Jazz/Blazers**Fixed**

[NBL President]

Blazers send: PG Marcus Williams, PG Petteri Koponen

Jazz send: Hawks 2011 RD1 pick, PG Jamar Butler and future draft considerations

Blazers confirm, I think the Hawks pick will be non-lotto for sure, and depending how the Jazz improve, that one is up in the air.

[jazz]

agreed.

[nets]

For everyone's understanding of the rules can you explain how this works regarding the draft picks?

In the initial trade the problem was Utah had traded consecutive 1st rounders (2010 for Bosh and 2011 in this deal) which is not allowed. Now they have traded their consideration of a 1st rounder in 2011 but it is "unprotected" and this seems to be allowed.

How is this different then the original deal as it looks like a nice loop hole others may want to use.

[NBL President]

It has been done before (Kings/Mavs) deal. Yes, it's a loophole, but it means the pick traded doesn't go through until after the season. Teams do it all the time to get around this rule, and they use the "future pick" wording with stipulations to not have to define the exact pick they are trading at the time.

Basically, after the 2010 draft, Utah's pick will be passed, therefore 2011 won't be a consecutive pick...the NBA allows this as long as you define the terms of the "future considerations." That is where a few of the ones already listed on there come from, those are exact matches to real trades that were agreed upon and slated to go through in the future. Ours was simple, because there are no terms, only that I get Utah's 2011 RD1 after the season no matter where it might end up...

Now, if we wanted to make a rule against doing this, that could be voted on, something like Brad has in PSBL where he doesn't allow "future considerations" to hold water if the picks are listed on the page (he goes 4 years at a time). However, we let this go in season one...so it would be nothing new.

[nets]

Thanks for the clarification.

As this seems completely stupid we should either make a rule that you can trade consecutive picks or that you can't under any conditions.

This method where you can't but you can if you call it a "future consideration" just seems to create administrative work.

[NBL President]

Well, from the beginning, we thought it was a dumb rule. However, we run our league rules pretty much based on what the game allows you to do. Our rule is basically a way to outsmart the game...

And when it says you can't trade picks in back to back years, it literally means the game doesn't let you submit it in the game. So, our way around it is to trade 1 pick, and just put the 2nd part of the trade (the future considerations) in at a later time.

I see no reason to change, neither of us mind having this type of system, and if it gets deals done, then fine...if people are against that, we can put it to a vote.

[nets]

My complaint if you can call it that is while some know how to outsmart the game others (like me) are reading the NBA rules and following them.

If we aren't going to have an official rules page then rules like these need to be clearly spelled out somewhere and not on a board thread.

Maybe I am in the minority but I did not know that we could disregard the rule of trading back to back picks so I have never offered in a trade.

I am all for outsmarting the game but these exceptions to real life rules should be clearly made evident to everyone.

[cobrafitz]

I would agree. I think the President and Commish are pretty approachable about this stuff, but it's not something I would even think to ask about.

[CHANGEME]

I guess what he's saying is the way we're doing it is exactly how it's done in the NBA...it's not an exception?

[NBL President]

I really don't intend to take advantage of the system here, but I'm also not going to lay out everything that can be done in leagues, that is some of for what the GM's can decide for themselves. I don't have a ton of experience with this game, either does Jeff, we started playing it about 6 months ago...but like I have said to many others, feel free to PM, IM or email me...I want everyone to be aware of their options. Most of you know me from PSBL or other NBA leagues...just ask.

[nets]

Didn't mean to imply that you are deviously going around rules.

My point was that, one may not have known about this technicality and therefore trading with a different mind set.

I am not sure what kind of questions one would ask.

I mean, is there any way around the salary cap because I am a bit over and would explore all options?

Some of this is just GMs getting experience but I think it would be useful to start a rules page with atleast the difficult rules spelled out a bit.

[NBL President]

I will talk to Jeff about that, I do agree we should get a rules section somewhere on the forum and/or webpage.

As for a lot of the other stuff, I realize it can be complicated, and I am by no means an expert. I just want to encourage everyone to come to me or someone else who might know and see if we can answer a question. I assume a lot of things that may not be clear, and love to talk to people through questions they have.

I may have been a little casual about this one only because we covered it 2 years ago when Brad had the same issue in his deal with the Mavericks. However, I assumed everyone remembered that, and that is my fault.

[CHANGEME]

As Commish of an NBA league, I burned myself out trying to teach everyone everything...I posted a link early on to try and help owners self-educate themselves...

I know for myself, I'll never be under the salary cap.

[dajason]

In my humble opinion... the rule is there in the NBA for a reason... to protect stupid GMs from ruining their future. Seems to me the same should be applied to this league. Loop holes will only hurt this league longterm.

[NBL Commish]

Alright im gonna lock this now. At the end of the day, we need a rules page. Something me and Scott know we need to do just havnt sat down and done it yet. I will get one posted before the start of this next nbl season. If anyone has any more questions about this rule please ask me or Scott.