circle.

[offtheheezy]

I don't think it's good form when the teams that got the better of the trade feels the need to defend the other team and justify why the deal is tolerable.

just deal with the fact that u benefitted from a lopsided trade. if it gets vetoed, so be it.

literally same thing as nuggets/grizz deal last season. nuggets rushed a deal, and then 3 pages of heezy trying to justify the trade.

Lol completely different scenarios.

Elliott was expiring and it was mid season when market was dry and Nuggets were winning.

This is before FA even started to be processed after FA when everyone knows nobody really trades for stars until after TC and before opening night.

Ironically, Spurs would’ve been better served if they got Gathers and the 02 Clips 1st back which is what the Clips sent for these two

[bellsduck]

I don't think it's good form when the teams that got the better of the trade feels the need to defend the other team and justify why the deal is tolerable.

just deal with the fact that u benefitted from a lopsided trade. if it gets vetoed, so be it.

Want to stick it to the Clips? No one trade for Gugs or Rose and watch one of his sick rookie scale guys walk when he can't afford them. Someone always bails GMs out though.

This is before FA even started to be processed after FA when everyone knows nobody really trades for stars until after TC and before opening night.

I'm not in the veto camp but these comments are all true. We've seen and allowed worse. I turned down making an offer for Gugliotta cause I wanted to see how FA went and it would of been a tough salary match for me at the time the Spurs were asking. This just feels rushed and like you could of got this deal at any point during the season. I also don't buy that the Clips needed to have Outlaw as part of this deal. I think he would've jumped at Gugs for Spoon despite what he might have said. That still would've allowed Outlaw to be moved elsewhere for a pick.

It also highlights what we all know to be true and that is taking on players with big contracts comes with some risks and that is you're never gonna get equal value back in a trade, so don't expect it, or you're just gonna have to suffer out the end of the contract. See Barkley, Daughtery, Bradley, and others

[Goose!]

I don't think it's good form when the teams that got the better of the trade feels the need to defend the other team and justify why the deal is tolerable.

just deal with the fact that u benefitted from a lopsided trade. if it gets vetoed, so be it.

literally same thing as nuggets/grizz deal last season. nuggets rushed a deal, and then 3 pages of heezy trying to justify the trade.

Lol completely different scenarios.

Elliott was expiring and it was mid season when market was dry and Nuggets were winning.

This is before FA even started to be processed after FA when everyone knows nobody really trades for stars until after TC and before opening night.

Ironically, Spurs would’ve been better served if they got Gathers and the 02 Clips 1st back which is what the Clips sent for these two

Just looking at my PMs, Gathers + 01st was offered, only to be traded 30 mins later. I didn't have a chance to react to it.

[Zyme]

Both are experienced players, im in the "groan...I hope they know what they are doing" camp. Bad trade, no veto IMO. If either were any sort of green I would have a different opinion

[Goose!]

I don't think it's good form when the teams that got the better of the trade feels the need to defend the other team and justify why the deal is tolerable.

just deal with the fact that u benefitted from a lopsided trade. if it gets vetoed, so be it.

Want to stick it to the Clips? No one trade for Gugs or Rose and watch one of his sick rookie scale guys walk when he can't afford them. Someone always bails GMs out though.

This is before FA even started to be processed after FA when everyone knows nobody really trades for stars until after TC and before opening night.

I'm not in the veto camp but these comments are all true. We've seen and allowed worse. I turned down making an offer for Gugliotta cause I wanted to see how FA went and it would of been a tough salary match for me at the time the Spurs were asking. This just feels rushed and like you could of got this deal at any point during the season. I also don't buy that the Clips needed to have Outlaw as part of this deal. I think he would've jumped at Gugs for Spoon despite what he might have said. That still would've allowed Outlaw to be moved elsewhere for a pick.

It also highlights what we all know to be true and that is taking on players with big contracts comes with some risks and that is you're never gonna get equal value back in a trade, so don't expect it, or you're just gonna have to suffer out the end of the contract. See Barkley, Daughtery, Bradley, and others

Rebraca + 1 would've been an easy salary match.
I did inquire what package for only Googs would look like, to get this as a response "I’m not sure if I’d offer just for Gugs as I already have Weatherspoon. I want Gugs, and I’ll move for him, but it’d have to be a package deal I think."

[Goose!]

Also not sure about every calling me a vet. DASL 1.0 was my first ever sim league. Retired about 5-6 years ago and back at it again now. I always reach out to folks for advice, even for the Zo trade, and funny enough I didn't for this trade...look at the mess

[UOducksTK1]

All these discussions point to lottery reform.

[Goose!]

Timeline:
10/22:
-Googs enters the market

10/27:
-Clips offer Gather + 1st for Googs + Bo.
-Clips trade Gathers + 1st traded for Weatherspoon + Rider.
-Clipps offer Weatherspoon + Rider for Googs + Bo - didn't like it obviously. Asked for a 1st, said no.
-Nets offer Sam Cassell + Derek Anderson + Lakers 2nd in this draft (#6 in 2nd round) for Googs + #18 pick + MLE filler - Didn't like Cassell contract, dd10snoop looked for a 3rd team but no luck.
-I send out several offers to GMs for Googs. All came back saying no.

11/1:
-I give verbal to Clipps

11/2:
-Bucks offer Sasha + 2 picks for Googs - Great deal, was checking on switching Sasha for Higgins. But ended up taking the high road since I already gave Clips my verbal.
-pete posts trade

So from Googs entering the market to me giving my verbal was 11 days. In those 11 days, I only received 2 offers. 2 offers that I weighed on, until the Bucks showed up last min. Market was really dry for Googs, maybe it was going to heat up after FA completed. But I wasn't convinced at the time given the few teams I reached out to. So I went with a bad deal knowingly, since that seemed better than holding on to Googs + Bo who could win me more games. Wish I could've gotten more value out of it, but no one seemed up for it. Things would've been different had Bucks reached out a day earlier, I would've traded Googs to Bucks and then Bo to Pistons who offered a 1st. I felt if I traded Bo separately that I wouldn't be able to move Googs. Hence why I chose Clips deal. I probably should've held out longer in hindsight, but it is what it is.

If the league feels like vetoing the deal, I'm all for it. I don't want to compromise the league's integrity by continuing to let bad trades go through, obviously we'd rather follow a model of fairness when it comes to trades and not not-as-bad-as x,y,z trades. Hearing comments like, " But trades like these are a reason I quit as a GM", is jarring, because it's not worth losing good GMs or adding more fuel to the fire in terms of how the league is run (inflation, lottery, trades, etc). But if not vetoed, I know what I was getting myself in to. Hoping the rationale above helps others understand as well.

[dd10snoop28]

If the league feels like vetoing the deal, I'm all for it. I don't want to compromise the league's integrity by continuing to let bad trades go through, obviously we'd rather follow a model of fairness when it comes to trades and not not-as-bad-as x,y,z trades. Hearing comments like, " But trades like these are a reason I quit as a GM", is jarring, because it's not worth losing good GMs or adding more fuel to the fire in terms of how the league is run (inflation, lottery, trades, etc). But if not vetoed, I know what I was getting myself in to. Hoping the rationale above helps others understand as well.

This trade isn't even close to veto material. Again, reasons for the disgruntled comments - which I think are dumb - are because there is a recent trend of already successful teams getting even better by getting really good deals, which GM's don't like because it widens the gap between elite teams and the rest of the league. Are the experienced gm's wrong for doing that? Tune in to the next nefarious rankings to find out.... but in reality, the answer is mostly no. If you are dealing with a GM that consistently ends up on top on trades then that is something the other GM should factor while negotiating.... also, never commit to a deal verbally. There is no reason to. Always better to say you are still exploring options. Anyways, you know what you are doing since you've built good teams before so preaching to choir.