|
|
Post by David - Cleveland on Jul 23, 2017 13:19:02 GMT -8
Have to admit, I am not a fan of this. Too many things are left up in the air and I would rather, as Commissioner, have something traded for something else in all cases.
But I will bow to the wishes of the majority of the GM's in ABL.
Could be easiest poll of all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nigel_Vancouver on Jul 23, 2017 13:47:26 GMT -8
Never thought about a trade that had a PTBNL. Seems too much open to bad things happening
|
|
|
|
Post by samtigers on Jul 23, 2017 16:15:57 GMT -8
I voted for no PTBNL. I agree, an injury to the planned player or a disagreement later on who should be included isn't worth the option.
|
|
|
|
Post by kendalld00redsox on Jul 23, 2017 17:48:14 GMT -8
Only way I like a PTBNL is if you were trading for a player just drafted and wanted to offer a team that is trying to push for the playoffs.. This help the playoff team and you get rewarded with the PTBNL last the season.. Otherwise PTBNL is just a headache for the Commish to have to look up the achieved trade and then have to move the player to other team..
|
|
|
|
Post by johnw- ATL on Jul 23, 2017 20:46:00 GMT -8
Here is the truth with PTBNL. If PTBNL was not allowed, and i was involved in a trade agreement which contained a PTBNL, i would just not say anything, and if I trusted the GM, i would make the deal.
It's all about trust. The league should have 0 part in PTBNL, but if 2 GM's are willing, i have no issue with it. Nothing though is binding!
|
|
|
|
Post by David - Cleveland on Jul 29, 2017 13:43:00 GMT -8
Commissioner's Decision - No PTBNL allowed in trades!
|
|
