WAR/VAN; S96

[Beketov 9,041]

8 minutes ago, Victor said:

I don't think you need a new rule for that, that's just a fact.

Conditions make for a lot of dumb grey areas. I would rather seal those areas off.

[Victor 10,971]

43 minutes ago, rory said:

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.

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

[Spartan 4,437]

33 minutes ago, rory said:

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.

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.

 

43 minutes ago, Victor said:

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 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.

 

56 minutes ago, ucyXpher said:

"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? 

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.

[rory 1,924]

3 minutes ago, Spartan said:

No one has ever, and will never, police exactly when two teams have to execute a condition during the offseason.

Because nobody has, and nobody ever should, try to force a loophole that is clearly addressed in the rulebook. This is the only time I can remember that the timing of when a condition is triggered actually has mattered.

[Spartan 4,437]

1 minute ago, rory said:

Because nobody has, and nobody ever should, try to force a loophole that is clearly addressed in the rulebook.

Top tier sarcasm, I respect it.

 

1 minute ago, rory said:

This is the only time I can remember that the timing of when a condition is triggered actually has mattered.

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? 

[LucyXpher 1,473]

21 minutes ago, Spartan said:

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. 

Yeah, I guess I'm just not seeing how it isn't circumventing the rule to make a trade right now with conditions that allow for the possibility of picks outside to the legal range to potentially be moved.  Like, why should it matter when the condition is executed?  The trade was made today, a player changed teams, and compensation-- regardless of condition-- should fall inside the legal window as of today's TDL... Or am I wrong?  Any other interpretation sounds alot like circumvention to me lol.  I don't mean this accusatorially btw, the whole thing is just interesting to me 

 

21 minutes ago, Spartan said:

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.

Yeah, if it's a 97/98 pick at the end of the day, I doubt anyone will have an issue.  Just the fact that it's open to 99 doesn't seem right.  It seems to me that conditions should be subject to the rules of the trade on the day the trade is executed and the first piece changes hands.

Edited November 11 by ucyXpher

[Victor 10,971]

39 minutes ago, Spartan said:

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.

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.

[Victor 10,971]

 

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

[Alex 3,222]

57 minutes ago, ucyXpher said:

Yeah, I guess I'm just not seeing how it isn't circumventing the rule to make a trade right now with conditions that allow for the possibility of picks outside to the legal range to potentially be moved.  Like, why should it matter when the condition is executed?  The trade was made today, a player changed teams, and compensation-- regardless of condition-- should fall inside the legal window as of today's TDL... Or am I wrong?  Any other interpretation sounds alot like circumvention to me lol.  I don't mean this accusatorially btw, the whole thing is just interesting to me 

 

Yeah, if it's a 97/98 pick at the end of the day, I doubt anyone will have an issue.  Just the fact that it's open to 99 doesn't seem right.  It seems to me that conditions should be subject to the rules of the trade on the day the trade is executed and the first piece changes hands.

The argument here is that you're trading something that you don't have. By the letter of the rules Vancouver can completely fuck Warsaw and only acquire S99 picks in the offseason and then be unable to send them anything.

[LucyXpher 1,473]

15 minutes ago, Alex said:

The argument here is that you're trading something that you don't have. By the letter of the rules Vancouver can completely fuck Warsaw and only acquire S99 picks in the offseason and then be unable to send them anything.

Yeah, no I totally get that argument.  Like what's the consequence if Vancouver doesn't acquire any picks in 97/98 and therefore can't fulfill their end of the trade?  But from what I've understood the 99 picks are in play, and it's their being in play that has allowed the trade to go through, and that continues to confuse me.  Are the rules around conditions not bound to the time the trade was made?  The argument is being made that by the time they're executed the 99 picks will be eligible, but why should that matter when the trade is being made today?  It seems to me that any picks outside of the range as of today should be illegal to trade, even if the conditions aren't executed until next season.

Edited November 11 by ucyXpher

[Victor 10,971]

1 minute ago, ucyXpher said:

Yeah, no I totally get that argument.  Like what's the consequence if Vancouver doesn't acquire any picks in 97/98 and therefore can't fulfill their end of the trade?  But from what I've understood the 99 picks are in play, and it's their being in play that has allowed the trade to go through, and that continues to confuse me.  Are the rules around conditions not bound to the time the trade was made?  The argument is being made that at the time they're executed the 99 picks will be eligible, but why should that matter when the trade is being made today?  

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.

[Spartan 4,437]

5 hours 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. 

@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!

[LucyXpher 1,473]

10 minutes ago, Victor said:

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.

I think it's the language around dividing the trade into parts that is confusing me.  Like I know conditions can be added and need to be executed at a later date, but should the clearing of the initial trade not take into account the proposed conditions being legal and reasonable to deliver?  The point is well taken that a 4th might just be fair value, so does Warsaw then just take on the risk that Vancouver can't deliver the promised condition? And what happens if they can't?  Like, surely the reasonability of the condition has to be considered in determining whether the trade get's approved.

 

I'm learning alot lol, it's honestly a fun example to look at 

Edited November 11 by ucyXpher

[Alex 3,222]

I do find the loophole almost hilarious strictly because the only reason it exists is because the assumption was that nobody (fuck that's ironic) would trade for something another team doesn't have...

[Victor 10,971]

1 minute ago, ucyXpher said:

I think it's the language around dividing the trade into parts that is confusing me.  Like I know conditions can be added and need to be executed at a later date, but should the clearing of the initial trade not take into account the proposed conditions being legal and reasonable to deliver?  The point is well taken that a 4th might just be fair value, so does Warsaw then just take on the risk that Vancouver can't deliver the promised condition? And what happens if they can't?  Like, surely the condition has to be considered in determining whether the trade get's approved.

 

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?

 

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

I do find the loophole almost hilarious strictly because the only reason it exists is because the assumption was that nobody (fuck that's ironic) would trade for something another team doesn't have...

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.

[Spartan 4,437]

1 minute ago, ucyXpher said:

I think it's the language around dividing the trade into parts that is confusing me.  Like I know conditions can be added and need to be executed at a later date, but should the clearing of the initial trade not take into account the proposed conditions being legal and reasonable to deliver?  The point is well taken that a 4th might just be fair value, so does Warsaw then just take on the risk that Vancouver can't deliver the promised condition? And what happens if they can't?  Like, surely the condition has to be considered in determining whether the trade get's approved.

 

I'm learning alot lol, it's honestly a fun example to look at 

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.

 

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

I do find the loophole almost hilarious strictly because the only reason it exists is because the assumption was that nobody (fuck that's ironic) would trade for something another team doesn't have...

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.

[LucyXpher 1,473]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

Also where has your L gone?

um, it's been misplaced... it's a long story, tbd if I ever get it back 

[Beketov 9,041]

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

Conditions are an area that the Blues have generally expressed a strong disliking for

FWIW I can’t speak for @Josh or @Acydburn. I just know I hate them.

[Spartan 4,437]

Just now, Beketov said:

FWIW I can’t speak for @Josh or @Acydburn. I just know I hate them.

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

Edited November 11 by Spartan

[Beketov 9,041]

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

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

False, we are collectively the “stop making things a pain for simmers” police. Bonuses don’t make a difference to me at all, 3 way trades can fuck right off; or more specifically get better wording in the post to make it clear for simmers.

[LucyXpher 1,473]

4 minutes ago, Spartan said:

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.

Very interesting, that definitely answers my question, thanks!

[Victor 10,971]

4 minutes ago, Spartan said:

(not sure how keen Victor was with them)

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.

 

5 minutes ago, Spartan said:

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.

Ah so it's you who can't read then

[Spartan 4,437]

Just now, Beketov said:

 “stop making things a pain for simmers”

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

[Spartan 4,437]

Just now, Victor said:

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

Guilty of all charges

[Frank 5,214]

The VHL has a Frank problem.