WAR/VAN; S96

[VHL Bot 3,027]

Vancouver receives:

Olober Syko

Warsaw receives:

S98 VAN 4th

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

[Frank 5,208]

Conditions: If Vancouver makes the S96 playoffs, S98 VAN 4th becomes Vancouvers next available 2nd. If Vancouver wins the S96 continental cup, S98 VAN 4th becomes Vancouvers next available 1st.

@N0HBDY to confirm. 

 

Also Olober Syko @Spartan  to confirm NTC waived. 

[N0HBDY 1,117]

1 minute ago, Frank said:

Conditions: If Vancouver makes the S96 playoffs, S98 VAN 4th becomes Vancouvers next available 2nd. If Vancouver wins the S96 continental cup, S98 VAN 4th becomes Vancouvers next available 1st.

@N0HBDY to confirm. 

 

Also Olober Syko @Spartan  to confirm NTC waived. 

Confirmed

[Spartan 4,401]

2 minutes ago, Frank said:

Conditions: If Vancouver makes the S96 playoffs, S98 VAN 4th becomes Vancouvers next available 2nd. If Vancouver wins the S96 continental cup, S98 VAN 4th becomes Vancouvers next available 1st.

@N0HBDY to confirm. 

 

Also Olober Syko @Spartan  to confirm NTC waived. 

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 

[Alex 3,198]

Umm… the condition breaks the rules lol

 

6.3 – Trading Draft Picks

Draft picks may only be able to be traded two years in advance during the regular season (before the trade deadline). During the off-season, draft picks of that off-season's draft and the two consequent drafts can be traded. (i.e. In S31, a team could not trade a S34 draft pick. However upon the completion of the season, S34 picks could be dealt along with S32 and S33 selections.)

 

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.

Edited Monday at 06:02 PM by Alex

[rory 1,915]

LMFAO get vetoed

[Beketov 9,024]

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

Umm… the condition breaks the rules lol

 

6.3 – Trading Draft Picks

Draft picks may only be able to be traded two years in advance during the regular season (before the trade deadline). During the off-season, draft picks of that off-season's draft and the two consequent drafts can be traded. (i.e. In S31, a team could not trade a S34 draft pick. However upon the completion of the season, S34 picks could be dealt along with S32 and S33 selections.)

 

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.

They came to me to discuss that already. Initially I felt the same as you but upon discussion it was basically decided that the condition can’t be upheld until the off season at which point that pick would be available for trade and is therefore fine per the rules.

[rory 1,915]

Just now, Beketov said:

They came to me to discuss that already. Initially I felt the same as you but upon discussion it was basically decided that the condition can’t be upheld until the off season at which point that pick would be available for trade and is therefore fine per the rules.

ohhhh gotchu i totally forgot the friends with bek exception

[Alex 3,198]

Just now, Beketov said:

They came to me to discuss that already. Initially I felt the same as you but upon discussion it was basically decided that the condition can’t be upheld until the off season at which point that pick would be available for trade and is therefore fine per the rules.

I would argue that that’s essentially the exact example that’s used in the rule. Current trade would go through, but as per the rules the one in the offseason would have to get blocked.

[hylands 845]

dil was right the whole time

[Spartan 4,401]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

I would argue that that’s essentially the exact example that’s used in the rule. Current trade would go through, but as per the rules the one in the offseason would have to get blocked.

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. 

[N0HBDY 1,117]

Warsaw just made the WC round (as it stands) easier for Davos, I think we're arguing on the wrong side of the ball here.

[Beketov 9,024]

10 minutes ago, rory said:

ohhhh gotchu i totally forgot the friends with bek exception

At least try to come up with some original material.

 

GM’s argue their case with me all the time, it’s nothing new. 

11 minutes ago, Alex said:

I would argue that that’s essentially the exact example that’s used in the rule. Current trade would go through, but as per the rules the one in the offseason would have to get blocked.

How exactly do you figure that?

[Victor 10,940]

30 minutes ago, Beketov said:

How exactly do you figure that?

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.

[Spartan 4,401]

15 minutes ago, Victor said:

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.

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.

Edited Monday at 07:07 PM by Spartan

[Alex 3,198]

2 minutes ago, Spartan said:

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. 

As per the rules, the current trade goes through. However, if Vancouver doesn’t acquire a S97 or S98 1/2, the trade to satisfy the condition would have to be vetoed since the 4th can’t be traded back for a S99 pick (this isn’t up for debate, it’s literally the same thing as the example). So Frank has the chance to just shit on Warsaw here. With that being said it’s not a bad trade for Warsaw since while they do take all the risk, they do get something for a player instead of just letting them retire.

[Beketov 9,024]

17 minutes ago, Victor said:

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.

Initially I agreed with you, that was my point, but as Spartan points out at the point of the condition being finalized the S99 pick is in play so it’s technically fine.

 

Is it loopholey? Yes. Do I hate conditions? Yes. But realistically it’s fine.

[Spartan 4,401]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

However, if Vancouver doesn’t acquire a S97 or S98 1/2, the trade to satisfy the condition would have to be vetoed since the 4th can’t be traded back for a S99 pick (this isn’t up for debate, it’s literally the same thing as the example)

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.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

You see, because we don't know exactly which illegal trade is going to be made right now, that makes it legal. Or something.

[rory 1,915]

2 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

You see, because we don't know exactly which illegal trade is going to be made right now, that makes it legal. Or something.

Trade Rules
 

You can't just be up there and just doin' a trade like that.
 

1a. An illegal trade is when you

1b. Okay well listen. An illegal trade is when you trade the

1c. Let me start over

1c-a. The GM is not allowed to do a condition to the, uh, other GM, that prohibits the GM from doing, you know, just trying to trade a player. You can't do that.

1c-b. Once the GM is in the trade thread, he can't be over here and say to the player, like, "I'm gonna trade ya! I'm gonna trade you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.

1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to trade and then don't trade, you have to still trade. You cannot not trade. Does that make any sense?

1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the player, and then, until you just trade it.

1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the condition up here, like this, but then there's the illegal trade you gotta think about.

1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. An illegal trade is when the GM makes a trade that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the draft picks and players

Do not do a illegal trade please

 

[Snussu 131]

How about a rule that if the condition on the trade would break a rule at the time of acceptance, its vetod? Would make no loopholes allowed

[LucyXpher 1,409]

46 minutes ago, Spartan said:

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.

Genuine question, I'm not trying to pick a side in this, but just want to understand the justification.  How does this not circumvent the traded draft pick restrictions?

 

"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"

 

"6.3 – Trading Draft Picks
Draft picks may only be able to be traded two years in advance during the regular season (before the trade deadline)."

 

Should the condition not have to specify that the fulfilling picks will be from 97/98 because the initial trade was made in 96?   Are fulfilled conditions really distinct trades or just extensions of the initial trade?  And shouldn't any compensation for a trade be legal within the rules at the time the trade was processed?   

Edited Monday at 07:56 PM by ucyXpher

[Beketov 9,024]

2 minutes ago, Snussu said:

How about a rule that if the condition on the trade would break a rule at the time of acceptance, its vetod? Would make no loopholes allowed

That is basically my plan to put further in the off season. Assets involved in any condition must be available at the time of the trade.

[Victor 10,940]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

That is basically my plan to put further in the off season. Assets involved in any condition must be available at the time of the trade.

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.

[rory 1,915]

3 minutes ago, Victor said:

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.

I think the cards already been played!

 

The condition on this trade is met during the s96 playoffs, not during the S97 off-season. Just because "All conditions must convert prior to the conclusion of the following off-season" doesn't mean that ALL conditions convert prior to the conclusion off the off-season. This second trade should be made the second the season rolls over and trades are allowed again, so Frank has no time to acquire S97 or 98 pick.