[REJECTED] RP Trading

[Joe]

I voted for Joe. I really want to believe that he’s a Faithful, but the evidence just keeps piling up. Joe, you were acting very sus during the last round table. I’m so sorry, I hope I’m wrong

I had some bad sushi the night before and was fighting the hotsnakes the entire meeting

[Jesse]

This isn’t remotely confrontational and want to make sure it’s not taken as such, I’m just trying to get a better understanding of where you’re coming from on this before voting.

Is this mainly just an issue based on the timing of something happening or an actual larger problem? I feel like if it’s just the timing aspect, it’ll just end up like IRL NBA free agency where things get agreed to then trades drop right after TC than being posted before. Not sure that actually changes anything here.

If this were a pre-deadline or something I can see that being a big issue. Just trying to get a better feel for what you hope to achieve here.

For sure. To be clear, this "proposal" isn't even a rule change. It's just about clarifying a rule that already exists and letting everyone know the rule will be enforced. It's my fault for being so lax on enforcing it.

Every team is allowed to trade 1500 RPs per "cap season," which starts and ends right after TC is run.

Just as we shouldn't allow "owed" picks to formally be traded, we shouldn't allow "iou" RPs, either.

There is also a slippery slope part of this where if you tacitly allow teams to agree to and formalize post-tc deals with RPs that are not eligible to be dealt, what is to stop teams from extending this time horizon and dealing RPs even farther down the line in "future deals" ?

Take the Whitmore or Liam Robbins deal. SEA already traded 1500 RPs this year. The cap is supposed to put an end to a GM leveraging his buying power in a given season. It did not. SEA still then used 1500 more "future" RPs - this season, after his RPs were exhausted - to trade for a player (Robbins/Whitmore) and acquire an additional asset. Yet the trade partner isn't even allowed to use those RPs in camps for those players in this cap season.

Of course, there is no way to legislate what teams can/can't do behind the scenes. Even though tampering exists in the NBA, it's still worth having a formal time for FA to begin. If a GM is intent on making handshake moves, there is no stopping that no matter what the rules say. So sure, I don't expect this to stop teams from saying "i'll send you 1K RPs for this dude after TC is run" but I don't want deals posted that clearly break da rulez. And maybe it will give GMs pause about making i owe you / future deals, since deals aren't binding until they are posted and agreed to. What if one of those guys goes nuts in TC?

Again, this isn't a rule change. Just an acknowledgment that i have done a bad job enforcing a rule that has existed and hopefully it's cool with the league that we enforce it now.

[bobby]

I voted for Joe. I really want to believe that he’s a Faithful, but the evidence just keeps piling up. Joe, you were acting very sus during the last round table. I’m so sorry, I hope I’m wrong

dog i fucking love this show so much. please vote danielle out!!!!

[pacers]

Initiative rejected as it was not passed by the end of the 24-25 season.

[Merv]

Initiative rejected as it was not passed by the end of the 24-25 season.

This failed despite having 80.9% of the vote?! I think expecting 29 votes is frankly unrealistic. This makes no sense to have not passed with over 2/3 of the league voting and heavily in favor at that

[pacers]

Initiative rejected as it was not passed by the end of the 24-25 season.

This failed despite having 80.9% of the vote?! I think expecting 29 votes is frankly unrealistic. This makes no sense to have not passed with over 2/3 of the league voting and heavily in favor at that

The supermajority bar is 20 Yes votes - not a percentage of the vote, or 29 votes. We designed it this way on purpose so that the bar for change is high. Personally, I do not think that 20 Yes votes over 3 seasons of voting is too high of a bar given league engagement expectations.

If we want to lower the threshold, we absolutely can - it just needs to pass within the current rules framework (that is, it has to have 20 Yes votes).

[Jesse]

I had already started enforcing this lol. I frankly shouldn't have even put this to a vote, and instead posted an announcement/clarification like i did for tampering, because this isn't technically a new rule, just the closing of a loophole that was being abused.

IMO this section of our original rules covers teams trading RPs they do not have:
"Don't be sketchy. We may not have spelled out every single rule or situation that could potentially arise. Have some common sense and don't step over the line. The commish has full discretion to penalize your team if you do sketchy/shady stuff that may not be explicitly mentioned in the league rules."

[Jesse]

The proposal itself is actually an acknowledgment that his rule already existed, it was just being abused:

Proposal: Prevent "future" RPs from being traded before the time horizon in which they are allowed to be moved.