RR NBA Dynasty League (S5)

[Axel]

RHJ looks poised to have a big year in my books too.

[Axel]

Bah, you'll charge too much having just acquired him.

Never know unless you ask.

I do have a glaring hole at SF.

[Apollo]

Probably not in the neighbourhood of Milsap though.

[tucas]

Never know unless you ask.

I do have a glaring hole at SF.

A Carmelo Anthony sized hole?

[WJF]

Never know unless you ask.

I do have a glaring hole at SF.

I have a few wings....

[Axel]

I have a few wings....

If you have a thought in particular, you know where my inbox is.

[Axel]

Just a heads up for all, the resign deadline is Thursday (not sure who we are missing) which means any resigned player that gets dealt either today or tomorrow could have their years adjusted as long as the post is made prior to Thursday.

[DanH]

To be clear, we can post our signings/years on Thursday sometime, right? "By Sept 1st" is unclear whether that's tomorrow night at 11:59 PM or Thursday night at 11:59 PM.

[Axel]

To be clear, we can post our signings/years on Thursday sometime, right? "By Sept 1st" is unclear whether that's tomorrow night at 11:59 PM or Thursday night at 11:59 PM.

I had interpreted it as before Sept 1st but Joey will have to clarify.

[Joey]

We had it in the past where it was interpreted as FOR September 1st, and not BY September 1st... perhaps this should change to say "FOR", or we switch the understanding to be "BY". But currently, my understanding was "FOR" September 1st... if that helps at all.

[DanH]

We had it in the past where it was interpreted as FOR September 1st, and not BY September 1st... perhaps this should change to say "FOR", or we switch the understanding to be "BY". But currently, my understanding was "FOR" September 1st... if that helps at all.

I don't know that either wording is definitive. Or clear to me at least. Which is which? I've seen both wordings used to describe both scenarios.

[Axel]

We had it in the past where it was interpreted as FOR September 1st, and not BY September 1st... perhaps this should change to say "FOR", or we switch the understanding to be "BY". But currently, my understanding was "FOR" September 1st... if that helps at all.

Not exactly crystal clear, so are you saying by "close of business" on Sept 1st?

[Apollo]

My question would be why not submit tomorrow and avoid misunderstandings?

[DanH]

My question would be why not submit tomorrow and avoid misunderstandings?

That's plan B if I didn't get a response to my question. But the answer is, if I can get another 24 hours of potential trade activity before tying down my re-signs, I'll take it.

[Axel]

That's plan B if I didn't get a response to my question. But the answer is, if I can get another 24 hours of potential trade activity before tying down my re-signs, I'll take it.

Well the safe route is to declare and then amend prior to the deadline if a move happens.