|
Post by J4M13 on May 28, 2015 13:19:51 GMT -4
I put a lot of effort into talks regarding future deals, trying to keep within the spirit of the rules. I've had at least 1 trade fall apart because we couldn't get the second part to make sense.
For that reason, trades like Aube-Kubel for a 5th make me upset. That trade needs to be vetoed.
|
|
|
Post by chootoi on May 28, 2015 14:33:01 GMT -4
I'm a little ignorant on this since I only came into the pool recently, but is there a particular reason why we can only trade picks from the next draft? Seems like it would be a whole lot easier to include futures if you could trade future picks beyond the current season. Not 10 years ahead or anything, but something reasonable.
Is it because of the time or effort involved in keeping up to date on this or is there another reason? I would be willing to help out if that was the case.
|
|
|
Post by J4M13 on May 28, 2015 15:17:57 GMT -4
I put a lot of effort into talks regarding future deals, trying to keep within the spirit of the rules. I've had at least 1 trade fall apart because we couldn't get the second part to make sense. For that reason, trades like Aube-Kubel for a 5th make me upset. That trade needs to be vetoed. You can't veto things after the fact. To suggest doing so is just ridiculous. The trade was approved when it was first done and the futures were included at that point. Get over it. I'm over it. I was just stating my opinion. I didn't expect anything to come of it, It's just my way of pointing out that I expected better from fellow owners. Congrats, you acted unethically and came out ahead. I hope you win.
|
|
|
Post by J4M13 on May 28, 2015 16:29:25 GMT -4
I'm over it. I was just stating my opinion. I didn't expect anything to come of it, It's just my way of pointing out that I expected better from fellow owners. Congrats, you acted unethically and came out ahead. I hope you win. Unethically? You need to get over yourself. I agreed to a trade and you would have done the exact same thing. There are a bunch of trades that have been made that have futures attached to them that clearly do not stand by themselves. If you can't see that it is your problem. I can tell you 100% that I did not do the same thing when the opportunity arose. Nor did I ask another person to do it when negotiating in the past, and it would have benefited me. You knew the rule and the spirit of the rule, and chose to make a trade that was against the intention. Maybe unethical was a harsher than required, but I'll stand by it. Like I said, I'm over it. Congrats, and I hope you win.
|
|
|
Post by WildcatMapleLeafs on May 28, 2015 17:10:38 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. Just so everyone sees the full picture.. The entire trade is Adam Erne 5th 2015 for 1st 2015 (one of the last picks in the round) Aube-Kubel Erne ended up being my top point getter in the playoffs and was named MVP so it's not that lopsided. You have to give to get...
|
|
|
Post by WildcatMapleLeafs on May 28, 2015 17:14:50 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... Isn't the commish involved in every trade since he has to approve it ? I get now that it's in the rule but I don't see the big deal your making about it. I could see if you're making future deals that a few seasons away but don't see the issue.
|
|
|
Post by johnstrow on May 29, 2015 6:56:03 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. Just so everyone sees the full picture.. The entire trade is Adam Erne 5th 2015 for 1st 2015 (one of the last picks in the round) Aube-Kubel Erne ended up being my top point getter in the playoffs and was named MVP so it's not that lopsided. You have to give to get... I would have no issue with this trade if the guy who traded the 5th didn't have any other higher draft picks to send your way. Was that the case? If the team had any other higher picks then I think it kinda does go against the spirit of the rule. You shouldn't be able to make a future trade that doesn't stand on its own if you have other assets (picks) that can make it stand on its own. Its not really fair to keep those better assets in order to further strengthen your team and then have a 5th go back for a star player afterwards. Even a 3rd rounder would make this trade ok (if your looking at the whole deal) I would also like to state that trades like this doesn't really bother me that much. I really enjoy this pool and I hope something silly like this doesn't derail the whole thing. If some people want to try and bend or skirt the rules, that's up to them. Please BB, don't let this ruin the pool.
|
|
|
Post by J4M13 on May 29, 2015 10:52:30 GMT -4
I can tell you 100% that I did not do the same thing when the opportunity arose. Nor did I ask another person to do it when negotiating in the past, and it would have benefited me. You knew the rule and the spirit of the rule, and chose to make a trade that was against the intention. Maybe unethical was a harsher than required, but I'll stand by it. Like I said, I'm over it. Congrats, and I hope you win. I said you would not you did. And no I did not know that it was agains the so called spirit of the rule. Its either a rule or its not. And it was approved which you don't seem to understand for some reason. No one hid anything about this trade. For your information that is the first future trade I made. And it in no way benefitted me. Responses like yours are exactly why you can't realistically vote on trades. People would naturally vote in their self interest. I'm not trying to argue here, but I think you misunderstand my issue here. I've been in a number of pools over the years, and I can only think of 3 trades I spoke out against or would have voted against if I had the chance. My philosophy is, let the market decide. But... A star player for a team's worst draft pick. That's what that trade boils down to, everything else aside. That's where my issue lies. IMO it doesn't stand on its own. Maybe I'm wrong, but if a 5th is the going rate for a guy like Aube-Kubel, I need a better barometer. I'm fighting at a disadvantage in this pool because I don't know any of the other GMs personally (I have no idea who knows whom, but jokes about buying draft picks for beer seem to suggest some familiarity). If I didn't try to stay within the rules I wouldn't care if others were pushing the limits. So, I guess this makes it open season and we now have a level playing field. I'm bookmarking this trade as the benchmark for all futures-type trades I make, now that the precedent is set.
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Jun 4, 2015 20:09:36 GMT -4
Just so everyone sees the full picture.. The entire trade is Adam Erne 5th 2015 for 1st 2015 (one of the last picks in the round) Aube-Kubel Erne ended up being my top point getter in the playoffs and was named MVP so it's not that lopsided. You have to give to get... I would have no issue with this trade if the guy who traded the 5th didn't have any other higher draft picks to send your way. Was that the case? If the team had any other higher picks then I think it kinda does go against the spirit of the rule. You shouldn't be able to make a future trade that doesn't stand on its own if you have other assets (picks) that can make it stand on its own. Its not really fair to keep those better assets in order to further strengthen your team and then have a 5th go back for a star player afterwards. Even a 3rd rounder would make this trade ok (if your looking at the whole deal) I would also like to state that trades like this doesn't really bother me that much. I really enjoy this pool and I hope something silly like this doesn't derail the whole thing. If some people want to try and bend or skirt the rules, that's up to them. Please BB, don't let this ruin the pool. Looking at that trade as a whole is all that should really matter......it shouldn't matter when the picks or players actually change hands.
|
|
|
Post by J4M13 on Jun 5, 2015 10:36:40 GMT -4
Looking at that trade as a whole is all that should really matter......it shouldn't matter when the picks or players actually change hands. Actually, the rules state other wise. Each part of a trade should be constructed such that it stands on its own. In general, I would agree. If it was put to a vote, I would side with you. But the rule is the rule. Much like puck over glass, and a 50 km/h speed limit on Rothesay Ave, you don't have to agree with a rule to be punished for breaking it.
|
|