|
|
Post by Penguins23® on May 22, 2015 8:46:13 GMT -4
Do I have to point out terrible trades every off-season?
To Fredericton Vipers:
F Nicolas Aube-Kubel (VDO) - 19
To Dalhousie Moosehead Rangers:
Fifth Round Draft Choice (FRE 2015)
At least put in some fuckin effort to make the trades look decent. My god.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Banker on May 22, 2015 11:40:29 GMT -4
I agree. I missed this one at the deadline. Maybe all futures deals need to involve first- or second- round picks only as placeholders. As a whole deal it's less lop-sided, but I do want each part to stand up on its own
|
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on May 27, 2015 10:39:31 GMT -4
if they are just place holder picks, it really doesn't matter what they are......this would have been part of another deal and as long as it all looked good when tied together, why should it matter?
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on May 27, 2015 11:08:26 GMT -4
if they are just place holder picks, it really doesn't matter what they are......this would have been part of another deal and as long as it all looked good when tied together, why should it matter? Because every year Beaver states that each transaction should be able to stand alone but people ignore it. The league has always stood by the principle that in any trade involving future considerations, each segment of the trade must be near even. A star player dealt for a fifth round pick, to be flipped back at the draft goes against the spirit of the way a trade should work. It also opens you up to unscrupulous practices from other GMs. Future considerations deals can be reported to the league if desired, but do not become official until both parties report the trade as complete. I A star player for a 5th round pick. Exactly like Beaver stated back in 2013. This pool is more corrupt than FIFA. |
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on May 27, 2015 11:09:42 GMT -4
I agree. I missed this one at the deadline. Maybe all futures deals need to involve first- or second- round picks only as placeholders. As a whole deal it's less lop-sided, but I do want each part to stand up on its own We could always bring in a majority veto for trades like these, where the futures get vetoed because they don't hold up. Have the vote triggered by two complaints maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on May 27, 2015 11:10:46 GMT -4
if they are just place holder picks, it really doesn't matter what they are......this would have been part of another deal and as long as it all looked good when tied together, why should it matter? Because it has been pointed out multiple times that you have to be able to make your futures stand on their own (ie cannot empty the cupboards AND acquire star futures) |
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on May 27, 2015 12:11:47 GMT -4
There are more than a few trades that do not stand on their on if you really want to start looking. For instance: July 22, 2013 To Allardville Miners: Fourth Round Draft Choice (DOR 2013) (80) To Dochester Convicts: Second Round Draft Choice (QUI 2013) (32) Third Round Draft Choice (ALL 2013) (50) That in no way shape or form stands on its own. Both of the picks Dorchester received are higher picks than the one Allardville received. If you are going to have teams vote on trades that is going to make the league a lot more work to run in my opinion because you would have to have a majority to veto a move. If two people want to complain about a trade (indicating that it is a big problem), why not have it trigger a vote. Personally, I could forgive the one above (because while it is lopsided, you see trades like that in the Q). I would agree to a veto of anything that is a star for a 5th though. This prevents BB from having to keep track of all the futures and evaluate them all. |
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on May 27, 2015 12:28:00 GMT -4
Then maybe we need an official vote on futures?
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on May 27, 2015 12:44:47 GMT -4
There are more than a few trades that do not stand on their on if you really want to start looking. For instance: July 22, 2013 To Allardville Miners: Fourth Round Draft Choice (DOR 2013) (80) To Dochester Convicts: Second Round Draft Choice (QUI 2013) (32) Third Round Draft Choice (ALL 2013) (50) That in no way shape or form stands on its own. Both of the picks Dorchester received are higher picks than the one Allardville received. If you are going to have teams vote on trades that is going to make the league a lot more work to run in my opinion because you would have to have a majority to veto a move. I agree 100% with you. I still have the PM conversation between me, Don Draper and the Commish regarding this. He deemed it legal. I agree with you that it shouldn't have happened but I played by the rules at that time. We live and learn though and my opinion is the rules need to be amended to try and prevent as much sketchyness as possible. For that trade for example, who's to say Dorchester didn't buy me a beer or two to even out that trade? You'll never know... |
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Banker on May 27, 2015 15:02:38 GMT -4
You can't ban futures. I can't know whether you agreed to a deal today or six months ago. It's impossible to police.
The only solution I see is if a player is being dealt for picks only, at least one pick returning must be at least a second rounder. Then only picks in the first two rounds can effectively be used as placeholders.
The other option is to forgo the illusion, and announce both parts at once.
Ideally, people will be reasonable and not abuse the value of lower picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on May 27, 2015 16:15:00 GMT -4
You can't ban futures. I can't know whether you agreed to a deal today or six months ago. It's impossible to police. The only solution I see is if a player is being dealt for picks only, at least one pick returning must be at least a second rounder. Then only picks in the first two rounds can effectively be used as placeholders. The other option is to forgo the illusion, and announce both parts at once. Ideally, people will be reasonable and not abuse the value of lower picks. We could ban futures in spirit...we could make the two trades happen individually without being able to make the commissioner aware of the intention to complete a 2nd half to the trade, so that the commissioner can veto any "secondary" deal if it is lopsided. |
|
|
|
Post by johnstrow on May 28, 2015 7:05:46 GMT -4
You can't ban futures. I can't know whether you agreed to a deal today or six months ago. It's impossible to police. The only solution I see is if a player is being dealt for picks only, at least one pick returning must be at least a second rounder. Then only picks in the first two rounds can effectively be used as placeholders. The other option is to forgo the illusion, and announce both parts at once. Ideally, people will be reasonable and not abuse the value of lower picks. Other then leaving it the way it is and using common sense, I think this is the only way to do it. All this veto stuff shouldn't even be discussed. We can (should) all use common sense to see if a deal will stand on its on. We don't need anything that makes more work for BB, or slows down the processing of trades. my 2 cents |
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on May 28, 2015 9:40:17 GMT -4
if the future was just a completion of a former deal, there should be no worries about it anyway.
If I traded
Clapperton, Drouin for 2 1st, 2nd, 5th, and Garland, but wanted to keep the 2 players for a run and have them go later....what is the big deal if it's a 2nd and 5th coming back for Clapperton and Drouin.....it's all really part of a bigger deal that included 2 1st and Garland, so not sure why you guys get so worked up about it. the only difference between a regular trade and a future is when the players change teams, so not a big deal at all. If it was a stand alone trade that had nothing to do with a future, then yeah you might have a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by catnut on May 28, 2015 9:48:10 GMT -4
if the future was just a completion of a former deal, there should be no worries about it anyway. If I traded Clapperton, Drouin for 2 1st, 2nd, 5th, and Garland, but wanted to keep the 2 players for a run and have them go later....what is the big deal if it's a 2nd and 5th coming back for Clapperton and Drouin.....it's all really part of a bigger deal that included 2 1st and Garland, so not sure why you guys get so worked up about it. the only difference between a regular trade and a future is when the players change teams, so not a big deal at all. If it was a stand alone trade that had nothing to do with a future, then yeah you might have a point. Then the 2 1sts could be traded for other players, which goes against principles of fairness. Future deals should be considered as a separate deal. Having them as separate deals protects parties. Let's say McKinnon is promised as a future but suffers a career ending injury in the playoffs, the second part can be cancelled. |
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on May 28, 2015 10:01:11 GMT -4
if the future was just a completion of a former deal, there should be no worries about it anyway. If I traded Clapperton, Drouin for 2 1st, 2nd, 5th, and Garland, but wanted to keep the 2 players for a run and have them go later....what is the big deal if it's a 2nd and 5th coming back for Clapperton and Drouin.....it's all really part of a bigger deal that included 2 1st and Garland, so not sure why you guys get so worked up about it. the only difference between a regular trade and a future is when the players change teams, so not a big deal at all. If it was a stand alone trade that had nothing to do with a future, then yeah you might have a point. Then the 2 1sts could be traded for other players, which goes against principles of fairness. Future deals should be considered as a separate deal. Having them as separate deals protects parties. Let's say McKinnon is promised as a future but suffers a career ending injury in the playoffs, the second part can be cancelled. I've named all my futures in the original deals, when sending them to the commish originally......if everyone did that, and had to stick with it, there shouldn't be a problem. |
|
