Warrior General Games

Originally posted by oakland360
Originally posted by driftinggrifter

I think the idea makes sense, especially if it is only be added to the no trade contracts.

Think about it, if you have a no trade contract up then you couldn't trade him anyways. But if you had this into his clause then you would at least have the chance to unload him if you needed to. It would just have to be to a team he agrees with.


Now if he had put this in his OP, than it would make more sense for GLB... But his idea as it is was no good. With this modification added to it. It's more reasonable, and that kind of contract I would offer...

...Are you kidding? That WAS my idea. Except that I didn't mention it as adding to the no trade clause. But that's.. completely irrelevant. It's just another option. I'm not saying that players can reject any trade, only if the owner chooses to give him this clause. Just like if the owner chooses to give a no trade clause, then he can't be traded at all. I'm really at a loss to the trouble people are having with comprehension here... I'd like to, but don't know how to explain it more clearly.

It's just pointless. If a player doesn't want to be traded, ask for a no trade clause. Otherwise, it's just a way for players to interfere with team operations. Maybe when fame gets implemented the absolute superstars should have this option, but failing that, I don't see any need for this.

....WHAT? Seriously, that makes no sense.

Okay, so the player doesn't want to be able to be screwed over and dumped for cash at any moment, ruining his next, say, 2 seasons. He could sign a no-trade clause to solve this.

But what if he's also a decent guy who is willing to move to help the team, just not to ANY team in existence? So he'd be willing to move but wants some say in where he goes. Lots of owners give this anyway which is great, but it can't actually be guaranteed. With this it could. If the player agrees the owner can trade him but otherwise he can't be traded. There's no reason for aplayer to have to stay somewhere if the owner wants to move him and the player wants to move...

I can't fathom how you think the player could "interfere with team operations." It interferes less than a no-trade clause, certainly. It's not like the player can offer his own trades, for him it is just like any other contract. And for the owner it's just like a no-trade clause unless the player gives his blessing and then there's a way for them to work together.

Exploits, ami right?

Originally posted by SwagOnLock
It's just pointless. If a player doesn't want to be traded, ask for a no trade clause. Otherwise, it's just a way for players to interfere with team operations. Maybe when fame gets implemented the absolute superstars should have this option, but failing that, I don't see any need for this.

how does a player trade approval clause give them more power than no-trade?

Its a reasonable middle ground. Offer three types of contracts - no trade (now available), trades allowed (now available) and trade with approval. It gives everyone more flexibility than the two options available now.

It should be the default for a no-trade. One of my teams signed me with a no trade this season (that I didn't ask for), and frankly, I'd prefer to have the option to ask for a trade later on. While I could ask for a new contract then, it'd also have to give me a raise, and the new team may not want to pay me the increased rate.

No.

If I want to get rid of a problem agent, and they just want to fuck me over, they can simply reject the trade, and now I'm stuck with him until the contract runs out.

This idea is shit.

http://smouch.net/lol

Originally posted by turnerhero
No.

If I want to get rid of a problem agent, and they just want to fuck me over, they can simply reject the trade, and now I'm stuck with him until the contract runs out.

This idea is shit.

So don't sign them to that type of contract in the first place. Agents can already choose to just sign no-trade contracts.

The opposition to this frankly makes no sense, when its a middle ground between two current extremes.

Although maybe this makes me understand American politics better.

Originally posted by tHeGiVeR
http://smouch.net/lol

BAN IMO

Originally posted by tHeGiVeR
http://smouch.net/lol

1st- That's the 1st time I got Rick Roll'd.

2nd- Ban forever.

Originally posted by turnerhero
No.

If I want to get rid of a problem agent, and they just want to fuck me over, they can simply reject the trade, and now I'm stuck with him until the contract runs out.

This idea is shit.

Oh.. my ... god. Why are people so incapable of understanding a simple concept?

NO YOU ARENT. you can still cut him just as you could if he had a no-trade clause.

Originally posted by OttawaShane
Originally posted by turnerhero

No.

If I want to get rid of a problem agent, and they just want to fuck me over, they can simply reject the trade, and now I'm stuck with him until the contract runs out.

This idea is shit.

So don't sign them to that type of contract in the first place. Agents can already choose to just sign no-trade contracts.

The opposition to this frankly makes no sense, when its a middle ground between two current extremes.

Although maybe this makes me understand American politics better.

I <3 you.

Both for the first part and the last sentence. I fucking hate our two-party system. Just polarizes everything so moderate (which is usually right) can't win.

/political science major

aksopck ciisisii

Would be nice if this was in before the off-season. No point in making a new thread when this is still here.

Originally posted by SwagOnLock
It's just pointless. If a player doesn't want to be traded, ask for a no trade clause. Otherwise, it's just a way for players to interfere with team operations. Maybe when fame gets implemented the absolute superstars should have this option, but failing that, I don't see any need for this.

different circumstance can arise after player/owner agree to such a contract. With this in place you could make both parties happy when they are in the midst of a no trade contract. It would actually give owners a better way out and be able to get something in return for a player with a no trade contract. Otherwise, you would only be able to
A: Bench the player
B: Release the player
when they are in a no trade contract. I can't really see what the big deal is with the opposition here. It is essentially the same contract only with a "safety valve" included into it.