|
Post by aigatdula on Apr 9, 2007 22:17:25 GMT -5
3 per team.. so about 6 TOTAL.... IMO
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 22:18:10 GMT -5
3 per team.. so about 6 TOTAL.... IMO lol....aig we already covered this Why would both teams need to add vet FA's?
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Apr 10, 2007 0:48:43 GMT -5
Well 3 and 2 are somewhat the same so if 2+3 > No limit, does 2 or 3 vet fas shootdown this ridiculous no vet fa limit rule.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 10, 2007 0:51:01 GMT -5
no more calculous for you ducky
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 10, 2007 1:05:54 GMT -5
His motive was correct. 3 and 2 votes would pretty much go either way. So at the moment its 9-8 .
|
|
|
Post by GP on Apr 10, 2007 1:27:10 GMT -5
I think anymore than 3-4 is bogus...
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Apr 10, 2007 1:50:07 GMT -5
trading back and forth should be eliminated completely.
If you can sign 20 FAs and get it done in one deal, good job. But trading back and forth is lame and easy to avoid. Just state that players cannot be traded back and forth. Its pretty easy to notice a deal that involves a tradeback.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Apr 10, 2007 2:58:18 GMT -5
I assume this came from habermans deal and he doesn't deal vet fa's back and forth. He deals him fa's and then he cuts them and he deals him more fa's and more fa's same process and then trades the main guys back but he already pays the punishment of waiting a sim without those guys and i think thats just. If you really have a problem with what was done here limit the amount of trades 1 team can have with another team in 1 sim. If they couldn't pull the first 3 deals by keep dealing fa's for contracts then swapping. So even if 2 teams don't re-exchange players in 1 sim they can only make 1 deal per sim. Ex. Orl trades with Sac. Next available date to perform a trade with each other is the following sim.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 10, 2007 4:01:31 GMT -5
Huh? Noone said they were trading vet FA's back and forth...why would anyone do that? They do trade players back and forth though and use 10 Vet FA's for one trade. Thats the problem.
|
|
Scott
Starter
Cincinnati Reds
BBSBL-Cincinnati Reds
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by Scott on Apr 10, 2007 6:41:57 GMT -5
You know, you can't even say how many vet FAs in a deal because technically the Orlando-Sacramento trade could have just been posted as 3 different trades I think and still work if you could only move 2 or 3 Vet FAs. Just another loophole that would have to be closed if you'd want to institute a rule like this.
|
|
|
Post by d2acollectables on Apr 10, 2007 8:11:42 GMT -5
3 is more than enough
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 10, 2007 10:28:03 GMT -5
You know, you can't even say how many vet FAs in a deal because technically the Orlando-Sacramento trade could have just been posted as 3 different trades I think and still work if you could only move 2 or 3 Vet FAs. Just another loophole that would have to be closed if you'd want to institute a rule like this. agreed.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 10, 2007 13:18:58 GMT -5
come on guys. If its seperate deals each one would get vetoed. You can't trade a youngster with nice potential on a rookie contract for 3 vet FA's.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Apr 10, 2007 13:21:13 GMT -5
come on guys. If its seperate deals each one would get vetoed. You can't trade a youngster with nice potential on a rookie contract for 3 vet FA's. its happened before...
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 10, 2007 13:24:14 GMT -5
A guy with ratings this good?
Samuel Dalembert C 22 6'11'' 250 B C- D+ B+ B- B
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Apr 10, 2007 13:26:28 GMT -5
come on guys. If its seperate deals each one would get vetoed. You can't trade a youngster with nice potential on a rookie contract for 3 vet FA's. its happened before... and I would assume they would be fired afterwards.
|
|
Scott
Starter
Cincinnati Reds
BBSBL-Cincinnati Reds
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by Scott on Apr 10, 2007 13:30:42 GMT -5
I don't think that it's fair to tell a team they can't sign a vet FA when they had followed the rules. They signed one guy, traded him away, and then this guy was cut by the other team before the other deal went through. If a team ends up having room for trading away a total of 6 vet FA, who's to say that they can't. In my opinion, it's a cheap way of getting around things, but it's a viable way as long as they have the roster spots.
Now, if the rule in the other thread is instituted about players having to wait 4 sims before being traded back, there could possibly be a rule instituted about having to maybe wait 2 sims before signing a FA, but then that would really hurt those of us that just sign that extra FA to make up for a million in cap room.
Just some thoughts here; I think that in the end, there will not be much of a compromise because there's not much middle ground. I'm in the middle ground though because I like realism yet signing FA and trading them is not breaking the rules in this league though either.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 10, 2007 13:35:04 GMT -5
No one is stopping you from signing a fa to make up a mil in cap room...lol Its signing more than 3 that should be stopped. Honestly I think 1 should be the limit. I'm compromising to say 2 or 3.
|
|
Scott
Starter
Cincinnati Reds
BBSBL-Cincinnati Reds
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by Scott on Apr 10, 2007 13:37:56 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a prick here, but I just want to keep bringing up possible scenarios that could happen. What if I had 12 players on my team and I cut a guy that makes $300K. Then I could still sign 4 vet FAs for a mill each to help my trading room. Isn't it only fair that I'd be allowed to sign 4 guys? Again, I'm just trying to run through possible scenarios; I'm not trying to start anything here...just being a devil's advocate sort of.
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Apr 10, 2007 13:39:06 GMT -5
What about a rule that says you have a wait a sim to trade FA's you sign? Just throwing shit out there.
|
|
Scott
Starter
Cincinnati Reds
BBSBL-Cincinnati Reds
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by Scott on Apr 10, 2007 13:41:08 GMT -5
What about a rule that says you have a wait a sim to trade FA's? Just throwing shit out there. That would help eliminate deals like what ORL/SAC did, and it would still allow someone to prepare for a deal by signing their 3 (or possibly 4/5 if they have the roster room by releasing players) vet FAs. It's an idea that I was gonna throw out earlier, but I think it's a viable one.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 10, 2007 13:42:01 GMT -5
What about a rule that says you have a wait a sim to trade FA's you sign? Just throwing shit out there. This would work just fine as well.
|
|
Scott
Starter
Cincinnati Reds
BBSBL-Cincinnati Reds
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by Scott on Apr 10, 2007 13:44:24 GMT -5
I think that waiting a sim to trade any FAs is about as much compromise as we're going to be able to get on this. It still allows you to use vet FAs as cap fillers yet it won't allow for you to be able to trade 10 of them in one day. The ORL/SAC deal would have had to be broken into 3 different deals, and like JAH said each deal on its own wouldn't have gotten approved.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Apr 10, 2007 13:47:32 GMT -5
simple just limit the amount of trades 2 teams can do with each other. 1 trade per day. So if they want to do an elaborate deal like this it would take 5 sims. I don't agree with this but that is the answer to the so called problem
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 10, 2007 13:47:53 GMT -5
if people are allowed to sign FAs and allowed to trade, there is no way there should be a limit.
i'd still be down for making a rule that prevents trading players that are incapable of gaining bird rights... and if prefered... not on a rookie contract.
it doesn't seem like people are too thrilled with that but that is the only fair ground. either we allow the trading of FAs or we don't, i don't like the idea of a limit.
|
|