Warrior General Games

Exactly.

I think the majority- if not totality- of the opposition comes from people who don't actually understand the suggestion.

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.

Then don't offer such a clause in a contract.

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.


+10

Frankly if a player has a no trade clause but wants to be traded most reasonable owners will re-sign them to another contract and trade them. The unreasonable owners won't and this isn't going to really change anything for them.

I think this idea would give a little flexibilty to both parties. It would provide the agent with the no-trade clause the same security, however with the player option to bolt. In the end, the agent has to agree to it so they would not see any difference other than an out for them if they wanted. As an owner of GM, it would be beneficial. When an agent with a no-trade clause wants out, the only option is to renegotiate correct? While doing so the agents salary automatically goes up in accordance with his new level. i.e. A Level 13 signs a no trade contract for 3 years at 60k at beginning of the season. Boosts three times during season. By trade deadline decided he wants to take his now level 18/19 player elsewhere. Being the good owner that you are, you agree and renegotiate his contract in order to trade him off to another team. The level 18 player signed for 3 seasons at 60K/year is now a level 18 with a minimum contract for 95-100K a season. As the GM/owner looking to take the player to his team, this trade becomes less enticing.

This idea does not affect the agent in any negative manner and if anything broadens his options when/if he requests to be traded as more teams will have interest in the smaller contract, thus allowing more teams for him to choose from.

I believe it is a great idea.

Originally posted by rbedgood
Frankly if a player has a no trade clause but wants to be traded most reasonable owners will re-sign them to another contract and trade them. The unreasonable owners won't and this isn't going to really change anything for them.

*sigh*

That isn't the issue. A player wants to be traded, but not give the owner carte blanche to trade him wherever he wants. The player doesn't want to be re-signed and traded because the owner might trade him somewhere awful for the best value rather than the friend's team the player said he wants to go to.

i like the idea, but if an owner really needed to get rid of someone for whatever reasonn, the person could not ant to leae and deny all offer. But its good

Originally posted by Boltzpride21
i like the idea, but if an owner really needed to get rid of someone for whatever reasonn, the person could not ant to leae and deny all offer.

....In which case the owner could cut him.

Originally posted by Boltzpride21
i like the idea, but if an owner really needed to get rid of someone for whatever reasonn, the person could not ant to leae and deny all offer. But its good

In which case, you still have a chance to get rid of him. he is denying offers but you can still trade him if you find a team he agrees with.
As of now, you are stuck with that player with no hopes of getting anything in return.

There is a reason why the owner is the owner and the agent is the agent. When signed, you take a chance. You become a slave of the team, they do whatever the hell they want with you. You're traded to a bad team, man it out and leave after the contract is over. If you signed a long contract, too bad, so sad. If you don't want to be traded, accept a no-trade clause. If you're OK with being traded but not to a bad team, hopefully your owner will understand, and will not trade you there. If you deserve it, what else can be said. If you were a goodie-goodie but the owner is an ass, look at my response to signing long contracts.

Originally posted by Wrian Bestbrook
There is a reason why the owner is the owner and the agent is the agent. When signed, you take a chance. You become a slave of the team, they do whatever the hell they want with you. You're traded to a bad team, man it out and leave after the contract is over. If you signed a long contract, too bad, so sad. If you don't want to be traded, accept a no-trade clause. If you're OK with being traded but not to a bad team, hopefully your owner will understand, and will not trade you there. If you deserve it, what else can be said. If you were a goodie-goodie but the owner is an ass, look at my response to signing long contracts.

You might have a point if no-trade clauses didn't already exist.

So... No one has simultaneously disagreed and displayed understanding of the idea.... epic imo.

It's the way no-trade clauses work in actual sports. Why not do it here?

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
.... epic imo.

+1

epic iyo