Warriors Bucks

[BucksGM]

Warriors receive

Jared Sullinger
'15 Sonics 2nd
'15 Hawks 2nd
'16 Bucks 2nd

Bucks received

Wesley Matthews
'18 Warriors 1st

[TualatinDuck]

Agreed!

[DrBradBuss]

Bucks clear winner here.
Give up a guy on last year of contract with limited upside and get back an equal or better player at position of need.....& a 1st 3 years down the road. Bravo.

[Oregon Ownage]

I dont like the smell of this

[bellsduck]

Yep. Was trying to give away Sullinger for what seems like 2 seasons and was able to get a 1st that far in the future for him is pretty crazy. That pick should at least been protected somehow. Maybe top 8/10.

[BucksGM]

Yep. Was trying to give away Sullinger for what seems like 2 seasons and was able to get a 1st that far in the future for him is pretty crazy. That pick should at least been protected somehow. Maybe top 8/10.

Give away Sullinger? Sources? I have to think your assumptions are made based on the fact that he's been on the block for a while. That's because I have no intention of giving him away for the terrible offers I've gotten to date. A deal was worked out where I felt I was compensated so I pulled the trigger.

Kick rocks

[BucksGM]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

[TualatinDuck]

While Id rather it have been for Batum, I like the trade. Allows me to load up in the draft this year and have a huge amount of space to make a splash in FA.

[Cellar-door]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

So I'm putting it here because Oregon already locked the thread....

I missed it earlier, but there is no way that a trade that includes a trade-back is or should be legal. Nothing in the rules as posted on the site indicates it is legal, and it's just an obvious attempt to circumvent the salary cap rules. In fact it's pretty obviously a violation of the rule #5 under trade rules "A player can not be traded back and forth in the same trade" the agreement to trade a guy back after a set amount of time (for nothing BTW) is an obvious violation.

[dennocj]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

The point people are trying to make is that he's expiring and his stats are inflated due to the poor team performance. The Warriors are assuming so much risk with trade. If Sullinger doesn't resign with him then he's given away a year on Matthews and also a future first. This deal should've been straight Matthews for Sullinger. That way the Bucks can roll with Porzingis at PF and Matthews at SG (a position of need), while the Warriors get the PF they need. I don't think this is a grossly unfair trade, but definitely one the Warriors may regret here in a season or two.

[dennocj]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

So I'm putting it here because Oregon already locked the thread....

I missed it earlier, but there is no way that a trade that includes a trade-back is or should be legal. Nothing in the rules as posted on the site indicates it is legal, and it's just an obvious attempt to circumvent the salary cap rules. In fact it's pretty obviously a violation of the rule #5 under trade rules "A player can not be traded back and forth in the same trade" the agreement to trade a guy back after a set amount of time (for nothing BTW) is an obvious violation.

In the same trade are the key words there. It's not a rules violation according to rule 8: "8) A player cannot be traded back and forth between the same team until at least 30 sim days have passed." I understand though, reading is difficult sometimes.

[Cellar-door]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

The point people are trying to make is that he's expiring and his stats are inflated due to the poor team performance. The Warriors are assuming so much risk with trade. If Sullinger doesn't resign with him then he's given away a year on Matthews and also a future first. This deal should've been straight Matthews for Sullinger. That way the Bucks can roll with Porzingis at PF and Matthews at SG (a position of need), while the Warriors get the PF they need. I don't think this is a grossly unfair trade, but definitely one the Warriors may regret here in a season or two.

I think it's not great, but it isn't any worse than a lot of trades. I mean Matthews is a guy nobody really wanted, that's why he signed that deal. Sullinger is probably more valuable and he's only 23.
Also people seriously under-estimate 2nd round picks from bad teams, pick 30 is usually as good (or better) than a 1st from a top team, the talent level left is about the same and you get the guy a much cheaper contract.

[Cellar-door]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

So I'm putting it here because Oregon already locked the thread....

I missed it earlier, but there is no way that a trade that includes a trade-back is or should be legal. Nothing in the rules as posted on the site indicates it is legal, and it's just an obvious attempt to circumvent the salary cap rules. In fact it's pretty obviously a violation of the rule #5 under trade rules "A player can not be traded back and forth in the same trade" the agreement to trade a guy back after a set amount of time (for nothing BTW) is an obvious violation.

In the same trade are the key words there. It's not a rules violation according to rule 8: "8) A player cannot be traded back and forth between the same team until at least 30 sim days have passed." I understand though, reading is difficult sometimes.

Ummm.... YOU AGREE TO TRADE HIM BACK AS PART OF THE TRADE! It's not reading, it's you mis-interpreting what the words mean. Now if you want to have the rules re-written fine, but one of the conditions OF THAT TRADE is that the player will go to one team, THEN RETURN.

Edit- Sure maybe whoever wrote the rules didn't mean that, but that's what the words actually mean.
Beyond that it's an idiotic concept since it's entirely contrary to how trades work in real life and there is no reason for it to exist except for owners not being competent enough to manage the cap correctly.

[BucksGM]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

So I'm putting it here because Oregon already locked the thread....

I missed it earlier, but there is no way that a trade that includes a trade-back is or should be legal. Nothing in the rules as posted on the site indicates it is legal, and it's just an obvious attempt to circumvent the salary cap rules. In fact it's pretty obviously a violation of the rule #5 under trade rules "A player can not be traded back and forth in the same trade" the agreement to trade a guy back after a set amount of time (for nothing BTW) is an obvious violation.

In the same trade are the key words there. It's not a rules violation according to rule 8: "8) A player cannot be traded back and forth between the same team until at least 30 sim days have passed." I understand though, reading is difficult sometimes.

Ummm.... YOU AGREE TO TRADE HIM BACK AS PART OF THE TRADE! It's not reading, it's you mis-interpreting what the words mean. Now if you want to have the rules re-written fine, but one of the conditions OF THAT TRADE is that the player will go to one team, THEN RETURN.

Edit- Sure maybe whoever wrote the rules didn't mean that, but that's what the words actually mean.
Beyond that it's an idiotic concept since it's entirely contrary to how trades work in real life and there is no reason for it to exist except for owners not being competent enough to manage the cap correctly.

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks it's crazy.

[dennocj]

There's all these ass backwards trades where multiple trades are made to manipulate the cap because people can't manage their team and this is what people have a problem with?

So I'm putting it here because Oregon already locked the thread....

I missed it earlier, but there is no way that a trade that includes a trade-back is or should be legal. Nothing in the rules as posted on the site indicates it is legal, and it's just an obvious attempt to circumvent the salary cap rules. In fact it's pretty obviously a violation of the rule #5 under trade rules "A player can not be traded back and forth in the same trade" the agreement to trade a guy back after a set amount of time (for nothing BTW) is an obvious violation.

In the same trade are the key words there. It's not a rules violation according to rule 8: "8) A player cannot be traded back and forth between the same team until at least 30 sim days have passed." I understand though, reading is difficult sometimes.

Ummm.... YOU AGREE TO TRADE HIM BACK AS PART OF THE TRADE! It's not reading, it's you mis-interpreting what the words mean. Now if you want to have the rules re-written fine, but one of the conditions OF THAT TRADE is that the player will go to one team, THEN RETURN.

Edit- Sure maybe whoever wrote the rules didn't mean that, but that's what the words actually mean.
Beyond that it's an idiotic concept since it's entirely contrary to how trades work in real life and there is no reason for it to exist except for owners not being competent enough to manage the cap correctly.

Guys can do trade backs for a multitude of reasons. And it doesn't say YOU AGREE TO TRADE HIM BACK AS PART OF THE TRADE! anywhere in the rules so that's you mis-interpreting the rules. If two GM's agree to a trade back within PM's then that's between them.