Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2013 offseason: Post-lottery

[Lucky17]

I guess it comes down to an interpretation of whether a traded player belongs on his former team's roster throughout the review process.

[Roy H.]

I guess it comes down to an interpretation of whether a traded player belongs on his former team's roster throughout the review process.

He's still property of the original team until a trade is finalized.  Yahoo recognizes this, as the traded players still play for their original team during the review process.

I don't think there's any interpretation involved at all.  A player is still on his original team until a trade is completed.

[Gainesville Celtic]

I guess it comes down to an interpretation of whether a traded player belongs on his former team's roster throughout the review process.

I'd say yes (based on how Yahoo! does things), so I guess I see what Roy is saying:

Des Drinkers' 16-man, post-cutdown roster would have to include Barea then he'd have 15 guys tomorrow assuming the trade goes through.

(sorry in my earlier post, i was just thinking the deal put me over 16, not the implications for DD's roster...)

[Lucky17]

I guess it comes down to an interpretation of whether a traded player belongs on his former team's roster throughout the review process.

He's still property of the original team until a trade is finalized.  Yahoo recognizes this, as the traded players still play for their original team during the review process.

I don't think there's any interpretation involved at all.  A player is still on his original team until a trade is completed.

That's true.

I'll check my logs. Looks like all trades announced today will be scuttled.

[mkogav]

I don't believe we ever enforced this before, although there is a point to be made.

So is precedence the ruling factor?

In any event, the real looser in this is Lucky who has to deal with the fallout and the WW's dozen or so responses to this.
 
With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Mk

[Lucky17]

With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Mk

Probably yes, although I didn't anticipate this issue.

[Roy H.]

With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Ideally, it would have been, but I didn't think of the implications of it until today.

Theoretically, not enforcing the trade allows GMs to circumvent the waiver-wire, dealing the players they would have cut to other teams.

As far as Wiggle's trade, I have no issue letting that trade through, as 1) it was agreed to yesterday, and 2) it was just the resurrection of a deal made due to a clarified rule.  In other words, Wiggle and Birdman did everything in their power not to procrastinate.

[Gainesville Celtic]

I guess it comes down to an interpretation of whether a traded player belongs on his former team's roster throughout the review process.

He's still property of the original team until a trade is finalized.  Yahoo recognizes this, as the traded players still play for their original team during the review process.

I don't think there's any interpretation involved at all.  A player is still on his original team until a trade is completed.

That's true.

I'll check my logs. Looks like all trades announced today will be scuttled.

Not necessarily, to be consistent with the Yahoo! rules, i think:

1. Balanced trades --- i.e. Birdman & Draft Dodgers deal (Birdman trades Carl Landry and Marvin Williams --> The Walker Wiggle trades Caron Butler, Brandon Wright, and own 2013 1st rounder) --- are fine i think b/c both teams have 16 players before and after the deadline.

(I agree too with Roy's point that this was a re-configuration of a deal, perhaps subject to some leeway)



2. For unbalanced trades -- like Lucky17/Birdman, GC/BFM and DraftDodgers/Rusted Rims deals -- they could go through, but the team TRADING AWAY more players than getting would have to (a) include those OUTGOING players in their 16-man post-cutdown rosters and (b) then would have a roster of 16 players LESS the difference in players SENT and RECEIVED (i.e. if they send 1 player and get 0 (which all 3 of these are) they have a 15 man roster.)

Can't speak for the other GMs, but my guess is that most were making these deals to alleviate roster crunches so it may not make sense for them to want to keep the guy they're trying to trade through the cut-down deadline.

-------------------


FWIW -- I've emailed BFM about this (ie. him having to keep Barea as part of the 16-man roster). If I don't hear back from him by 4 pm i'll just make my cuts...

[mkogav]

With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Ideally, it would have been, but I didn't think of the implications of it until today.

Theoretically, not enforcing the trade allows GMs to circumvent the waiver-wire, dealing the players they would have cut to other teams.

As far as Wiggle's trade, I have no issue letting that trade through, as 1) it was agreed to yesterday, and 2) it was just the resurrection of a deal made due to a clarified rule.  In other words, Wiggle and Birdman did everything in their power not to procrastinate.

If we are sticking to the rules, the second trade is new and was not announced until this morning. The league must have a full 24 hours to review the trade.

However, we have never enforced this. If this needs to be enforced next year, fine. Maybe have a trade deadline of 24 hours before the cut down deadline.

For this cut-down deadline, IMO this does not need to be enforced.

Mk

[Roy H.]

With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Ideally, it would have been, but I didn't think of the implications of it until today.

Theoretically, not enforcing the trade allows GMs to circumvent the waiver-wire, dealing the players they would have cut to other teams.

As far as Wiggle's trade, I have no issue letting that trade through, as 1) it was agreed to yesterday, and 2) it was just the resurrection of a deal made due to a clarified rule.  In other words, Wiggle and Birdman did everything in their power not to procrastinate.

If we are sticking to the rules, the second trade is new and was not announced until this morning. The league must have a full 24 hours to review the trade.

However, we have never enforced this. If this needs to be enforced next year, fine. Maybe have a trade deadline of 24 hours before the cut down deadline.

For this cut-down deadline, IMO this does not need to be enforced.

Mk

Well, we'd never enforced the "7 votes for a veto" rule until last year, either.  In fact, the original Constitution called for a majority veto, a rule that was never explicitly changed.

When I pointed that out, the refrain was "rules are rules".

I agree with GC's interpretation of how things should go down, btw.

[mkogav]

With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Ideally, it would have been, but I didn't think of the implications of it until today.

Theoretically, not enforcing the trade allows GMs to circumvent the waiver-wire, dealing the players they would have cut to other teams.

As far as Wiggle's trade, I have no issue letting that trade through, as 1) it was agreed to yesterday, and 2) it was just the resurrection of a deal made due to a clarified rule.  In other words, Wiggle and Birdman did everything in their power not to procrastinate.

If we are sticking to the rules, the second trade is new and was not announced until this morning. The league must have a full 24 hours to review the trade.

However, we have never enforced this. If this needs to be enforced next year, fine. Maybe have a trade deadline of 24 hours before the cut down deadline.

For this cut-down deadline, IMO this does not need to be enforced.

Mk

Well, we'd never enforced the "7 votes for a veto" rule until last year, either.  In fact, the original Constitution called for a majority veto, a rule that was never explicitly changed.

When I pointed that out, the refrain was "rules are rules".

I agree with GC's interpretation of how things should go down, btw.

Are you saying that you would have not brought this up if your trades weren't veto'd?

Mk

[Gainesville Celtic]

OK, I'm gonna go ahead and make my cuts since I

(I'm going on the understanding that either (a) balanced trades are still OK up to the cutdown deadline or (b) if BFM is willing to keep Barea as one of his 16 guys I can waive a player as part of a trade being processed after the cutdown date (like Yahoo! allows)).

1   Russell Westbrook
2   Mo Williams
3   Daniel Gibson
4   Tony Wroten, Jr.
5   Joe Johnson
6   C.J. Miles
7   Will Barton
8   Andrei Kirilenko
9   Metta World Peace
10   Chris Singleton
11   Drew Gooden
12   Al Harrington
13   Al Jefferson
14   Elton Brand
15   Chuck Hayes
16   Earl Watson


CUTS:
Rudy "Adios" Fernandez
Kenyon "No Minimum" Martin
Jordan "Unemployed Even Though Paul Flannery Says I Won't Be Unemployed Long" Williams

[Gainesville Celtic]

With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Ideally, it would have been, but I didn't think of the implications of it until today.

Theoretically, not enforcing the trade allows GMs to circumvent the waiver-wire, dealing the players they would have cut to other teams.

As far as Wiggle's trade, I have no issue letting that trade through, as 1) it was agreed to yesterday, and 2) it was just the resurrection of a deal made due to a clarified rule.  In other words, Wiggle and Birdman did everything in their power not to procrastinate.

If we are sticking to the rules, the second trade is new and was not announced until this morning. The league must have a full 24 hours to review the trade.

IMO, *when* the trade was announced is immaterial. For cutdown purposes it's whether it has equal # of players going in/out.

Technically, Draft Dodgers' cutdown roster woudl have B.Wright and C. Butler, Birdman woudl have Marvin Williams and Landry --- then the players switch teams tomorrow.

However, we have never enforced this. If this needs to be enforced next year, fine. Maybe have a trade deadline of 24 hours before the cut down deadline.

For this cut-down deadline, IMO this does not need to be enforced.

Mk

i think that's a good idea.

[Roy H.]

With only 3 hours until the deadline, perhaps this should have been brought to the league attention sooner.

Ideally, it would have been, but I didn't think of the implications of it until today.

Theoretically, not enforcing the trade allows GMs to circumvent the waiver-wire, dealing the players they would have cut to other teams.

As far as Wiggle's trade, I have no issue letting that trade through, as 1) it was agreed to yesterday, and 2) it was just the resurrection of a deal made due to a clarified rule.  In other words, Wiggle and Birdman did everything in their power not to procrastinate.

If we are sticking to the rules, the second trade is new and was not announced until this morning. The league must have a full 24 hours to review the trade.

However, we have never enforced this. If this needs to be enforced next year, fine. Maybe have a trade deadline of 24 hours before the cut down deadline.

For this cut-down deadline, IMO this does not need to be enforced.

Mk

Well, we'd never enforced the "7 votes for a veto" rule until last year, either.  In fact, the original Constitution called for a majority veto, a rule that was never explicitly changed.

When I pointed that out, the refrain was "rules are rules".

I agree with GC's interpretation of how things should go down, btw.

Are you saying that you would have not brought this up if your trades weren't veto'd?

Mk

It's hard to say.  If the league were less cutthroat and hadn't (in my mind) screwed me over, I'd probably be less vigilant in viewing every trade from a "what are the technical rules" standpoint.  But I can't say for sure.

[Roy H.]

Maybe have a trade deadline of 24 hours before the cut down deadline.

i think that's a good idea.

I think so, too.  For next season, it's a rule that should be added.  This year should be governed by the rules in place at the time, though.