koncept wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
RR NBA Dynasty League - S1
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
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.
Comment
-
coastal wrote: View PostGlad 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.
Comment
-
Rescinding moves by Coastal, WJF and Tucas
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.
Comment
-
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.)
Comment
-
tucas wrote: View PostActually 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 wrote: View PostThe 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.
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.
Comment
-
joey_hesketh wrote: View PostAs 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'.
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostI 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.
.
Comment
-
Sig wrote: View PostWhat 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?
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostWe 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.
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.
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostThat solution would only make more of a mess in my opinion by allowing another move 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.
Comment
Comment