Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: 2012 Preseason: Constitution Up!

[The Walker Wiggle]

trades awaiting approval:

Toine's Boys send Nick Collison to Webskins for Joel Przybilla and the naturals #2


Toine's Boys send Matt Bonner, Nate the Great, and the naturals #2(top 38 protected, ie if Roy misses the finals then I keep the pick) for Kyle Singler

a little added incentive to see someone stop the naturals from making it to the finals

I read this three times and still don't understand it.

[hpantazo]

trades awaiting approval:

Toine's Boys send Nick Collison to Webskins for Joel Przybilla and the naturals #2


Toine's Boys send Matt Bonner, Nate the Great, and the naturals #2(top 38 protected, ie if Roy misses the finals then I keep the pick) for Kyle Singler

a little added incentive to see someone stop the naturals from making it to the finals

I read this three times and still don't understand it.

you don't have to understand it, just stop Roy from getting to the finals

[Roy H.]

trades awaiting approval:

Toine's Boys send Nick Collison to Webskins for Joel Przybilla and the naturals #2


Toine's Boys send Matt Bonner, Nate the Great, and the naturals #2(top 38 protected, ie if Roy misses the finals then I keep the pick) for Kyle Singler

a little added incentive to see someone stop the naturals from making it to the finals

I read this three times and still don't understand it.

1. Nick Collison for Joel Przybilla + Naturals #2

2. Matt Bonner, Nate Robinson, Naturals #2 for Kyle Singler

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

[hpantazo]

trades awaiting approval:

Toine's Boys send Nick Collison to Webskins for Joel Przybilla and the naturals #2


Toine's Boys send Matt Bonner, Nate the Great, and the naturals #2(top 38 protected, ie if Roy misses the finals then I keep the pick) for Kyle Singler

a little added incentive to see someone stop the naturals from making it to the finals

I read this three times and still don't understand it.

1. Nick Collison for Joel Przybilla + Naturals #2

2. Matt Bonner, Nate Robinson, Naturals #2 for Kyle Singler

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

the way I see it, it worked out like this for me

I traded: Matt Bonner, Nick Collison, and Nate Robinson

I received Kyle Singler, Joel Pryzbilla, and the Naturals 2nd rounder unless Roy both ends up in the top 2 in the regular season and makes the finals

[The Walker Wiggle]

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

This trade confirms that I am indeed the grumpiest guy in this league. It's clearly not a balance issue, but I'd rather see this trade vetoed.

So I could offer my 1st round pick (the better of my own or the Webskins) protected 1 through 15 and 18 through 20 for a 2012 2nd round pick?

[Roy H.]

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

This trade confirms that I am indeed the grumpiest guy in this league. It's clearly not a balance issue, but I'd rather see this trade vetoed.

So I could offer my 1st round pick (the better of my own or the Webskins) protected 1 through 15 and 18 through 20 for a 2012 2nd round pick?

I'm not sure what the issue is.  We've been approving trades with pick protection on them for several years now.  The condition about the Finals is new for the league, but it happens in "real" sports leagues.  For instance, the Bruins had to give up an extra 2nd rounder if they made the Finals; the Oakland Raiders have to give up an extra 1st rounder if they win a playoff game, etc.

Heck, wasn't one of your trades involving Allen Iverson contingent upon how many games he played in?

Conditions on picks are absolutely nothing new.  Here, I wanted the pick, and HP didn't want to give it up.  To bridge the gap, we came up with conditions that will be very hard to meet.  Even without the #2 being included, though, it's a fair enough deal.

[hpantazo]

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

This trade confirms that I am indeed the grumpiest guy in this league. It's clearly not a balance issue, but I'd rather see this trade vetoed.

So I could offer my 1st round pick (the better of my own or the Webskins) protected 1 through 15 and 18 through 20 for a 2012 2nd round pick?

I'm not sure what the issue is.  We've been approving trades with pick protection on them for several years now.  The condition about the Finals is new for the league, but it happens in "real" sports leagues.  For instance, the Bruins had to give up an extra 2nd rounder if they made the Finals; the Oakland Raiders have to give up an extra 1st rounder if they win a playoff game, etc.

Heck, wasn't one of your trades involving Allen Iverson contingent upon how many games he played in?

Conditions on picks are absolutely nothing new.

I agree, I don't see what the issue is either, I think the conditions are not out of the ordinary and are fair. If you have opinions on the deals I'm always glad to hear them, but complaints about the fairness of conditions on the pick surprise me.

[Roy H.]

...but complaints about the fairness of conditions on the pick surprise me.

Haha.  Yeah, not to take things for granted, but we're talking about a late second rounder here.  It's not exactly going to shift the balance of power in the league.

[hpantazo]

...but complaints about the fairness of conditions on the pick surprise me.

Haha.  Yeah, not to take things for granted, but we're talking about a late second rounder here.  It's not exactly going to shift the balance of power in the league.

neither are Matt Bonner and Nate Robinson for that matter

[The Walker Wiggle]

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

This trade confirms that I am indeed the grumpiest guy in this league. It's clearly not a balance issue, but I'd rather see this trade vetoed.

So I could offer my 1st round pick (the better of my own or the Webskins) protected 1 through 15 and 18 through 20 for a 2012 2nd round pick?

I'm not sure what the issue is.  We've already approved trades with pick protection on them.  The condition about the Finals is new for the league, but it happens in "real" sports leagues.  For instance, the Bruins had to give up an extra 2nd rounder if they made the Finals; the Oakland Raiders have to give up an extra 1st rounder if they win a playoff game, etc.

Heck, wasn't one of your trades involving Allen Iverson contingent upon how many games he played in?

Conditions on picks are absolutely nothing new.

Yeah, you make some good points. It's another lousy trades for Hpantazo, and I was initially confused and then annoyed, but I was wrong to object. And I did in fact pull off an odd conditional trade of my own, so what's my problem?

[hpantazo]

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

This trade confirms that I am indeed the grumpiest guy in this league. It's clearly not a balance issue, but I'd rather see this trade vetoed.

So I could offer my 1st round pick (the better of my own or the Webskins) protected 1 through 15 and 18 through 20 for a 2012 2nd round pick?

I'm not sure what the issue is.  We've already approved trades with pick protection on them.  The condition about the Finals is new for the league, but it happens in "real" sports leagues.  For instance, the Bruins had to give up an extra 2nd rounder if they made the Finals; the Oakland Raiders have to give up an extra 1st rounder if they win a playoff game, etc.

Heck, wasn't one of your trades involving Allen Iverson contingent upon how many games he played in?

Conditions on picks are absolutely nothing new.

Yeah, you make some good points. It's another lousy trades for Hpantazo, and I was initially confused and then annoyed, but I was wrong to object. And I did in fact pull off an odd conditional trade of my own, so what's my problem?

haha, I'm glad to hear you like my trades so much WW!

[Roy H.]

In the second trade, the pick only "vests" if the Naturals finish in the top-two in the regular season *and* make the Finals.  If either or both of those things doesn't happen, the pick stays with hpantazo.

This trade confirms that I am indeed the grumpiest guy in this league. It's clearly not a balance issue, but I'd rather see this trade vetoed.

So I could offer my 1st round pick (the better of my own or the Webskins) protected 1 through 15 and 18 through 20 for a 2012 2nd round pick?

I'm not sure what the issue is.  We've already approved trades with pick protection on them.  The condition about the Finals is new for the league, but it happens in "real" sports leagues.  For instance, the Bruins had to give up an extra 2nd rounder if they made the Finals; the Oakland Raiders have to give up an extra 1st rounder if they win a playoff game, etc.

Heck, wasn't one of your trades involving Allen Iverson contingent upon how many games he played in?

Conditions on picks are absolutely nothing new.

Yeah, you make some good points. It's another lousy trades for Hpantazo, and I was initially confused and then annoyed, but I was wrong to object. And I did in fact pull off an odd conditional trade of my own, so what's my problem?

haha, I'm glad to hear you like my trades so much WW!

Ironically enough, wasn't one of the first trades this year a deal between you and Wiggle?  Involving Luke Babbitt and a #2 for a #1?

[fairweatherfan]

Something I think we should clear up in advance is the web of "swap pick option" deals.  For example, Naturals can swap with Flash and Crotors.  So if (before any swaps) the pick order is:

Edgar #10
Flash #14
Naturals #18

Can Naturals exercise both swaps (swap with Flash then with Edgar) like this:

Naturals #10
Edgar #14
Flash #18

Or are they restricted to exercising one swap, like this:

Naturals #10
Flash #14
Edgar #18

?  It works out the same for Naturals, but has significant implications for the other two teams.

[Lucky17]

Something I think we should clear up in advance is the web of "swap pick option" deals.  For example, Naturals can swap with Flash and Crotors.  So if (before any swaps) the pick order is:

Edgar #10
Flash #14
Naturals #18

Can Naturals exercise both swaps (swap with Flash then with Edgar) like this:

Naturals #10
Edgar #14
Flash #18

Or are they restricted to exercising one swap, like this:

Naturals #10
Flash #14
Edgar #18

?  It works out the same for Naturals, but has significant implications for the other two teams.

I asked Roy to confirm that he would exercise his right to swap with Utah first.

[Roy H.]

Something I think we should clear up in advance is the web of "swap pick option" deals.  For example, Naturals can swap with Flash and Crotors.  So if (before any swaps) the pick order is:

Edgar #10
Flash #14
Naturals #18

Can Naturals exercise both swaps (swap with Flash then with Edgar) like this:

Naturals #10
Edgar #14
Flash #18

Or are they restricted to exercising one swap, like this:

Naturals #10
Flash #14
Edgar #18

?  It works out the same for Naturals, but has significant implications for the other two teams.

I can do two swaps, but I have to decide (exercise or pass) on the MK option first.  Edgar can end up with MK's pick, but MK can't end up with Edgar's.