SEA/CGY; S90

[VHL Bot 3,080]

Calgary receives:

S91 PRG 2nd

Seattle receives:

Dirk Diggler

Ilya Bryzgalov

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

[Banackock 8,124]

Welcome back @Devise, lol.. 

 

@Tbeez99 PM'd ya. Welcome!!

 

@Ricer13 easy chats. Thank you  

[Ricer13 2,823]

Seattle Wranglebears continue to grow stronger!

[Spartan 4,530]

@Banackock @Ricer13

 

As per section 6.8 of the rulebook, any trades involving a player going back to the a team they were traded for within 2 seasons and on the same contract will be reviewed by the Commissioners.

 

After a review, the @Commissioner team has decided to veto this trade under section 6.8. Any questions can be brought up directly with the Commissioners.

[Beketov 9,095]

Trade will be reverted during tonight’s sim.

[AJW 2,192]

nope we’re keeping them actually sorry

[Banackock 8,124]

Awe, shucks.. that’s largely disappointing. I appreciate you providing the rule. May a reason be provided so we can understand more..  

 

Why has it been vetoed? It’s two competent, active GM’s, it’s an inactive, back up goalie.. I understand the rule as it is written.. and I understand what it would try to circumvent.. but that’s not this.. so I don’t understand why it was rejected and would appreciate some insight as it would be educational and helpful because it’s based off simple principle that could easily go the other way next time “just because”. It’s all subject to review and personal opinion and emotion. 

 

I know there’s nothing malicious at all here..  i needed a 6th forward.. I also had a new hole at BUG.. so why the hell not just take Bryzgalov back for 8 games..? Better rated than a CPU. I get it’s a rule but.. a 550, 2.5M back up goalie that doesn’t even count against the cap and will only play 8 games.. They haven’t earned TPE since the week of April 30 and hasn’t visited since May.. The rule doesn’t state “you can’t do it”. It simply means it will be reviewed.  This is the lowest valued, smallest situation to review.. an inactive back up goalie that will never be a starter etc.. their money doesn’t even count against the teams salary.. the deal and value has increased/changed..  there are no open goalie spots in the league…and yet it was denied. So why even say “review” if the smallest thing will be denied? Just do us all a favour and change the rule and say no. I can’t see a bigger player or deal being approved if this inactive back up from S84 (it’s S90) is being denied.

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Banackock

[Beketov 9,095]

8 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Just do us all a favour and change the rule and say no.

I was going to answer here but you got my answer elsewhere. The long and short of it is that used to be the case but when we need the grey "pending review" it's good to have. More often then not though it's gonna be a no for this kind of situation.

[Banackock 8,124]

5 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I was going to answer here but you got my answer elsewhere. The long and short of it is that used to be the case but when we need the grey "pending review" it's good to have. More often then not though it's gonna be a no for this kind of situation.

Sure did. Thanks for the chat on Discord. An answer and explanation provided is greatly appreciated so we can be educated on situations that don’t happen to often like his. Much better than a straight up no and “this is why because this is the rule lol”

 

Cheers

[Spartan 4,530]

Since this request for more info was made public, I'll clarify that I passed judgement to Blues - as I don't solely veto trades, that power resides with commissioners with my input as financier if needed. They deliberated and asked for the trade to be vetoed, and that was to be done before the sim. I wasn't given an explanation to forward into the thread here due to Blues being busy at the time, hence why I only referred to the relevant section of the rulebook to justify the review along with a note that the Commissioners could explain the ruling.

[v.2 1,411]

@MubbleFubblesthis whole ordeal just reinforces your suggestion on the recent pod lol.  Consistent rules and clearer roles are needed for the big league.

[Bojovnik 487]

What a joke league jeeeeez.

[Josh 1,672]

On 8/27/2023 at 9:46 PM, v.2 said:

@MubbleFubblesthis whole ordeal just reinforces your suggestion on the recent pod lol.  Consistent rules and clearer roles are needed for the big league.

 

Can you point to a time or times where this rule was applied inconsistently?

[Banackock 8,124]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

 

Can you point to a time or times where this rule was applied inconsistently?

IDK if this counts, but I think in 42 seasons I've had it happens once or twice at least. I'm sure other GM's have too.

 

 

S77 - Seattle trades for Venus Thightrap (HSK)
-------
S79: PRG/SEA.     (July 11, 2021)

Seattle sends Thightrap and a 2nd to Prague for two 1sts
---------
S80 - Signs with Seattle after not picking up an option, hmm, hmm...   (sept 19, 2021)

-----

S80: SEA'PRG. (September 22, 2021)

 

Seattle sends Thightrap back to Prague for a 4th despite leaving for FA and almost going back to Prague. Everyone was REALLY upset she didn't go back to Prague. I don't even remember it but I sent Blade back so people would stop trying to gain membership to cancel culture R US during a dark period in sim league history. 

 

It was a nice journey with such a happy ending for all. 

 

 

Anyone else wanna share in on some campfire stories?

 

 

PS 116 days until Xmas.

50-62 days until stores play christmas music

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Banackock

[Banackock 8,124]

Also very hard to keep track after such a long time but reminded me of this cool spreadsheet here

 

172 trades so far

 

 

[Victor 11,009]

8 hours ago, Banackock said:

Also very hard to keep track after such a long time but reminded me of this cool spreadsheet here

 

172 trades so far

 

 

What a spreadsheet