Buds Board Keepers League

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.

facey wroteCOLONbecause 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.

inferno31 wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONbecause 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?

bcool wroteCOLON

inferno31 wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONbecause 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?

Snipeshow wroteCOLON

bcool wroteCOLON

inferno31 wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONbecause 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

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).

facey wroteCOLONI'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.

facey wroteCOLONI'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.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONI'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.

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.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONI 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.

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.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONAre 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.

facey wroteCOLONThe 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..

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

kyuss wroteCOLON

facey wroteCOLONThe 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.

facey wroteCOLONas 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.

Ugh..