Warrior General Games

Originally posted by ddingo
Originally posted by David Stern

hmm. So trading players is a loophole? Would you feel better if we had traded mamadu to mod? Didn't really matter, and the "loophole" you're saying that will be fixed next season would still have allowed us to make a trade going forward.

So since this is a beta game, explain to me how you would fix this issue of trading for players near the trade deadline. I am really curious as to how you would fix trading if we ever get out of beta.

I'd feel just fine regardless. I never said the loophole was going to be fixed next season. In fact, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that ridiculously unbalanced trades are still going to be allowable. Hell I'm pretty sure MoD could have gutted their team for about 12 hours and allowed everyone a chance to escape the asylum. A GM then could message support and buy back the team.

I mean .. you could do it with multiple teams even after the trade deadline and continue to rack and stack. You'd naturally have to be willing to accept the chem hit but it would still be doable. FWIW, I don't particularly care about the trade. I think your attempts to explain it were just horrific though.

Like blln said, the trade is legal. Trades like that have been done thousands of times in dotball. Blln explanation = good. Stern's 55 for 1 explanation = O_o

You can't cut players after the trade deadline if that is what you are suggesting near the end of this post.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
You can't cut players after the trade deadline if that is what you are suggesting near the end of this post.

Players on a CPU team can be signed by any team at any time provided they stay under the 55 limit. That simple fact opens up a ridiculous world of exploits.

Originally posted by ddingo
Players on a CPU team can be signed by any team at any time provided they stay under the 55 limit. That simple fact opens up a ridiculous world of exploits.

but you would have to cut your roster as well. Think of the chem loss. Wouldn't even be worth it.

Originally posted by ddingo
Dpride: Yo imma want yo best playa.

MoD ppl: We're gonna need something really big to make that happen.

Dpride: I got enough money to gives all your fans free foam fingers at a home game. That's good for like 5 fan support. That means more money to buy more foam fingers. You gotta see where this is goin', amirite?

MoD ppl: (Does math) Is this surprise sex?

Dpride: No .. imma let you host 55 dots for me too. Yer gonna love it.

MoD ppl: I have a reputation to maintain. This isn't like collusion or something, right?

Dpride: Actually you are abusing us because we're letting you have p much unlimited foam fingers and instead of getting a team for 400 flex, imma let you do it. Glory and honor will be yours. Casual 14 and 18 cap gold is not out of the question.



Originally posted by Chop_Lobster
fwiw, I tried to look up trade vetoes in the NFL rule book and found nothing. I thought either the commissioner could veto or the other owners could vote to veto trades but I guess not? Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo about how each franchise is it's own business entity and can run it as they see fit. ib4 lolu comparing NFL to GLB
MLB has a clause that allows the commissioner to step in and void transactions that he feels are not in the best interests of the game. I imagine that the NFL has something similar, but I've never heard of it being used.

Originally posted by chronoaug
One thing i do know is that i doubt valhalla really cares that much

confirmed

Originally posted by David Stern
LOL

Every recruit I have talked to has said Valhalla has contacted them about their player as well. They care more than anyone in the game 10fold. There is a reason he waits until day 0 to pick archetypes. That soulless - rock personality - whose musical interests are whatever his favorite music critic tells him they should be is the most calculated player in GLB. Seriously I had a conversation with him about whether Brock or Fedor would win if they ever fought - When Brock had last fought, and the entire basis of his argument had nothing to do with his own personal opinion but rather what the rankings of a magazine had to say. Soulless IMO.

he so so mad

Originally posted by jdbolick

MLB has a clause that allows the commissioner to step in and void transactions that he feels are not in the best interests of the game.

Too bad he didn't step in and veto that Babe Ruth trade huh?

Originally posted by David Stern
Too bad he didn't step in and veto that Babe Ruth trade huh?
Actually I think that's why the clause was created.

Originally posted by w_alloy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExA7ks0cG2U#t=8m47s

ahhh pulling out the big guns, well done

what year was that from?

edit: nm, went to part one and found out within the first 10 seconds.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Lol this convo. Didn't know trading for a player before the deadline was off limits. Sure it will help us, but sometimes an owner who knows their season is over is willing to accommodate the players on their team. I seem to recall Tooley's HB going to MEM one season and to Blaze another, as well as a MLB on Tooley's team going to I think MEM as well...Stern, no reason to keep arguing with them, all you have to say is that the agent wanted the dot to play on a contender in his last season and Stobie was willing to allow that to happen. If you have a problem with the trade deadline being this late don't take it up with us, it has always been this way and moves have been made for elite dots in the past.


We like deadline trades tbh.

Originally posted by coachviking
We like deadline trades tbh.



and beer

Originally posted by Ahrens858
Originally posted by coachviking

We like deadline trades tbh.



and beer

Valid point

Originally posted by Phil Jackson
ahhh pulling out the big guns, well done

you're quickly turning into our worst poster