Clippers/Spurs

[dd10snoop28]

Also, that Nets offer looks niiice

[pistolpetejr]

Goose, I appreciate the fact that you care about the integrity of the league. I agree in that I want everyone to have fun for sure.

I think there's times where any one of us can groan because of certain things that happen at times, such as trades that we feel don't make sense for one party or another, especially when it can hinder us as observers from maximizing our chances at winning ourselves.

In the case of this trade, I think it goes without saying I looked to make it because I believed it would benefit my team. As Goose put it, Gugs and Bo hit the market almost two weeks ago (granted, this trade was posted a few days ago now, so let's call it a week and a half ago). A number of GMs talked trade with him, some with very little to no interest, others with offers that Goose did not prefer. Ultimately, he made this move.

There will way more often than not be those of us who groan when it comes to trades including players that aren't mean role players. Going back to 1.0, I've won, lost, and broken even on trades. It is what it is. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, were one of us new, we already have a safeguard in place there where Commish has to approve. This wasn't the case here.

Given the feedback in this thread, the loudest pattern I'm hearing is, "bad trade, but not vetoable".

[pistolpetejr]

Also, that Nets offer looks niiice

Lol

[dd10snoop28]

Let's put it to a poll. I say VETTOOOO!

[jibbajabba614]

To be fair, my offer was contingent on making a few deals.

Had deals placed for Gathers…

trading Peja for a third star is where my luck dried out.

Bradley’s contract screwed me. Add that to the nefarious rankings

[pistolpetejr]

To be fair, my offer was contingent on making a few deals.

Had deals placed for Gathers…

trading Peja for a third star is where my luck dried out.

Bradley’s contract screwed me. Add that to the nefarious rankings

Assuming you mean from Lakers?

[Craig]

ya'll are wild.

This "protect inexperienced GMs" rhetoric is hollow. Ya'll veto s*** for GMs who been around for 30 seasons cause they're "new" but call someone like Goose a "vet" who "built good teams" when in fact they are very new and took over a roster that had literally just won the championship immediately prior to stepping in. Now the first major trades made are a highly questionable Zo deal and this garbage. Who should we be "protecting?"

Even having 'veto' on the table just sets everything up for wildly inconsistent application of the idea, as we've seen over time. Either set up something more objective/consistent or don't veto anything at all.

As of now, veto is a thing, so VETO THE f*** outta this it's literally just downgrading from Googs to Weatherspoon and downgrading from Outlaw to Rider for no compensation. Doesn't matter who the recipient is, would be a horrible trade even if it was to the Bulls or something. Having a market where you can just trade your 'B' and 'C' players for 'A' and 'B' ones at no cost is no fun for anyone.

[dd10snoop28]

Wasn't goose in DASL 1.0 for a long time, and had built successful teams? Maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason I didn't figure that he was that new to this....

Yes, I see the purpose of veto as this: to prevent a new-ish GM from totally messing up their team's future in a bad trade (especially if the trading partner is an experienced GM). Basically, veto when a new team trades future picks/young assets for assets that won't give them enough to be a competitive team.

I don't think this totally messes up Goose's future, and nor do I think the Zo deal messes up his future. You could say they are bad/negatives deals, but don't think they rise to the level of veto based on the criteria that has been used before (as I described above).

[Goose!]

Craig joined the forum after I left. Needs to hit the history books.

[Craig]

Craig joined the forum after I left. Needs to hit the history books.

I'm only echoing your own assertion.

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

[Goose!]

it's all jokes. But yeah, did about 20ish season in 1.0. Stepped away for years, so I'm definitely rusty now!

[Oregon Ownage]

Done

[Oregon Ownage]

How you only end up with Manu and 1 first from trading away Mourning, Outlaw and Gugliotta is downright and makes the rebuild that much harder.

I keep saying this over and over again, you don't have to trade your players for less than their worth b/c no one will pay the price that you deem the player is worth for. It hurts you in the long run (why would teams offer a decent package when you have shown you will accept lower level offers?) and only strengthens better teams by getting assets way below market value.

If your plan is to tear down and rebuild, that's fine but it doesn't need to happen immediately. Be patient and wait teams out, hold your ground. If teams are interested in a player/s, they will come back later for them. If you are unsure about a trade, PM another GM and get their thoughts before accepting and posting

[lukeyrid13]

^ and slava

[Craig]

Keep an eye on the TWolves. They have 3 guys worth anything and a tanktastic roster around them. Presumably, this will allow them to lose plenty of games while holding out for deals that don't are actually worth doing when it comes to their real players