|
|
Post by DB on Nov 23, 2008 2:12:19 GMT -5
You are a joke. Your team is a joke, and I will consider it a joke until you prove otherwise.
On another note, THE KNICKS GM, or Blue, or Phil, I like phil, PHIL does not have to do anything. But Phil did contact Gotrunks about other possibilities something that was thought to be in his favor. That is pretty nice of him. But on another note, It is gotrunks and gotrunks ONLY to realize that it did not go through and try to fix the salary problem as well. Why should one gm have to fix something when it should be a mutal thing. If you are so CONCERNED about making other gms happy, the situations that you think SHOULD happen would leave Phil very unhappy and might force to quit. (In your view from from previous posts).
I do not have a terrible memory, I remember a lot, people tell me all the time how bad your team is.
You will come back with a argument against what I just said, and I really do not care. You posts are meaningless to me at this point and are completely not on topic with what I was arguing anymore because I have proved you wrong countless times. Now you are just resorting to some things that are not even on point. Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
Post by CC on Nov 23, 2008 2:12:32 GMT -5
Squash this already guys. Trade went through, end of story. Move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by w6602876 on Nov 23, 2008 7:24:27 GMT -5
You are a joke. Your team is a joke, and I will consider it a joke until you prove otherwise. On another note, THE KNICKS GM, or Blue, or Phil, I like phil, PHIL does not have to do anything. But Phil did contact Gotrunks about other possibilities something that was thought to be in his favor. That is pretty nice of him. But on another note, It is gotrunks and gotrunks ONLY to realize that it did not go through and try to fix the salary problem as well. Why should one gm have to fix something when it should be a mutal thing. If you are so CONCERNED about making other gms happy, the situations that you think SHOULD happen would leave Phil very unhappy and might force to quit. (In your view from from previous posts). I do not have a terrible memory, I remember a lot, people tell me all the time how bad your team is. You will come back with a argument against what I just said, and I really do not care. You posts are meaningless to me at this point and are completely not on topic with what I was arguing anymore because I have proved you wrong countless times. Now you are just resorting to some things that are not even on point. Thanks for your time. Talking about points that are completely off-topic, you are the one that needs to bring up my team and since you orginally brought up I'd say you are the one that are resorting to things athat are not even on the point. So you've got it backwards. How about following what I say and actually addressing points that need to be made. As far as people telling you how bad my team is, do you really need someone to tell you that? You couldn't just look for yourself? Clearly you do have a bad memory since you need people to remind you of it and I needed to remind you that I've had successful teams. Your bias was obviously finally shown through, you like bluesdevils (as do I) but I also like Gotrunks and no where in the aforementioned post did you mention that you liked him, only that you liked bluedevils. Knowing that I'd say you aren't arguing from an objective point of view like myself. It was bluedevils that mishandled the trade as I proved earlier because he was on the boards before sim 1 and gotrunks was not. Regardless of all that if the Knicks were to leave because the trade didn't pass, they'd still have a good team, with all their picks, remember I did make that point earlier. But if gotrunks were to leave and the trade gets passed, finding a GM would be rather difficult since they don't have their picks to work with. But you obviously don't mind leaving the Lakers to take over the hornets so I'd say it's a moot point altogether as you would likely take over the Knicks as well. With that said, how about sticking to your word and take over the Spurs, the previous GM had given up two draft picks and has handicapped the future of his team. So how about taking over that team? |
|
|
|
Post by Play on Nov 23, 2008 9:46:46 GMT -5
I was going to put it through anyways. It's bullshit to back out of a deal, especially since apparently a 1-6 start is just a season killer. Season is 82 games. I know the deal has been put through already but I didn't see a problem with trunks backing out after the first deal was declined because of salary issues...Theres nothing in the rules that says he can't backout....But I'm glad that it got situated and blue got his deal done. |
|
|
|
Post by CC on Nov 23, 2008 11:36:20 GMT -5
There should be a new rule now. Put it up Ashes.
|
|
|
|
Post by DB on Nov 23, 2008 12:17:52 GMT -5
You are a joke. Your team is a joke, and I will consider it a joke until you prove otherwise. On another note, THE KNICKS GM, or Blue, or Phil, I like phil, PHIL does not have to do anything. But Phil did contact Gotrunks about other possibilities something that was thought to be in his favor. That is pretty nice of him. But on another note, It is gotrunks and gotrunks ONLY to realize that it did not go through and try to fix the salary problem as well. Why should one gm have to fix something when it should be a mutal thing. If you are so CONCERNED about making other gms happy, the situations that you think SHOULD happen would leave Phil very unhappy and might force to quit. (In your view from from previous posts). I do not have a terrible memory, I remember a lot, people tell me all the time how bad your team is. You will come back with a argument against what I just said, and I really do not care. You posts are meaningless to me at this point and are completely not on topic with what I was arguing anymore because I have proved you wrong countless times. Now you are just resorting to some things that are not even on point. Thanks for your time. Talking about points that are completely off-topic, you are the one that needs to bring up my team and since you orginally brought up I'd say you are the one that are resorting to things athat are not even on the point. So you've got it backwards. How about following what I say and actually addressing points that need to be made. As far as people telling you how bad my team is, do you really need someone to tell you that? You couldn't just look for yourself? Clearly you do have a bad memory since you need people to remind you of it and I needed to remind you that I've had successful teams. Your bias was obviously finally shown through, you like bluesdevils (as do I) but I also like Gotrunks and no where in the aforementioned post did you mention that you liked him, only that you liked bluedevils. Knowing that I'd say you aren't arguing from an objective point of view like myself. It was bluedevils that mishandled the trade as I proved earlier because he was on the boards before sim 1 and gotrunks was not. Regardless of all that if the Knicks were to leave because the trade didn't pass, they'd still have a good team, with all their picks, remember I did make that point earlier. But if gotrunks were to leave and the trade gets passed, finding a GM would be rather difficult since they don't have their picks to work with. But you obviously don't mind leaving the Lakers to take over the hornets so I'd say it's a moot point altogether as you would likely take over the Knicks as well. With that said, how about sticking to your word and take over the Spurs, the previous GM had given up two draft picks and has handicapped the future of his team. So how about taking over that team? "As far as people telling you how bad my team is, do you really need someone to tell you that? You couldn't just look for yourself? Clearly you do have a bad memory since you need people to remind you of it and I needed to remind you that I've had successful teams. " hahahaa this is hilarious. I am not responding to this because of how stupid it is. All I will say is this, I like gotrunks, I did not mention it in the last post, but I do like him. I am saying that in no way should a team back out of a trade once he agrees to it. Obviously I was showing the point of view from the other side (BLUE) and obviously your argument is one sided, not supporting both parties, so therefore it is flawed. So blue can take a hit on his team since he is a better gm (no offense gotrunks) and gotrunks can get away with a bad trade? Bullshit. How can blue by himself with out the other gm handle a trade when both parties need to be present, so again you can not blame blue for this. And on that note, If need be I will take over a gmless team in the off season if someone needs it. Right now I am not going to do that mid season. |
|
|
|
Post by w6602876 on Nov 23, 2008 12:49:30 GMT -5
Talking about points that are completely off-topic, you are the one that needs to bring up my team and since you orginally brought up I'd say you are the one that are resorting to things athat are not even on the point. So you've got it backwards. How about following what I say and actually addressing points that need to be made. As far as people telling you how bad my team is, do you really need someone to tell you that? You couldn't just look for yourself? Clearly you do have a bad memory since you need people to remind you of it and I needed to remind you that I've had successful teams. Your bias was obviously finally shown through, you like bluesdevils (as do I) but I also like Gotrunks and no where in the aforementioned post did you mention that you liked him, only that you liked bluedevils. Knowing that I'd say you aren't arguing from an objective point of view like myself. It was bluedevils that mishandled the trade as I proved earlier because he was on the boards before sim 1 and gotrunks was not. Regardless of all that if the Knicks were to leave because the trade didn't pass, they'd still have a good team, with all their picks, remember I did make that point earlier. But if gotrunks were to leave and the trade gets passed, finding a GM would be rather difficult since they don't have their picks to work with. But you obviously don't mind leaving the Lakers to take over the hornets so I'd say it's a moot point altogether as you would likely take over the Knicks as well. With that said, how about sticking to your word and take over the Spurs, the previous GM had given up two draft picks and has handicapped the future of his team. So how about taking over that team? "As far as people telling you how bad my team is, do you really need someone to tell you that? You couldn't just look for yourself? Clearly you do have a bad memory since you need people to remind you of it and I needed to remind you that I've had successful teams. " hahahaa this is hilarious. I am not responding to this because of how stupid it is. All I will say is this, I like gotrunks, I did not mention it in the last post, but I do like him. I am saying that in no way should a team back out of a trade once he agrees to it. Obviously I was showing the point of view from the other side (BLUE) and obviously your argument is one sided, not supporting both parties, so therefore it is flawed. So blue can take a hit on his team since he is a better gm (no offense gotrunks) and gotrunks can get away with a bad trade? Bullshit. How can blue by himself with out the other gm handle a trade when both parties need to be present, so again you can not blame blue for this. And on that note, If need be I will take over a gmless team in the off season if someone needs it. Right now I am not going to do that mid season. You not responding to something I've said is something you have conveniently done through out this conversation. You just can't flat out respond to it because it holds a lot of truth. I've already proved long ago that gotrunks getting Anderson benefits me as I have one less person to battle for a good lotto pick. Hence, the reason to why I'm taking gotrunks side is one that is altruistic and actually hurts me. This makes my argument OBJECTIVE. However, you just conveniently decided to mention him so it doesn't make you look bad, yet you never did address the fact how it hurts him by making this trade. I'd say you would make a bad politician because your pandering motives are quite evident. And it isn't that gotrunks gets away with a bad trade. If you make a trade in the off-season that has an effect on how a team plays during the season and the trade wasn't passed in the off-season yet it was waited on till the regular season to make the trade that obviously isn't fair. As you yourself just mentioned, this is a bad trade. Yet you try on pushing this further into some sort of coercion against him. If both parties aren't available than the trade should be re-worked and if it can't it should be undone. Also, you should take over the team now. Otherwise all your rhetoric will fall on deaf ears. |
|
|
|
Post by DB on Nov 23, 2008 16:19:13 GMT -5
"As far as people telling you how bad my team is, do you really need someone to tell you that? You couldn't just look for yourself? Clearly you do have a bad memory since you need people to remind you of it and I needed to remind you that I've had successful teams. " hahahaa this is hilarious. I am not responding to this because of how stupid it is. All I will say is this, I like gotrunks, I did not mention it in the last post, but I do like him. I am saying that in no way should a team back out of a trade once he agrees to it. Obviously I was showing the point of view from the other side (BLUE) and obviously your argument is one sided, not supporting both parties, so therefore it is flawed. So blue can take a hit on his team since he is a better gm (no offense gotrunks) and gotrunks can get away with a bad trade? Bullshit. How can blue by himself with out the other gm handle a trade when both parties need to be present, so again you can not blame blue for this. And on that note, If need be I will take over a gmless team in the off season if someone needs it. Right now I am not going to do that mid season. You not responding to something I've said is something you have conveniently done through out this conversation. You just can't flat out respond to it because it holds a lot of truth. I've already proved long ago that gotrunks getting Anderson benefits me as I have one less person to battle for a good lotto pick. Hence, the reason to why I'm taking gotrunks side is one that is altruistic and actually hurts me. This makes my argument OBJECTIVE. However, you just conveniently decided to mention him so it doesn't make you look bad, yet you never did address the fact how it hurts him by making this trade. I'd say you would make a bad politician because your pandering motives are quite evident. And it isn't that gotrunks gets away with a bad trade. If you make a trade in the off-season that has an effect on how a team plays during the season and the trade wasn't passed in the off-season yet it was waited on till the regular season to make the trade that obviously isn't fair. As you yourself just mentioned, this is a bad trade. Yet you try on pushing this further into some sort of coercion against him. If both parties aren't available than the trade should be re-worked and if it can't it should be undone. Also, you should take over the team now. Otherwise all your rhetoric will fall on deaf ears. The point was that your team is so bad everyone talks about how unsuccessful it is. It is not whether I notice how bad your team was or I need someone to tell me it is bad, it is something that everyone talks about because the magic have what, 5 playoff appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by DB on Nov 23, 2008 16:23:27 GMT -5
If both parties agree to a trade, then that trade HAS to go through.
Why would i take over a team now when my team is so sick? I would rather see how we do this year and then start fresh.
|
|
|
|
Post by gotrunks226 on Nov 23, 2008 16:26:59 GMT -5
You not responding to something I've said is something you have conveniently done through out this conversation. You just can't flat out respond to it because it holds a lot of truth. I've already proved long ago that gotrunks getting Anderson benefits me as I have one less person to battle for a good lotto pick. Hence, the reason to why I'm taking gotrunks side is one that is altruistic and actually hurts me. This makes my argument OBJECTIVE. However, you just conveniently decided to mention him so it doesn't make you look bad, yet you never did address the fact how it hurts him by making this trade. I'd say you would make a bad politician because your pandering motives are quite evident. And it isn't that gotrunks gets away with a bad trade. If you make a trade in the off-season that has an effect on how a team plays during the season and the trade wasn't passed in the off-season yet it was waited on till the regular season to make the trade that obviously isn't fair. As you yourself just mentioned, this is a bad trade. Yet you try on pushing this further into some sort of coercion against him. If both parties aren't available than the trade should be re-worked and if it can't it should be undone. Also, you should take over the team now. Otherwise all your rhetoric will fall on deaf ears. The point was that your team is so bad everyone talks about how unsuccessful it is. It is not whether I notice how bad your team was or I need someone to tell me it is bad, it is something that everyone talks about because the magic have what, 5 playoff appearances. Not everybody can have a Jordan Price or a Alonzo Trier fall in their lap. A lot of GMs aren't that lucky. |
|
|
|
Post by DB on Nov 23, 2008 17:13:36 GMT -5
So you are saying for my "luck" I was able to become such a successful franchise over the 20 + seasons this league has been around? Signing Jordan Price was an amazing thing that happened to us, but if that did not happen I still would be a successful team because I know how to gm a team. It is hilarious that you bring up luck as the reason for my success. That is a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Nov 23, 2008 17:25:33 GMT -5
This thread is a joke. Let me break it down.
gotrunks and blue came up with a deal and agreed upon said deal. Salaries didn't work, but was easily fixable to the point that it had no bearing on the trade itself. Nothing was different between what the two parties received or traded, therefore the deal would remain unchanged. There is no backing out of a situation such as this. If the deal had to be modified to change the parts of the previously agreed upon trade, then it would be different; however, it did not. Therefore, any point presented defending that the deal shouldn't go through, or can be backed out of, is false. Simple manipulation allows the deal to go through unchanged.
Now, both parties agreed upon the aformentioned trade because both parties felt it was in their best interest. Simple as that. Any doubt or regrets in gotrunks' mind would come from this ridiculous amount of senseless argument. He would not have agreed to this trade if he did not think it was best for his team, that much is obvious. However, it is well-known now that both, I repeat, BOTH of the GMs made a mistake when matching salaries. Regardless of which party presented the final offer, it is the job of both GMs to assure that the deal works under the salary cap rules. Saying anything to the contrary is completely false.
The deal is done as it was intended to be. Both parties received the pieces they had agreed to trade for.
Any hypothetical, rehtorical, or otherwise irrelevant questions are just that -- irrelevant. I do not care if blue would agree to veto a hypothetical trade. I do not care if a certain GM has been here longer than another. I don't care who would make a bad politician. I don't care who's team has been consistently poor, or who's team has had a great player fall to them. It has no bearing on this trade, and never did.
So, once again: Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ducky on Nov 23, 2008 20:34:10 GMT -5
.
^ My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Play on Nov 25, 2008 0:25:34 GMT -5
The point was that your team is so bad everyone talks about how unsuccessful it is. It is not whether I notice how bad your team was or I need someone to tell me it is bad, it is something that everyone talks about because the magic have what, 5 playoff appearances. Not everybody can have a Jordan Price or a Alonzo Trier fall in their lap. A lot of GMs aren't that lucky. lol funny you brought that up...I drafted Trier with YOUR FIRST ROUNDER.  |
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Nov 25, 2008 12:09:39 GMT -5
Not everybody can have a Jordan Price or a Alonzo Trier fall in their lap. A lot of GMs aren't that lucky. lol funny you brought that up...I drafted Trier with YOUR FIRST ROUNDER. LOL |
|
