Spartan

Put together some solid teams and won some games when it counted. Solid tenure

Trade is not fine, MAL is 500k over, I want to go to bed. Sorry Alex. Vetoed @KaleebtheMighty @dstevensonjr MAL 2.5 - 1.25 3.5 - 1.75 1 mil space total - 4 mil TOR 3 - 1.5 6 - 3 total - 4.5 mil

Trade is fine I hate Alex for making me forget how to calculate cap

Screw you @Alex

Portal issues, trades were agreed upon before the deadline but needed manual admin overrides.

Tbf WAR trading Syko for a 4th when they got him for free and 0 market otherwise this season probably wouldn't have gotten vetoed outright. I don't think I'd have pushed it through myself though, it'd have been a Blues decision.

Guilty of all charges

brb gonna go dig around in admin panel to see if I can make this autocorrect to "no fun police"

Josh wants to delete bonuses and deleted 3 way trades (yes it was Will in the end but still), you guys are collectively the no fun police for VHL GMs smh

Conditions are an area that the Blues have generally expressed a strong disliking for, I think it's generally been up to financiers (not sure how keen Victor was with them) to monitor them and judge fairness. I think I also opened up conditions to the M because I'm fine with tracking and enforcing them given the position that I'm in for both the VHL and VHLM. The Blues have been fine with that arrangement. Because of that, conditions don't have any enforcement rules around them - they're pretty much handshake agreements that the financier and Blues take into consideration when assessing fair value. Fortunately everyone is generally very respectful about them and will defer to the financier or Blues if there's a dispute in the condition resolution (see recent rights trades and ensuing FA signings) so there's never been issues in resolving them and finishing them. In WAR's case, they're pretty much just accepting the risk that they could just get fucked if VAN simply doesn't acquire any S97 or 98 picks that meet the condition's criteria. Would I like to see the league have some teeth with condition enforcement? Yes. Would the league probably remove conditions entirely before that? Probably, imo. So we take what we get. Now that it's in the rearview mirror, that's pretty much what it was based on, the fact that VAN quite literally doesn't have the assets for the condition and the language would defer collection until such a pick was available. I knew that VAN and WAR were discussing a Syko trade, N0H had told me a while ago that it might happen and I didn't really care either way, I either would stat pad and maybe make a MVP push on WAR or I'd get a cup chance again with VAN. Today they said that Blues shot down a condition with S99 since it was illegal and I brought up the deferring aspect of it and that S99 picks could be legally traded in the offseason.

@Beketov and I have spoken more about this after taking more input into consideration, we agree with @Victor in that any acquired 97/98 picks that fit the condition's criteria will be awarded to WAR. We will not be allowing S99 picks to be traded to meet the condition. Regardless of this decision, we will likely still be revisiting certain trading loopholes in the BoG in the near future. Tagging @Frank and @N0HBDY for visibility, they've received DMs to inform them as well. Appreciate the feedback from the community and always happy to tweak things when we're incorrect!

Top tier sarcasm, I respect it. Really? You've never seen the attempted conditions that get vetoed across the two/formerly three leagues due to when conditions are being executed for legality? Whether conditions can be clearly met by a certain time frame?

No one has ever, and will never, police exactly when two teams have to execute a condition during the offseason. No one gets forced to make a trade the instant we roll over. No one's ever been forced to do so either and we've had plenty of conditions regarding the playoffs. All the rules state are that conditions must be met by the conclusion of the following off-season - while the result of the condition will be known by the end of playoffs, there's 0 rules in the rulebook that say when Warsaw or Vancouver must execute the condition and then be barred from executing it before the conclusion of the offseason. But you literally contradict yourself here. How could it be legal to trade assets they don't own yet but may acquire for S97/S98, but then also not legal for VAN to trade assets that are legally tradable during the condition execution period? It can't go both ways. The rulebook isn't clear enough for these situations which is why it was discussed and the condition as written was allowed. As Bek says, I think it'll be one of a few different rules that gets closed up - off the top of my head I think language regarding conditional rights trades and an ensuing signing in FA will also be added. I'd have to go back through my DMs with Bek over the past couple seasons to see what other situations we discussed that pretty much now all fall in the same conditional trading area of the rulebook and could use some limiting. From my understanding of the negotiation, because VAN only currently owns a 4th in S97 and S98, they didn't have a way to firmly dictate where the pick in the condition would be coming from. I wanted to see if there were rules about conditional trades mandating that a team owns the pick prior to the condition being made and there weren't any. From my interpretation, utilizing "next available" during a period where 3 seasons worth of picks are legally tradable wouldn't be illegal but I understand the pushback when 6.3 states draft picks can only be traded 2 years in advance. I certainly think that the wording of this condition makes it more open for Blues to re-interpret when the offseason is nearing completion. I think it'd be pretty funny for all this discussion to happen and VAN just gets the compensation needed when they have to do their normal roster moves to be cap compliant for S97 anyways. I guess I also don't see what's stopping VAN from going to another team in the offseason and saying "Hey can I swap my S99 2nd and 4th for your S98 2nd" to then turn around and flip that S98 2nd back to WAR, because it seems like people consider that to be legal. It's just additional gymnastics for a condition that would just be a legal trade at the time of execution.

The condition would be legally executing in the offseason, it is literally not the same thing as the example. It is literally legal to be traded in the offseason when the condition executes.

Isn't that situation specifically referencing someone trying to flip equivalent assets somewhat weighted for time + present/future value, by skirting futures trading rules? In this situation, there's a 4th conditioned on performance. 2nd for playoffs, 1st for cup win. There's no specification for when the picks need to be, but rather the first available pick that meets the condition. Conditions are only able to be executed in the offseason, following playoffs. S99 picks would be legal to be traded in the offseason. When the condition executes, S99 picks are legal to be traded. That's just regarding legality, but I don't see why VAN wants to force themselves into crippling S99 when they can just acquire an equivalent pick in S97/S98 this offseason anyways. Edit to add: I'm firmly in the camp of closing certain conditional loopholes in the offseason because I can see where it lands both ways. I would be very surprised if BoG doesn't discuss conditional trade restrictions in the near future because I think we've seen a few different situations in recent seasons where the conditions are questionable, but can be argued to meet rules.

Next available doesn't mean S99 picks. If VAN is unable to acquire earlier picks (which I strongly believe they will), those S99 picks are legal to be traded in the offseason anyways.

Ngl idk how to waive it on a retired player so you're shit out of luck ig LMAO Jk it's fine, I verbally waive it and pushed the trade through so rosters are correct

Are you fucking kidding me what the HECK

On behalf of the M commies I'm going to ban you

im down for once

bro had a lot of free time after getting beat up and ejected today

Very engaging media spot! Good work!

Yeesh

Vetoed smh

I honestly didn't think I'd write anything for theme week due to my job pay, but a flash of inspiration struck me this morning. I'd always thought it'd be cool to peel back the curtains on some aspect of being a GM, having seen what @FrostBeard had done after his initial stint as a GM through the FrostBeard Chronicles (I think that was what it was called). Granted, those chronicles ended up being fairly controversial and drawing a fair amount of hostile discussion. I don't plan on portraying anyone but myself in a negative light in this piece though. So no, the title is not clickbait, it's simply about me! My VHL GM career started with receiving this message from @McWolf who was the London United GM at the time, and one of my closer friends in the VHL at the time: Now how did we have 1oa? In the style that's become pretty familiar to people following Moscow trades, we traded for it of course! With the rules around GM players, the only way to secure a GM player is still to trade for them. While McWolf became an expansion GM for London, @Josh became the inaugural GM for the LA Stars as well. Moscow at the time had Roque Davis on the roster, one of the key pieces for Moscow's dominant regular season success in the mid-S70's. With @Victor announcing his intention to step away from Moscow at the conclusion of S76 and me serving as his unofficial AGM who was hoping to be selected as the next GM, Josh basically said "fuck Victor" and DM'd me directly to negotiate for his defenseman. Looking back on it, I was hired on 3/8/2021, and Josh began negotiations on 1/21/2021. So it was pretty nice that this was a deal negotiated well in advance (although there was some tweaking to be done after the draft lottery), I don't think we see many trades lined up well in advance like this anymore. Josh made it clear that rory, esso and jigglygumballs were all unavailable in a trade, greatly reducing the possible returns from a player perspective. With that plus him mentioning a couple other players may be held up in trade talks, this is how the trade discussion went: Ok.....he agreed pretty quickly. While I was pretty much celebrating the success at the time, I've learned now that someone accepting that quickly usually means you could have gotten more out of them. However, the big question mark was where that 1st would fall, and Josh had mentioned wanting to revisit the trade if by some miracle, LA ended up winning the S77 Draft Lottery. Congrats @N0HBDY! You are a Menace! Funnily enough, the only way N0H is now an upstanding member of the community is because the LA Stars won the draft lottery in S77, pivoting the return from one defenseman to N0H's lower earning defenseman instead. You can find the final trade here. But alright, I popped my VHL GM cherry, now I have McWolf going after 1oa that I just received, since LDN had 3oa already and two prospects in the S77 class - Duncan Idaho @OrbitingDeath and Paul Atreides @Mr_Hatter had expressed a strong desire to play together. If LDN could receive 1oa, it was pretty much guaranteed that they'd be able to select both of those players. Just for the shoutout, both McWolf and I were certain that Davos was going to select @Ricer13's first gen player at 2oa. During our chats, McWolf mentioned various picks and packages that simply weren't providing enough value. He was trying to acquire 6oa from Toronto, but fortunately I stood my ground as a noob GM to say that the top 4/5 in the S77 class were simply better than the options that'd be available at 6oa. The initial offer from London looked like this: After some discussions where I pumped up Lahtinen's perceived value (you're welcome @Beketov ), we came to agree that the offer was a bit underwhelming. Philip Stein was a pass first, lower earning LW, while Maxim Yakolevsky was an affiliate winger as well. Neither overly moved the needle when it came to making up the value between 6oa and 1oa. While the trade wasn't finalized this day, we came out of it with London still strongly wanting both 1oa and Mikko Lahtinen. After we'd agreed to think about our moves and see which of us wanted to negotiate with TOR for 6oa, another piece was added to the mix in Jordan Tonn, Moscow's star goalie. So yet another pawn on the board as Moscow looked to enter a true rebuild. And then, the fated moment: I was essentially noting that London was in a better position to compete already, and adding two of the top superstars in the league in Lahtinen and Tonn would definitely help LDN compete over the next couple seasons. Adding to the confusion, TOR decided not to trade 6oa at all, leaving our initial trade discussions where LDN would receive 1oa in the lurch. We had some three-way trade discussions where I wanted everything and wanted to give up nothing - typical noob GM discussions. I think Peace yelled at me a bit during that for being an idiot, which was valid. That fell through and I don't think I have that group chat anyways. So, sorry! Don't get to see me getting chewed out for being a dumbass. But McWolf and I pressed on ahead, negotiating into the wee hours of the night: So there was some additional chatter here where the groundwork of the trade was being laid. McWolf was now strongly debating the ability to start competing immediately, because he was afraid of just being stuck as a mid-tier team. With TOR's complications, the assets that I would have wanted weren't available anymore and we both knew that one of us had to get both 1oa and 3oa or risk making a big impact in the VHL environment if either OD or Hatter wanted out after their ELCs expiring to go join the other for free. With some more time and discussion, more pieces of the trade came together: Moscow somehow had 10oa, I don't remember how we got it or if it was our own pick, but frankly at this point I don't care enough to go figure out the details (edit: I got it from DCD for trading them Letang!). Another complication in the mix was that @MexicanCow123 started to mention a desire to retire after 1 season instead of 2 seasons to recreate with @Zetterberg. Now in the middle of trade talks that were complicated enough, I had to go persuade these two morons to not fuck up our trade. Fortunately it worked, I'll decline to share my methods . After all the complications, we finally had a deal we both agreed on: And there it was, the megatrade of the offseason that took a hell of a lot more work than just what was shown through this media spot. It was definitely much more pleasant to have McWolf as the other side of these negotiations, we had a lot of filler chatting that helped a lot to keep the negotiations calm and relaxed. It's funny to see that my desire to get trades done as quickly as possible in the offseason, so that I have certainty over how the draft, FA, and my roster for the next season will look, hasn't changed at all through now. Overall though, I hope that this piece gives folks some more knowledge about how VHL trades can go, and how quickly they can change as various circumstances and complications arise. I really do appreciate having McWolf as my trade partner here, I don't know how many times I've said it but I'd say it a lot more times too. He was a fantastic mentor when I first joined the EFL and VHL and really helped me figure out how everything worked and was one of the folks who calmed me down when I panicked a bit over how much there was to learn and do if I wanted to make successful players. I think London did make playoff runs over the next couple seasons but just couldn't take it all the way. Moscow never won a cup with Idaho or Atreides to my great disappointment, but Idaho did make the Hall of Fame and we had some fantastic seasons together. Anyways that's all, cheers