EXV: 2017 / 2018 Trade Discussion thread

[Hellopplz]

In positive news the discussion is in the right thread.

You had power to move the other posts you know :P.

[Ziplock]

To put in my 2 cents- I don't think the above situation should have occurred, purely because it sets a bad and potentially dangerous precedent.

However- if the only trade were additions to Attos list I can see why it might have been over looked to consult him. To give a hypothetical scenario.

Team A offers: Player X
Team B offers: Player Y
*Team A accepts, Team B accepts*
*The trade is being judge as uneven to Team As advantage and is altered*
*Team A is consulted, Team B is not*

Team A offers: Player X + Pick 1
Team B offers: Player Y

The original trade that Team B agreed to actually still stands- you can split the trade into two components, player X for player Y and pick 1 for nothing.

That being said, Spinks original modification to the trade did specify 'Atto to confirm', which he didn't. On the basis that it was recognised the other coach needed to accept it and that this didn't occur I don't think it's unreasonable that the trade is reversed.

TL;DR, if it hadn't been acknowledged the other coach needed to accept the trade to make it legal, I would have thought that the trade should stand as the initial agree to component of it was still there with no detriment to the side complaining. But since it was indicated the trade still needed verification and that wasnt provided, I think it should be reversed.

Anywaaaay. Too many cocktails :P

[JBs-Hawks]

Hopper is a spud anyway!

[Holz]

To put in my 2 cents- I don't think the above situation should have occurred, purely because it sets a bad and potentially dangerous precedent.

However- if the only trade were additions to Attos list I can see why it might have been over looked to consult him. To give a hypothetical scenario.

Team A offers: Player X
Team B offers: Player Y
*Team A accepts, Team B accepts*
*The trade is being judge as uneven to Team As advantage and is altered*
*Team A is consulted, Team B is not*

Team A offers: Player X + Pick 1
Team B offers: Player Y

The original trade that Team B agreed to actually still stands- you can split the trade into two components, player X for player Y and pick 1 for nothing.

That being said, Spinks original modification to the trade did specify 'Atto to confirm', which he didn't. On the basis that it was recognised the other coach needed to accept it and that this didn't occur I don't think it's unreasonable that the trade is reversed.

TL;DR, if it hadn't been acknowledged the other coach needed to accept the trade to make it legal, I would have thought that the trade should stand as the initial agree to component of it was still there with no detriment to the side complaining. But since it was indicated the trade still needed verification and that wasnt provided, I think it should be reversed.

Anywaaaay. Too many cocktails :P

That is the procedure exactly zip and the reasoning. If the player swap was agreed to by team B then by default they will also accept player B + pick.

This has been done numerous times. Of course if team B needs to change or add something. Or if player a changes or removes something then player B needs to be consulted.

In terms of spinking you are right he didnt have to say atto ro confirm.

I will speak to both to get a good resolution.

[nostradamus]

Well some entertaining reading upon my return home  :)

Was out playing 8ball and a good night it was, l won the Sunraysia Singles Championship  8)

Anyway, l'll add my 2 cents worth in point form

1. Trade posted/confirmed
2. Trade rejected in current form.
3. Suggested to renegotiate and add picks.
4. Picks added, trade approved, but without Atto's input/confirmation.
5. Atto objects, outlining his reasoning.

In my opinion the final approval is invalid because Atto was involved in no way. So it is then back to being being rejected in the initial form and a suggestion to renegotiate. Atto is free to choose whether he does or doesn't.

[elephants]

Just off to polish my shotgun in preperation for the next coach to ignore my PM :P

[nostradamus]

Just off to polish my shotgun in preperation for the next coach to ignore my PM :P

l'll ignore one if you want  ::)

[JBs-Hawks]

Let's bring in trade voting

[nostradamus]

Let's bring in trade voting

please no lol

.......this is just a healthy debate, no need for ground breaking change

[GoLions]

Let's bring in trade voting

please no lol

.......this is just a healthy debate, no need for ground breaking change

Probably easier to just not approve trades that haven't been confirmed by all parties involved tbh :p

[nostradamus]

Let's bring in trade voting

please no lol

.......this is just a healthy debate, no need for ground breaking change

Probably easier to just not approve trades that haven't been confirmed by all parties involved tbh :p

ummmmm yes

[Rids]

Also easier to just let the coaches involved negotiate the additional picks/players to be involved. No-one else should be able to dictate what your team requires eg: an additional pick vs a better pick provided. No good getting an additional pick if you are not using it.

I would be very annoyed if I was not involved in this.

[Holz]

Also easier to just let the coaches involved negotiate the additional picks/players to be involved. No-one else should be able to dictate what your team requires eg: an additional pick vs a better pick provided. No good getting an additional pick if you are not using it.

I would be very annoyed if I was not involved in this.

Both coaches agreed to a straight swap. Isn't the issue making sure that it is deemed a fair trade in the approval process. Essentially the way it comes down to is if you agree to Player X and then get offered Player X + Pick Y. You cant then go i dont agree to that deal. There are only a few possible reasons why you would.

1. Another coach has offered you a better deal which is a huge no no.
2. The fact you get told you are losing makes you rethink your value of the players. Not a valid reason
3. You have done more research into the players post trade - not a valid reason as should have been done before.
4. Someone gets injured, plays a good or bad game, player movements in the players team all post confirmation - this is not valid as the trade is looked at at the point of confirmation.

I can involve the other player now which is what people want, but under no circumstances can you say im backing out of this deal. There is only one way a deal can go down and that is the perceived winning trader does not add enough to make the trade valid. Both teams most confirm if the winning player removes or change a asset, or if the losing player has to add or change a asset.


Essentially it comes down to this.

If both teams agree that

Team A gives 
Team B gives Y

and they agree X = Y

then if it turns into X + Z for Y then I will involve Team B in the negotiations but Team B is not in a position to say i dont confirm receiving X + Z as they have already confirmed to receiving X. That is exactly the same as confirming a trade and then 1 day later changing your mind before it goes to vote and pulling out. That precedence is not being set. Once a deal is confirmed it is confirmed.

As i said i will send a message to both parties.

[Rids]

Also easier to just let the coaches involved negotiate the additional picks/players to be involved. No-one else should be able to dictate what your team requires eg: an additional pick vs a better pick provided. No good getting an additional pick if you are not using it.

I would be very annoyed if I was not involved in this.

Both coaches agreed to a straight swap. Isn't the issue making sure that it is deemed a fair trade in the approval process. Essentially the way it comes down to is if you agree to Player X and then get offered Player X + Pick Y. You cant then go i dont agree to that deal. There are only a few possible reasons why you would.

1. Another coach has offered you a better deal which is a huge no no.
2. The fact you get told you are losing makes you rethink your value of the players. Not a valid reason
3. You have done more research into the players post trade - not a valid reason as should have been done before.
4. Someone gets injured, plays a good or bad game, player movements in the players team all post confirmation - this is not valid as the trade is looked at at the point of confirmation.

I can involve the other player now which is what people want, but under no circumstances can you say im backing out of this deal. There is only one way a deal can go down and that is the perceived winning trader does not add enough to make the trade valid. Both teams most confirm if the winning player removes or change a asset, or if the losing player has to add or change a asset.


Essentially it comes down to this.

If both teams agree that

Team A gives 
Team B gives Y

and they agree X = Y

then if it turns into X + Z for Y then I will involve Team B in the negotiations but Team B is not in a position to say i dont confirm receiving X + Z as they have already confirmed to receiving X. That is exactly the same as confirming a trade and then 1 day later changing your mind before it goes to vote and pulling out. That precedence is not being set. Once a deal is confirmed it is confirmed.

As i said i will send a message to both parties.

No. The issue as I see it is that when a trade becomes 'rejected' it then needs to be re-visited by both coaches. Not one coach and the admin. This is not appropriate as neither of these people should have the final say on what and in what direction the other team should take.

The coaches should then deem what additional picks/players are required for the trade to be passed. Whether that is giving a better player or pick. But the important thing is that BOTH coaches are involved in this process and BOTH coaches agree and confirm the trade.

Why have grey when there is no need for it? Make it simple. Rejected means the 2 coaches further discuss and hopefully come to an agreement. If not then the trade remains rejected. If they do then it gets confirmed by both and passed.

[Rids]

As for this part of your comment:

Both coaches agreed to a straight swap. Isn't the issue making sure that it is deemed a fair trade in the approval process. Essentially the way it comes down to is if you agree to Player X and then get offered Player X + Pick Y. You cant then go i dont agree to that deal. There are only a few possible reasons why you would.

1. Another coach has offered you a better deal which is a huge no no.
2. The fact you get told you are losing makes you rethink your value of the players. Not a valid reason
3. You have done more research into the players post trade - not a valid reason as should have been done before.
4. Someone gets injured, plays a good or bad game, player movements in the players team all post confirmation - this is not valid as the trade is looked at at the point of confirmation.


I don't see any of the points being valid in this scenario. The fact of the matter is a coach had agreed to a trade in the first instance then it was rejected. Then this coach had no input into what additional picks or players would need to be added and then to compound the issue even more, the coach did not sign off of the renegotiated trade. This is just wrong and if I was the coach involved I would be very annoyed at this situation.

Maybe the coach didn't want to use another rookie pick. Maybe the coach wanted a better nat pick instead of the rook pick that was added. Maybe the coach agreed with the rejection and decided that they had originally underestimated the 'market value' of the player/s involved and has decided to use a player with 'less value' in the direct swap. These are decisions that the coach should make. Not the admin.