Scrub
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Mar 11, 2005 23:21:02 GMT -5
Please post here ASAP.
|
|
Wolves GM
Scrub
Minnesota Timberwolves
Posts: 264
|
Post by Wolves GM on Mar 11, 2005 23:27:53 GMT -5
He was only the GM for 24 hours. I think they shouldn't count and we should make new gm's get commishes approval on deals for the first couple days from now on.
PS. I clicked the wrong vote link. take one away from no and add it to yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder on Mar 11, 2005 23:36:43 GMT -5
Good suggestion. I would say we open this to further discussion.
If done this way, I would suggest all trades go to league council for approval. A majority (4/3 or 3/1 if a council member is involved in the trade) would allow a new trade to be processed.
Maybe we keep GMs as probationary for 3-5 good deals?
|
|
Scrub
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Mar 11, 2005 23:41:42 GMT -5
All trades? Or new GMs trades?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder on Mar 11, 2005 23:45:23 GMT -5
New GM trades only.
|
|
Scrub
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Mar 11, 2005 23:53:54 GMT -5
Definately. Although Im not sure Id want to go through the committee process. Tends to take awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder on Mar 11, 2005 23:56:23 GMT -5
Yes. Maybe a smaller consensus would work.
Any input from other league members here?
|
|
rommie
Starter
Boston Celtics
Posts: 814
|
Post by rommie on Mar 12, 2005 0:01:22 GMT -5
I voted that the deals should be terminated. It is unfair to SA and NY but I think even more unfair to a new GM.
I am not totally for sure that I like the idea of having new gm deals approved. Maybe just give them some advice and direction. Then if they agree to stupid deals, decline them on the reasoning for stupidy.
|
|
Scrub
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Mar 12, 2005 0:11:27 GMT -5
I shoudlve screened this guy better. And I wasnt online last night when these deals were made. I actually thought maybe I shoudlnt OK the deals cause they seemed like they couldve beena bit better.
|
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Mar 12, 2005 0:15:08 GMT -5
Kinda late to start "approving" trades, isnt it? I mean, those are some bad deals but I know there have been far worse over the years.
I am in favour of having some system in place that tests how serious a new GM is about the league. Could even work for those older GM's that have been absent/non active for awhile.
|
|
Scrub
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Mar 12, 2005 0:21:30 GMT -5
I was thinking of a reasoning with a deal, for the first few trades. Id okay the deal on what the reasoning was.
This wouldnt be for all GM's, just newbies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder on Mar 12, 2005 0:39:01 GMT -5
Reasoning for new GMs would work for me. There are more than a few that reason with every trade and it's helpful to see their focus. The explanation also seems to lead to more trades as people see the final goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by NYKnicksGM on Mar 12, 2005 1:34:11 GMT -5
Although obviously id prefer not to, If you guys want my deal voided, ill give back the players. I can definitly understand why you would want to do this, however there have been countless trades that were MUCH worse than mine. I will not vote in the poll, since I am one of the teams involved, and ill go along with whatever decision Spencer, and the league as a whole makes.
|
|
SpursGM
All BBS Team
San Antonio Spurs
Posts: 1,036
|
Post by SpursGM on Mar 12, 2005 3:43:40 GMT -5
Although obviously id prefer not to, If you guys want my deal voided, ill give back the players. I can definitly understand why you would want to do this, however there have been countless trades that were MUCH worse than mine. I will not vote in the poll, since I am one of the teams involved, and ill go along with whatever decision Spencer, and the league as a whole makes. I agree, I'm also going to be a bit biased with this and will not vote in the polls... my feelings in this are... 1) It's not like he joined the league for the sake of just "destroying" the team purposely.(When he did the deals that he did, in my opinion, he got younger, cleared up cap space, and got many future 1st round picks.) 2) I do not think any of the deals were disproportionate enough to warrant a look at. (Regardless if he quit or not, like TB said, there have been ALOT worse trades, and I mean ALOT.) 3)Is it unfair for the new GM? Yes. Is it unfair for both me and TB to have the trades reversed? Yes. So it's basically a lose lose situation in my opinon. ( Like I stated above though, the new GM is not in a terrible situation alot better then the new GM at Dallas had... he actually has cap space, decent young talent, and future picks to work with, again... I'm going to be honest and say I'm obviously going to be biased with this all) I told you guys... the Spurs have a "superstar" curse... |
|
Scrub
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Mar 12, 2005 13:36:19 GMT -5
Im not bringing up this topic because the trades are bad. Im bringing up this topic because the GM bailed on this team, and the new GM actually really like Crawford and Butler. The moron GM who started this mess obviously made the deals with a plan in mind, but he isnt gonna be around to see it through. If a GM has a plan, whether I agree with it or not, I have never tried to reverse deals. This instance is rare, and it's only because I want the new GM to have a fair shot at succeeding in this league.
Ill need to talk to the Pacrs GM again to see what he thinks, but as of now, vote or not, Im leaning towards not voiding the deals.
|
|
SpursGM
All BBS Team
San Antonio Spurs
Posts: 1,036
|
Post by SpursGM on Mar 12, 2005 14:01:03 GMT -5
Alright, I just brought up the thing about the bad deals though because you thought that you shouldn't have OKd the deals because they could have better. It's all good though, I'm not going to lose any sleep over a decision.  |
|
Scrub
Posts: 0
|
Post by on Mar 12, 2005 14:10:09 GMT -5
Im just gonna let the deals go through I think. Itll be easier.
From now on new GMs will need to reason their deals. Im thinking reasoning for all deals would be a good idea, but Id need to talk it over with the committee first.
|
|
Courtney
Minerva
Lesley
Sharona
Telisa
The future of the BBS.
