Trade Committee Realism

[Ian Noble]

For me personally the appeal of being part of a league such as Dynasty Six is intertwined with the factor of realism.

For that reason I'd like to give extra powers to the Trade Committee to allow them to reject trades simply on the grounds that a trade is unrealistic.

For instance, it may be considered a fair trade if Kobe went to Portland for Brandon Roy. However the trade is nevertheless completely unrealistic: The Lakers would never trade Kobe, and Portland wouldn't sacrifice years of rebuilding on a 2 or 3 year championship contension window.

I think the Trade Committee should have the power to reject trades, such as the one outlined above, if the trade goes against everything a team has been trying to accomplish up until the start of D6 (as we branch out upon our own version of reality, separate from the NBA).

Any thoughts on this?

[Larry Bird]

I say give them the power to, but make it where if the two teams can provide enough reasoning for it that you have the power to override he rejection. Some people aren't as protective of their superstar as others. This is a sim league though and people want to make the team they control their own.

Basically with good enough reasoning, I feel like anyone in the league could be traded.

[Mike Krzyzewski]

COMPLETELY DISAGREE with it, I like the fact that we want to be as realistic as possible like the NBA, but this completely puts shackles on a GM.

What if Kobe was the only TB (like the 2006 Lakers)

It was Kobe, Bynum, Odom only being good, and the rest of the team's suck.

You have to do whatever it takes at that point for

1. Either make enough moves to make sure KB has a good supporting cast

OR

2. Trade KB and start with a new foundation with 2 or 3 solid young pieces.

This is just an EXAMPLE nothing more

So say CLE wanted to build his team from inside-out and I prefer a perimeter game, we have an agreement on trading Lebron to ORL for Dwight Howard, so your telling me the trade gets shot down just because ORL-CLE are bitter rivals in real life and LBJ-HOWARD possibly dislikes each other and each other's team.

Sometimes you just have to throw out the REALISM ASPECT of it, this is one of those times, your basically telling every GM look even though you have a star on your team just because of certain situations we'll just outright VETO your trade even though it's fair and legitimate.

[Zee Low]

I think it could be worked out to a certain extent. Like Larry said, if the teams can provide solid reasoning then why not? Although if you only vetoed the trade because "Howard doesn't like Cleveland" then it would be quite unfair. But I won't mind a certain amount of realism here, like Kobe would never want to move to Portland, but he might want to move to Boston or somewhere else. I lost myself. I think what I want to say is this would make this league a little different because it would be very close to reality, but the trade committee's power shouldn't be absolute.

On a separate note, I was thinking: how about introducing something like funds? Like each team has 100 million to spend. It will be used for salaries, luxury taxes perhaps buying out players etc etc. And you would get a certain amount if you win games, home games give some revenue as well, as well as from team merchandise etc etc. It could potentially be messy but it's just an idea so I thought I'd throw it out there and see what you guys think.

p.s. it could replace the Reward Points thingie.

[Ian Noble]

May 8, 2010 16:10:01 GMT Mike Krzyzewski said:

COMPLETELY DISAGREE with it, I like the fact that we want to be as realistic as possible like the NBA, but this completely puts shackles on a GM.

What if Kobe was the only TB (like the 2006 Lakers)

It was Kobe, Bynum, Odom only being good, and the rest of the team's suck.

You have to do whatever it takes at that point for

1. Either make enough moves to make sure KB has a good supporting cast

OR

2. Trade KB and start with a new foundation with 2 or 3 solid young pieces.

I totally agree. Trading Kobe a few years back would've been no problem at all under this rule.
Kobe's on a different Lakers team now though, surrounded by talent and contending for the championship, he just had his contract renewed for $23m - $30m per year for the next six years, clearly he's an integral part of the Lakers future now, the face of the franchise, there's very few deals I would see as realistic. Could you propose one that would be accepted?

So say CLE wanted to build his team from inside-out and I prefer a perimeter game, we have an agreement on trading Lebron to ORL for Dwight Howard, so your telling me the trade gets shot down just because ORL-CLE are bitter rivals in real life and LBJ-HOWARD possibly dislikes each other and each other's team.

Sometimes you just have to throw out the REALISM ASPECT of it, this is one of those times, your basically telling every GM look even though you have a star on your team just because of certain situations we'll just outright VETO your trade even though it's fair and legitimate.

I'd say Lebron for Dwight might be realistic. Although given that Cleveland specifically traded for Shaq and re-signed 'Z', I don't know why they'd want another Center. I'd also question Orlando's reasoning given that Gortat would be their starting Center and they already structure their entire team around having a franchise-calibre big-man so their guards and forwards can shoot 3s. All other things ignored, Lebron for Dwight might be realistic, but the point of the rule is that we shouldn't ignore everything else for the sake of realism and the long-term interest in the league.

[Ian Noble]

May 8, 2010 16:32:08 GMT Zee Low said:

On a separate note, I was thinking: how about introducing something like funds? Like each team has 100 million to spend. It will be used for salaries, luxury taxes perhaps buying out players etc etc. And you would get a certain amount if you win games, home games give some revenue as well, as well as from team merchandise etc etc. It could potentially be messy but it's just an idea so I thought I'd throw it out there and see what you guys think.

p.s. it could replace the Reward Points thingie.

I'd be interested to discuss this possibility, it's something I'd considered in the past. The problem is that it would require a spreadsheet to calculate a number of variables, and entering those variables may take some time also, and then depicting their changing state daily on this forum would take even longer.

[Alvin Hendrix]

Well if I may add on a couple of things, I think the trading committee should accept trades on the premise that it benefits both teams

For instance, accepting trades should also largely be based on team direction. lets take Portland & Dallas for instance.
Would you accept a trade that deals Nowitzki for say Aldridge + a 1st rounder? I personally wouldn't, based on the fact that Dallas wants to contend IRL. You have Kidd, Dampier, Terry, Butler etc: all vets well into their 30s. Aldridge doesn't exactly fit it and no contending team like Dallas needs extra picks.
Portland a young team could change their fortunes significantly with such a trade but is that right? A franchise player with a maybe little gas left in his tank going over to an improving team that may or may not win?
Well my point is, I think most players with the right reasoning can be traded, we can be sure about that. But we must also consider team direction, age group and then finally assess if such a trade would be even possible in real life.

Also, we should also have a common understanding that some players just won't be traded even if it doesn't hurt the general direction or balance of the team. Like how Rondo won't ever be traded for Rose/Evans , Deron for CP3 or Gasol for Bosh. It will not happen and all of you know it. So I believe any trades involving Franchise players & 2nd best player should come under very detailed and intense scrutiny before even getting close to be accepted.

[Michael Jordan]

I agree in general with the last post but you have to take contract situation into account as well. Maybe a team has multiple free agents and they know they won't be able to re-sign all of them. Maybe the team would rather have an all star who is locked up to a very reasonable 4 year deal over the franchise guy who will become a free agent in the upcoming off-season.

IRL, if Lebron signs elsewhere, don't you think there will be regret from the Cleveland FO that they didn't trade Lebron for multiple great players when they had the chance?

Again, I think in real life, and here, contracts have to be taken into account.

[Alvin Hendrix]

May 13, 2010 3:05:01 GMT Michael Jordan said:

I agree in general with the last post but you have to take contract situation into account as well. Maybe a team has multiple free agents and they know they won't be able to re-sign all of them. Maybe the team would rather have an all star who is locked up to a very reasonable 4 year deal over the franchise guy who will become a free agent in the upcoming off-season.
IRL, if Lebron signs elsewhere, don't you think there will be regret from the Cleveland FO that they didn't trade Lebron for multiple great players when they had the chance?

Again, I think in real life, and here, contracts have to be taken into account.

That is true, but with that being said there won't be a scenario where you have >3players with expiring contracts and all 3 are franchise players. So there has to be 1 or 2 of the lot who are more expendable than others who you're willing to let go of or trade away.

Take the Cavs for instance. Say LeBron opts out and they would have Big Z & Shaq to re-sign as well. Any GM would obviously put James of the highest priority and could've traded both Shaq & Big Z or simply one of them away before the season ends and try to re-sign whoever he kept on the roster. This is a SIM league, so the whole hoo-hah about being a billion-dollar athelete in NYC is not really big influence over where the player signs. Technically speaking, a team that owns the bird rights to a player such as Lebron would be able to re-sign him assuming the contract is fair and the team is doing well. If your team is doing badly, any player would want to opt out. And if the GM supposedly traded LeBron because he has no confidence in re-signing the guy, that would be a bigger mistake in itself and in turn he could be screwing up his bad team even more trading away the best player in the NBA.


Also, I dont believe that anyone would trade their franchise player(s) just for the sake of providing cap space relief. That would be weird. Notice my points mainly cover the trading of superstar players that has to be strict in acceptance. The average joe could be traded easily of course

[Michael Jordan]

I understand what you are saying and again, agree with you mostly.

What about age, doesn't that count? You say that a player like Kobe basically couldn't be traded, well at what age can he be traded. Obviously there would be an age that the now superstar wouldn't command that type of respect. Think about Shaq. Five years ago he wouldn't be a tradeable piece but today, that is another story. Jason Kidd, back in the day, woudln't be tradeable, but now...

Who decides when a player is "in his prime" and untradeable?

My only point is that there are many examples where it might make sense to deal a superstar and that option should be on the table for both the teams that have those players and the teams that want to acquire them.

[Alvin Hendrix]

Think I said earlier that trades should also be accepted largely based on team direction. I mean if a team is contending (like Orlando for instance), trading players like Vince Carter, Nelson and Shard for guys like DeRozan, Morrow or Anthony Randolph etc etc.
Well I believe everyone knows about the anatomy of an NBA team. Each team in the league belongs to 1 of the 3 stages:
1) Rebuilding 2)Improving & making playoffs 3) Championship Contenders

Rebuilding teams of course are Sacremento, Golden State, New York
Improving & making playoffs are Portland, OKC etc
Championship teams Lakers, Boston etc etc

Your final goal is to always to reach a championship. In the case of Kobe, the Lakers are already a championship team. They've won one already and they will want to keep going at it. So Kobe, being the face of the franchise, focal point of the Laker offense can't be traded, well at least from an manager's point of view. Why would you jeopardise the teams chance by getting rid of the guy?

One of the few instances where it makes sense for a team to trade franchise players away was the trade that brought KG to Boston. i mean the whole team wasnt good enough to win a championship and Garnett was the technically the only star player there. EIther the Wolves land an all star to complement KG to contend or trade him to rebuild and hopefully contend for a championship after in 5-10years when they finally have the pieces that they need.

And nobody can decide for sure when a player is "in his prime" and untradeable. Thats why we have a trading committee to vote, such that 1 person's perspective is not enough to decide if its a go or no go. So technically I'm trying to get my point to these few guys such that they may buy into my POV and vote on trades as fair as possible

[Ian Noble]

May 13, 2010 2:18:48 GMT Alvin Hendrix said:

Well if I may add on a couple of things, I think the trading committee should accept trades on the premise that it benefits both teams

For instance, accepting trades should also largely be based on team direction. lets take Portland & Dallas for instance.
Would you accept a trade that deals Nowitzki for say Aldridge + a 1st rounder? I personally wouldn't, based on the fact that Dallas wants to contend IRL. You have Kidd, Dampier, Terry, Butler etc: all vets well into their 30s. Aldridge doesn't exactly fit it and no contending team like Dallas needs extra picks.
Portland a young team could change their fortunes significantly with such a trade but is that right? A franchise player with a maybe little gas left in his tank going over to an improving team that may or may not win?
Well my point is, I think most players with the right reasoning can be traded, we can be sure about that. But we must also consider team direction, age group and then finally assess if such a trade would be even possible in real life.

Also, we should also have a common understanding that some players just won't be traded even if it doesn't hurt the general direction or balance of the team. Like how Rondo won't ever be traded for Rose/Evans , Deron for CP3 or Gasol for Bosh. It will not happen and all of you know it. So I believe any trades involving Franchise players & 2nd best player should come under very detailed and intense scrutiny before even getting close to be accepted.

This^^! That description pretty much outlines the situation exactly. It might constrain GMs, the main arguement against this will be that "GMs should be allowed to make the trades they want". But in my opinion it's far more important that the League, as a whole, remain in a healthy and realistic position, and that will only be accomplished if we follow the concept you outlined, Alvin. Thanks for your post.

[Michael Jordan]

I've been playing devil's advocate some here but I just wanted to point out that I think Alvin Hendrix has a very firm grasp on how the NBA works and I am glad he is one of the trade comittee members.

Good debate!