Victor

Oh what a throwback thank you

I can't lie he was at the forefront of my mind as I was writing this

Victory. Hockey. Simulations. The importance of being earning. Lacking creative spark. Two TPE and two hundred words never being sufficient to unleash the full potential of a strong writing idea. Avoid Sunday scramble by writing nonsense midweek. No drop in quality. Also no rise in quality. Playoffs. Seattle. Success? Maybe. Many teams strive for the same goal. One goal, not enough goals to satisfy everyone. Can everyone ever be happy? Should everyone be happy? What is happiness and who deserves it? Thankfully someone finally changed goalers in the portal to goalies. Why was it ever not the word that it is? Stream of consciousness? Yes. Poetry? Perhaps. How can art be judged if the artist doesn't know if it is art? Still more words needed. Puck. Net. Score. Save. No score. One bad VHL.com is always permissible for everyone it would appear. But what about two in a row? But who can truly judge the quality of an article? Has less effort gone into this than another article? What is the calorie burn per letter typed? It's the same amount of letters. Should we measure TPE in calories? Does it take more to talk on a podcast than write? Is it more difficult to open Word or Photoshop? Victory. Hockey. League.

week 3 of 3

Living life like it's still S80

we had Vancouver based trailblazers walking decades ago so you could run

A fine addition to the long list of great Toronto GMs. Great drafting in particular.

I do x

You've definitely given a lot more leeway with them but I also understand it with more teams and if you're happy to track them. I think the onus always lies with the GMs to keep each other accountable if they want to get super creative about it. Ah so it's you who can't read then

It's basically in the perfect balance where the consequences aren't significant enough to warrant a void. If it was anything other than a retiring goalie, then I think there'd be grounds for voiding because it screws Warsaw too much. So you are right, it does get looked at as a whole i.e. what will happen if we have to void the 2nd part. It's just that even in that case, it's not an awful trade in its own right (granted, it's not a good one) Also where has your L gone? Yup lol. I stand by the wording of the rule being cut and dry but this is a very unique set of circumstances which as above, is probably the only reason this trade shoudn't be voided.

No, the trade is allowed to go through because it's the 2nd part of such trades which gets voided. The only reason to void this trade would be if it was deemed a straight 4th for Syko swap is below market value which is probably not true as I don't imagine there's much of a market for Syko.

All this arguing about the conditions of trades and when we're allowed to trade future draft picks is excellent forum content. It's also got me wondering, what other confusing rules are there in the VHL? Let's have a quick look through the rulebook. Current cap ceiling: $44,000,000 This is a really tricky one to interpret. Like, it says a team can't spend more than $44 million but what if it really wants to? Nothing a conversation with the commissioners can't solve, surely. 5.1 - Basic Rules of Training Camp Training occurs during the pre-season, before the start of the Regular Season. I mean, it says these are basic rules but that's a real mouthful. What if I want to do training camp right now? Isn't it discriminatory for me not to be able to train when I want to? We can't all be in the same place in the same week, it's inconsiderate. Trivia Up to 2 capped TPE per week can be earned through participating in VHL Trivia, where you answer VHL related questions stored in the VHL Portal. The waters are really muddied on this one too. The whole concept of capped TPE feels like it's a bit of a grey area. If I was to acquire conditional future TPE, I think I would be within my rights to trade that for TPE that I could earn in future capped weeks to increase my weekly cap this week in exchange for maybe getting more TPE in 3-4 seasons. So many poorly written rules, so little time...

Vancouver winning cups with massive asterisks?? I don't believe it!

That's worrying, but I agree with the overall sentiment that it won't actually matter.

Doesn't actually add any further insight beyond the already clear rule, just a shameless flex.

I love the argument being made that it's a grey area when it is one of the clearest rules written, with an actual example provided, specifically to close the loophole currently being exploited. I would know as I wrote it.

That's not a contradiction. Vancouver has traded an asset it owns (a 4th). It's added a condition which, if they make it happen, means they will give up a 2nd or a 1st instead. But if the 2nd or 1st they get and trade to Warsaw is S99, then that trade gets vetoed. That follows the written rule to a tee. No grey areas.

Not sure if I agree with that if the wording is that they have the whole off-season to convert the condition.

I don't think you need a new rule for that, that's just a fact. You can't trade assets you don't own. You can't trade assets now to make up for your asset deficit by promising to trade better future assets later. That's pretty clear cut. I think @Spartan is right that this is perfectly legal if Vancouver acquires a S97 or S98 1st and/or 2nd. But @Alex is right in that it's not allowed for Vancouver to trade Warsaw a S99 pick in the off-season to meet the conditions in this trade. In which case, as someone said, Frank holds the cards. Should he choose to not acquire S97 or S98 picks, Warsaw can not receive more than the 4th. At which point this becomes commissioner's discretion on whether Warsaw taking such a risk is in the league's interest. I'd argue that a 4th is still better than Syko retiring for nothing and it's not like Warsaw is gonna win anything with him anyway. So I would agree with allowing it to go through. But lord help you if you let Vancouver trade a S99 pick to Warsaw in the off-season.

I hope no one makes an offer actually.

Trades found to bypass the above rule (i.e. trading a S40 3rd during the regular season and then having it traded back for a S42 2nd in the off-season.) are not allowed. If such trades are made, the 2nd trade (the one in the off-season) will be blocked by the commissioners. This one isn't really up to individual commissioner interpretation.

week 2 of 3

Bears go rawr

The Wranglers survive through all eternity.

Olober Syko will not be challenging Anton Nygard's long-standing save percentage record, although he is still as it stands in the top 10 of all time – an improvement to .940 would be the best mark since S55. Plus, he's given Warsaw enough quality to take the last European playoff spot which they'll appreciate in the absence of their own first round pick. Rumours of TPE meaning nothing for goalies have been overblown as expected – as Joseph Reed's numbers have normalised, the top goaltenders in terms of save percentage are who you'd expect, with the top 4 goalies in TPA all sitting in the top 4 (excluding backups). The only man who can feel aggrieved is last season's MVP Dalkr Vidarsson, whose move to Toronto has not gone to plan at all, but someone always gets the short end of the stick. For the first time Ahma's love for Davos might cause some real draft day drama, as the current 2nd best prospect in the draft would have to demand to fall outside the top 6 at least based on Davos holding their own and Vancouver's picks. One to watch.