(05-20-2019 07:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This seems to have bogged down in complexities.

Why allow any 3rd parties to veto a trade? If two commishes agree on a trade, that's their business.

Imagine if the Bucks and Celtics wanted to do a trade but the Lakers could veto it?

Because the NBA has a commissioner that can squash a trade if he thinks it isn't up to snuff (think David Stern shutting down the Chris Paul to the Lakers deal a few years ago). Plus the owners are stakeholders and aren't going to pull off ridiculous and untenable trades for the lulz.

The point of an exercise like this is you still have to work within reasonable parameters. Clearing out a conference when you're just funning around kind of defeats the purpose.

-- The NBA commissioner could only squash that trade because, at the time, the NBA was running the New Orleans franchise, so "owner" Stern KO'd the trade made by his "underling" the New Orleans GM.

-- This exercise is like a fantasy football or baseball league, where the rules usually provide that a commissioner or a vote of the other team owners can block a trade that is so ridiculously unbalanced that it's probably the result of collusion between the two trading teams. Something like an NBA fantasy owner trading Giannis for three guys who will never make it out of the G-League.