DAV/HSK; S79

[VHL Bot 3,030]

HC Davos receives:

Patrik Laine

S80 HSK 4th

S81 HSK 4th

Helsinki receives:

Declan Wolf

Griff Mackenzie

Raihan Heavems

S80 CGY 1st

S80 DAV 2nd

S80 DAV 4th

S81 DAV 2nd

This trade has been accepted by all parties and is pending league approval.

[Gustav 6,415]

Condition: If Thing X happens, Player Y and S80/81 HSK 4th are sent to HSK for S80 TOR 4th.

 

Thanks a ton @Rayzor_7 for the talks and for making a deal which relieves me of my roster issues and opens the door to Davos competing this season and beyond. I'm not sure I could have asked for anything better to happen (even though it probably looks like I overpaid).

 

Welcome @PatrikLaine to Davos!

[Rayzor_7 741]

Accepted

 

Was a pleasure working with you and getting to an agreement. This helps the HSK rebuild get started fast

 

 

 

[Laine 1,361]

I want to first acknowledge how thankful I am for my time in Helsinki. @Jubo and @Rayzor_7 were great GMs to play under and I appreciate all that you guys did for me. I also want to say thanks to all my teammates that I had. We had some great times together.

As for you @GustavMattias, really pumped to be heading to Davos with a new group. LET'S GO WIN A CUP!

[TheCHEESE 37]

Wow this was a trade deal

[Gustav 6,415]

7 minutes ago, TheCHEESE said:

Wow this was a trade deal

 

Posting it before anybody else can because I know someone is going to:

Spoiler

 

Still extremely happy with how things went here, not much can be said to change my mind about that.

[Banackock 8,049]

Big price and all that, but moved some cap/contracts and gained a big player.. Each team gets what they want. As long as it works out for both..

 

[BladeMaiden 1,807]

@PatrikLaine not even 24 hours after me and you are also traded off. I would tell @GustavMattias what an amazing player he is getting but from the looks of that trade he gets it! Good luck in Davos to you both @Rayzor_7 nice to see you didn’t forget to charge extra to trade in conference lol 

 

I hope you all are excited about this one!

[Ahma 1,428]

Welcome to Davos!

 

This is a certified BGOM (BigGustavOffseasonMove)

[bigAL 2,176]

22 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

Condition: If Thing X happens, Player Y and S80/81 HSK 4th are sent to HSK for S80 TOR 4th.

Oh I am eagerly watching for Thing X this season

[Smarch 3,153]

Better return than the real Laine 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

On 7/12/2021 at 10:31 PM, bigAL said:

Oh I am eagerly watching for Thing X this season

I'm guessing Thing X is someone signing in FA, and Player Y is the cap dump to make it fit

[.sniffuM 1,741]

I'd imagine it's a mixup or something, but conditions should need to be disclosed publicly, no?

[Frank 5,210]

20 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

I'd imagine it's a mixup or something, but conditions should need to be disclosed publicly, no?

Therefore the trade is void and Toronto claims Laine off waivers.

[Gustav 6,415]

1 hour ago, .sniffuM said:

I'd imagine it's a mixup or something, but conditions should need to be disclosed publicly, no?

 

I'd argue not when it's not the league's responsibility to enforce them--technically GMs could agree upon a condition and then never post it in the thread and follow through/not follow through on it as they wish. It carries exactly the same legality/official-ness as posting it in any capacity because it's a GM thing to keep track of whether or not conditions are obeyed.

 

Even if it's a question of staying within the rules, all is good here. You or any commish are 100% welcome to message me for more info as to what specifically this is and why I chose not to say everything about it in public.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

7 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

 

I'd argue not when it's not the league's responsibility to enforce them--technically GMs could agree upon a condition and then never post it in the thread and follow through/not follow through on it as they wish. It carries exactly the same legality/official-ness as posting it in any capacity because it's a GM thing to keep track of whether or not conditions are obeyed.

 

Even if it's a question of staying within the rules, all is good here. You or any commish are 100% welcome to message me for more info as to what specifically this is and why I chose not to say everything about it in public.

 

Although any condition doesn't maybe need to be made public, I'd argue the blues or maybe someone more active has to be made aware of the conditions for the purposes of enforcement. If no one knows what the condition is and you or Helsinki's GM step down in the next couple weeks, who is in place and knows the original terms enough to force enforcement?1

[Gustav 6,415]

1 minute ago, .sniffuM said:

Although any condition doesn't maybe need to be made public, I'd argue the blues or maybe someone more active has to be made aware of the conditions for the purposes of enforcement. If no one knows what the condition is and you or Helsinki's GM step down in the next couple weeks, who is in place and knows the original terms enough to force enforcement?1

 

Worst-case scenario where a GM leaves and is completely unreachable for info on the deal? There's still one other GM with access to the convo who knows exactly what the condition was and can submit proof. Unrealistic super-worst-case scenario where both GMs do that? It's very likely that everyone forgets that there's a condition at that point.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I would agree with it if it were actually the league's responsibility to enforce conditions...which it isn't. If down the road, Thing X happens and I hit up Rayz telling him he has to do the thing and he tells me to go take a hike, the official league response (from what I understand) would basically just be "that sucks, not our problem." It would be a really bad look for him, but as the league has taken the stance that it's a GM responsibility, it would also technically be perfectly legal.

[Peace 1,532]

2 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

 

Worst-case scenario where a GM leaves and is completely unreachable for info on the deal? There's still one other GM with access to the convo who knows exactly what the condition was and can submit proof. Unrealistic super-worst-case scenario where both GMs do that? It's very likely that everyone forgets that there's a condition at that point.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I would agree with it if it were actually the league's responsibility to enforce conditions...which it isn't. If down the road, Thing X happens and I hit up Rayz telling him he has to do the thing and he tells me to go take a hike, the official league response (from what I understand) would basically just be "that sucks, not our problem." It would be a really bad look for him, but as the league has taken the stance that it's a GM responsibility, it would also technically be perfectly legal.

Er... I'll just leave this here. 

 

6.4 - Conditional Trades

Teams may add conditions to trades, so long as they do not circumvent any other rules regarding player movement, including, but not limited to: Traded Draft Pick restrictions or Violating the integrity of the league.

 

• Any, and all, conditions must be explicitly stated at the time a trade occurs, and agreed upon by both parties. Once a condition is agreed upon, make sure to tag a commissioner, who will add a condition tag to the thread, to be followed up on upon completion of the condition(s).

 

 

 

• All conditions must convert prior to the conclusion of the following off-season.

 

 

• Any draft pick that is part of a condition may be traded in a separate trade, so long as the receiving team understands that there are conditions attached to that pick
  • i.e. If Helsinki makes a trade with Davos, guaranteeing the higher of two S75 1st round picks held by Helsinki at the time, then makes a trade sending the "other" S75 1st round pick to Toronto. Toronto must acknowledge that they would receive the lower of the two picks, while Davos receives the higher.

 

 

• The League Office holds the right to veto any conditional trade it feels circumvents league rules.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Peace

[.sniffuM 1,741]

7 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

 

Worst-case scenario where a GM leaves and is completely unreachable for info on the deal? There's still one other GM with access to the convo who knows exactly what the condition was and can submit proof. Unrealistic super-worst-case scenario where both GMs do that? It's very likely that everyone forgets that there's a condition at that point.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I would agree with it if it were actually the league's responsibility to enforce conditions...which it isn't. If down the road, Thing X happens and I hit up Rayz telling him he has to do the thing and he tells me to go take a hike, the official league response (from what I understand) would basically just be "that sucks, not our problem." It would be a really bad look for him, but as the league has taken the stance that it's a GM responsibility, it would also technically be perfectly legal.

 

I meant to say "If no one knows what the condition is and you and Helsinki's GM step down". As far as the scenario of two people dropping off the face of the earth at an inopportune time, sure it's not likely but it's possible, at which point I was arguing that at least blues should be made aware of the conditions in private but now that peace pulled up the rule it looks like it probably should be stated in public, yeah.

[bigAL 2,176]

The harder one tries to cover up a secret, the worse I assume it is. 
 

Does Thing X involve anyone meeting an untimely demise, or worse, getting kidnapped and forced to live in Buffalo?

 

8 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

I understand what you're saying, and I would agree with it if it were actually the league's responsibility to enforce conditions...which it isn't. If down the road, Thing X happens and I hit up Rayz telling him he has to do the thing and he tells me to go take a hike, the official league response (from what I understand) would basically just be "that sucks, not our problem." It would be a really bad look for him, but as the league has taken the stance that it's a GM responsibility, it would also technically be perfectly legal.

But for real, this part is where I disagree. The league has to manage conditions because GMs have a vested interest in their team winning everything all the time, and the league has an interest in everyone winning a trade. I’m not sure we can just trust that the other GM follows the rules because they care about rainbow flavoured unicorns (I’m not always sure they do, and I’m usually trusting to a fault). 
 

Failing to meet one of those conditions would be a bad look on everyone involved and it’s a problem that’s so easily solved. Just tell us the condition and make Rayz sign the thread saying he agrees. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by bigAL
Rainbow flavoured unicorns = a beautiful lie FUCK THESE FILTERS GETTIN IN THE WAY OF MY SOLID ARGUMENTS. Big deep breath. One last try. The word is 6 letters, starts with O, kinda like an eye doctor, sometimes an illusion you see…

[Beketov 9,025]

18 minutes ago, bigAL said:

FUCK THESE FILTERS GETTIN IN THE WAY OF MY SOLID ARGUMENTS

The filters are glorious, don't you dare insult them

[Rayzor_7 741]

43 minutes ago, bigAL said:

Just tell us the condition and make Rayz sign the thread saying he agrees

We very well could just remove the condition and acknowledge it behind the scenes like before. That would happen rather than this condition becoming public.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

20 minutes ago, Rayzor_7 said:

We very well could just remove the condition and acknowledge it behind the scenes like before. That would happen rather than this condition becoming public.

 

Okay but:

 

1) Based on gustav's response to my initial post in here, the commishes were not informed in private either. Unless you mean 'like before' as just between the GMs.

 

2) The rules say conditions need to be explicitly stated, and the mention of tagging a commissioner makes it clear this is meant to be done publicly.

 

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this, but like it's right there in the rules. You can't just go back to doing it how it used to be done because you want to.

[bigAL 2,176]

27 minutes ago, Rayzor_7 said:

We very well could just remove the condition and acknowledge it behind the scenes like before. That would happen rather than this condition becoming public.

Jesus dude I was joking about a condition hinging on death but what condition (and why??) could you ever attach that is so… whatever that you don’t want the rest of the world to know it exists??

[Rayzor_7 741]

8 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

Unless you mean 'like before' as just between the GMs.

Yeah meant this, as in a respect and agreement behind the scenes