rawrmbo
pottsman
offline
offline
Still a great idea. If I'm given a no trade early in a 3 year deal as a backup, then someone brings in a player 10 levels higher than me, I should be able to help the team get some cash, instead of asking for a release or being burried at 3rd in the DC.
Apple Dapple
offline
offline
Originally posted by Serenity
should be epic'd imo
should've kept your mod powers a few more days
should be epic'd imo
should've kept your mod powers a few more days
99
offline
offline
IT could be you're only allowed to reject a certain amount of trades with the clause, the owner could # it
Apple Dapple
offline
offline
Hm. While I don't want to reject the idea or the potential it has, I'm definitely weary of that. The primary purpose, as I see it, would be to facilitate the trading of players that the team may not need anymore and that don't want to be with the team anymore without the player needing to give the owner carte blanche to send him wherever he pleases or trust him to stick to his word.
limiting rejections opens up to exploitation, imo, if the owner just sends out rapid fire trades to use up the vetoes and then, once they're gone, the player is left defenseless and at the mercy of the owner.
While I don't think any of the teams I'm on in which I'm involved in personnel etc. would really have any need for this, as far as I know, I definitely see the potential and could have used it a coupel seasons ago.
When I got my team, there was an agent who had about 5 or 6 players on it. He had their builds hidden, which I don't like (if I can't see a players' build I can't give advice or, more importantly, know how to use them effectively). He had had an understanding with the previous owner however (which is well and good but of course doesn't bind me to anything). I respected that, and he respected my position, but that still left us in the situation where I had players I didn't want and he was on a team he wouldn't mind getting off of. However, he did not want to sign a new contract that would let me send him wherever I wanted, even if I agreed to let him choose the team, because he knew nothing of me and didn't know whether I could be trusted or not. We ended up just needing to wait out the contracts (I could have cut him too but it would have been silly of me), but a player-approval clause like this really would've been a useful outlet for us.
..Just to illustrate a situation in which this idea would be useful.
limiting rejections opens up to exploitation, imo, if the owner just sends out rapid fire trades to use up the vetoes and then, once they're gone, the player is left defenseless and at the mercy of the owner.
While I don't think any of the teams I'm on in which I'm involved in personnel etc. would really have any need for this, as far as I know, I definitely see the potential and could have used it a coupel seasons ago.
When I got my team, there was an agent who had about 5 or 6 players on it. He had their builds hidden, which I don't like (if I can't see a players' build I can't give advice or, more importantly, know how to use them effectively). He had had an understanding with the previous owner however (which is well and good but of course doesn't bind me to anything). I respected that, and he respected my position, but that still left us in the situation where I had players I didn't want and he was on a team he wouldn't mind getting off of. However, he did not want to sign a new contract that would let me send him wherever I wanted, even if I agreed to let him choose the team, because he knew nothing of me and didn't know whether I could be trusted or not. We ended up just needing to wait out the contracts (I could have cut him too but it would have been silly of me), but a player-approval clause like this really would've been a useful outlet for us.
..Just to illustrate a situation in which this idea would be useful.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
