HUGE 3 WAY - CLB/PIT/CAR

[Nick]

because it just doesn't exist shiv. we've stated 100 f@$king times that the CBA does not cover all circumstances, but fairness and reality will be the cornerstones of our league. Limiting or naming teams that can or cannot be traded to simply doesn't exist, nor should it.

[inferno31]

because it just doesn't exist shiv. we've stated 100 f@$king times that the CBA does not cover all circumstances, but fairness and reality will be the cornerstones of our league. Limiting or naming teams that can or cannot be traded to simply doesn't exist, nor should it.

It's a gentleman's agreement you have with a GM thats it. If he breaks it there is no recourse, other than you can not trade with him if you wish later.

[bma]

because it just doesn't exist shiv. we've stated 100 f@$king times that the CBA does not cover all circumstances, but fairness and reality will be the cornerstones of our league. Limiting or naming teams that can or cannot be traded to simply doesn't exist, nor should it.

It's a gentleman's agreement you have with a GM thats it. If he breaks it there is no recourse, other than you can not trade with him if you wish later.

lol, so technically I can trade Rolo then?

[Shep]

because it just doesn't exist shiv. we've stated 100 f@$king times that the CBA does not cover all circumstances, but fairness and reality will be the cornerstones of our league. Limiting or naming teams that can or cannot be traded to simply doesn't exist, nor should it.

It's a gentleman's agreement you have with a GM thats it. If he breaks it there is no recourse, other than you can not trade with him if you wish later.

lol, so technically I can trade Rolo then?

Yes. I would do it and just not trade with Shiv anymore.

Where's the loss?

[bma]

because it just doesn't exist shiv. we've stated 100 f@$king times that the CBA does not cover all circumstances, but fairness and reality will be the cornerstones of our league. Limiting or naming teams that can or cannot be traded to simply doesn't exist, nor should it.

It's a gentleman's agreement you have with a GM thats it. If he breaks it there is no recourse, other than you can not trade with him if you wish later.

lol, so technically I can trade Rolo then?

Yes. I would do it and just not trade with Shiv anymore.

Where's the loss?

Yeah, sounds like a plan

[Nick]

I'd say you two need to talk it out a little.


as it's currently just a gentlemen's agreement, or else a condition wherein if you move rolo @ all you have to give him the 1st (conditions like that do exist, and are allowed).

[bma]

I'd say you two need to talk it out a little.


as it's currently just a gentlemen's agreement, or else a condition wherein if you move rolo @ all you have to give him the 1st (conditions like that do exist, and are allowed).

Yeah, dont worry. I'm only half kidding when saying that I'm going to trade him.

[MSP4LYFE]

I'd say you two need to talk it out a little.


as it's currently just a gentlemen's agreement, or else a condition wherein if you move rolo @ all you have to give him the 1st (conditions like that do exist, and are allowed).

Give me one real life example of a condition like that.

[anton]

[Nick]

I'd say you two need to talk it out a little.


as it's currently just a gentlemen's agreement, or else a condition wherein if you move rolo @ all you have to give him the 1st (conditions like that do exist, and are allowed).

Give me one real life example of a condition like that.

The Jeff Lupul deal no?

it's something like:
If Lupul plays 40 games as a Leaf it's a 4th
Less than 40, its a 6th


-effectively limiting his value as a trade piece to us I believe ? I believe the spirit of the deal is to enforce the human side of the game, Burke tells Murrary he'll give Lupul a real shot or w/e...my point was that you cannot add trade restriction (in terms of teams)... I recall another deal like this Lupul deal which was something like:
if player X plays for the team next year they get a 2nd if he does not they get nothing. I do recognize there is a difference to this deal, but it's kinda - potentially similar.

[MSP4LYFE]

I don't see the similarity at all, one condition protects a team against an acquired player going down to injury, the other constrains the ability of a manager to trade an acquired asset.

[Nick]

I don't see the similarity at all, one condition protects a team against an acquired player going down to injury, the other constrains the ability of a manager to trade an acquired asset.

leafs get less if he doesn't play.

[MSP4LYFE]

Are you sure that is the condition? If so what a weird one...Either way, it doesn't change my point. Two completely different conditions, with different effects.

[Nick]

Are you sure that is the condition? If so what a weird one...Either way, it doesn't change my point. Two completely different conditions, with different effects.

as per LeBraun.


i don't think they are as different as you think..however either way u cannot condition where a player can be traded too or not too.

[kyuss]

The Jeff Lupul deal no?

it's something like:
If Lupul plays 40 games as a Leaf it's a 4th
Less than 40, its a 6th

then, shouldn't we be allowed to place conditions over games played as well?

to me, the Lupul example seems more related with that than with Shiv's lame condition..

[jcarton]

This is a weird deal from all angles absolutley, Roloson is at the ass end of his career, he would be worth a mid pick if anything imo

[MSP4LYFE]

The Jeff Lupul deal no?

it's something like:
If Lupul plays 40 games as a Leaf it's a 4th
Less than 40, its a 6th

then, shouldn't we be allowed to place conditions over games played as well?

to me, the Lupul example seems more related with that than with Shiv's lame condition..

Agreed.

[MSP4LYFE]

as per LeBraun.


i don't think they are as different as you think..however either way u cannot condition where a player can be traded too or not too.

There are no similarities, but more importantly there are no real life examples of such a condition.

[Mike]

Ugh..