BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I don't like it either, but it is what it is. Fuck Calgary. Seattle doesn't like it obviously and sounding a little whiny about the whole thing, but sneaky shit happens now and then so please move on and we'll just hope for Wrangler failure again in S52! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jericho said: I don't think you'd have cared if someone on your team hadn't said something. Something tells me that if it was Boom saying something you'd have kept quiet. I couldn't care less what Calgary is doing. Unless I misunderstood.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FacePuncher 1,343 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 @Molholt I know I'm coming off sort of babyish and like "oh if I don't get my way I'm gonna quit," like before, but that's not my intention. Seriously, it just seems so dishonest to me, and from stuff like I said in my previous posts it looks like the dictionary definition of collusion to me. I just personally don't want anything to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jericho 917 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Just now, boom said: I couldn't care less what Calgary is doing. Unless I misunderstood.... I was using you as an example my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banackock 7,988 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Jericho said: I was using you as an example my friend! And I don't see your reference at all? Why wouldn't I have said something if it was Boom? That makes no sense. I'm just agreeing with what I believe? Any who, that's my opinion and follows the rules so no issue. Move along, hey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molholt 2,185 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, ADwyer87 said: @Molholt I know I'm coming off sort of babyish and like "oh if I don't get my way I'm gonna quit," like before, but that's not my intention. Seriously, it just seems so dishonest to me, and from stuff like I said in my previous posts it looks like the dictionary definition of collusion to me. I just personally don't want anything to do that. That's fine, I was just saying that if you're blacklisting teams that trade for salary, you're not going to have a team to go to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Stop using my name in vain! eaglesfan036 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastOlympian07 2,388 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Just now, boom said: Stop using my name in vain! Bommchenko wont stand for this! BOOM and JardyB10 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Molholt said: That's fine, I was just saying that if you're blacklisting teams that trade for salary, you're not going to have a team to go to. I initially blacklisted teams by uniform color, but after playing for everyone, I think that idea is dead. FacePuncher and Molholt 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 1 minute ago, TheLastOlympian07 said: Bommchenko wont stand for this! He would have been my 2nd player. TheLastOlympian07 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Well, 2nd "legal" player. TheLastOlympian07 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FacePuncher 1,343 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Molholt said: That's fine, I was just saying that if you're blacklisting teams that trade for salary, you're not going to have a team to go to. I guess, it just seems different when it's in this form. also I saw your sig. stop the Molholt on Molholt violence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jericho 917 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Banackock said: And I don't see your reference at all? Why wouldn't I have said something if it was Boom? That makes no sense. I'm just agreeing with what I believe? Any who, that's my opinion and follows the rules so no issue. Move along, hey? Oh for fucks sake, I thought Boom was on a different team! Stupid trades and stuff! My point was that I think you were only slinging shade because Beketov is your player. Also, saying "move along" to one post of criticism has you come off as super thin-skinned. It's one post, I haven't written a Devise length novel about it. Learn to take criticism. BOOM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendrick 4,741 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 If you consider this shady, how's this for shady: Signing a bunch of free agents and trading them all off for assets at the deadline. It may not look shady at first, but gaining assets by simply signing inactive and active FA's is along the same grounds. People can blow this out of proportion if they want, but there are a ton of ways to get around rules already and GM's are doing them every season. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly doesn't make them wrong either. Just move on as I'm sure a player who is 300+ TPE isn't make or break for a Seattle franchise that is once again "going to push for the cup". eaglesfan036 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Bears have very thin skin beneath all that fur. JardyB10 and eaglesfan036 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendrick 4,741 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, Jericho said: Oh for fucks sake, I thought Boom was on a different team! Stupid trades and stuff! My point was that I think you were only slinging shade because Beketov is your player. Also, saying "move along" to one post of criticism has you come off as super thin-skinned. It's one post, I haven't written a Devise length novel about it. Learn to take criticism. It's his wording, he never truly has the right wording or something and the tone comes off super passive aggressive. I'm his Updater, trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Trust no one. gregreg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boubabi 4,725 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 trust me guys, there was some way bigger shady shits than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boubabi 4,725 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 and fuck u jaladolar U BLEW IT Will, JardyB10, scoop and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank 5,058 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banackock 7,988 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 43 minutes ago, Kendrick said: If you consider this shady, how's this for shady: Signing a bunch of free agents and trading them all off for assets at the deadline. It may not look shady at first, but gaining assets by simply signing inactive and active FA's is along the same grounds. People can blow this out of proportion if they want, but there are a ton of ways to get around rules already and GM's are doing them every season. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly doesn't make them wrong either. Just move on as I'm sure a player who is 300+ TPE isn't make or break for a Seattle franchise that is once again "going to push for the cup". Different though. I signed them with the purpose of winning, but with a competitive conference (oddly competitive), we were unable to fully contend and would likely miss playoffs. I told the FA's when they first signed that if things didn't work out, I would accommodate them and move them to a team where they had a chance. So it wasn't me signing and trading for profit. It was me keeping my word and helping them try to win rather than sign with us and then sit and watch other teams play in the playoffs. So is that really bad? I told them to do it and some of the others like Mueller had asked to do so if it came down to that - so why not help them and do what we agreed upon when they signed? Would be worse for me if I said "OH YEAH, If we our out of a playoff spot, Ill help you and move you to a contending team" and then not follow through on that.. In this situation, you make a deal with a team to sign a player for cheaper to work around the cap. Either way, I'm not bothered by this. I see the point of it. I was just explaining S49 seeing as you like to bring it up weekly along with some other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jericho 917 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 13 minutes ago, Banackock said: Different though. I signed them with the purpose of winning, but with a competitive conference (oddly competitive), we were unable to fully contend and would likely miss playoffs. I told the FA's when they first signed that if things didn't work out, I would accommodate them and move them to a team where they had a chance. So it wasn't me signing and trading for profit. It was me keeping my word and helping them try to win rather than sign with us and then sit and watch other teams play in the playoffs. So is that really bad? I told them to do it and some of the others like Mueller had asked to do so if it came down to that - so why not help them and do what we agreed upon when they signed? Would be worse for me if I said "OH YEAH, If we our out of a playoff spot, Ill help you and move you to a contending team" and then not follow through on that.. In this situation, you make a deal with a team to sign a player for cheaper to work around the cap. Either way, I'm not bothered by this. I see the point of it. I was just explaining S49 seeing as you like to bring it up weekly along with some other people. Frank signed him with the purpose of winning too, just not this season. Frank 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Devise...is that you? eaglesfan036 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Baozi 1,658 Posted December 2, 2016 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2016 Meh, seen this before, won't be the last time either. Pre-arranged sign and trades I think are fairly common. I personally don't sign with the intention of being part of them but whatever. I think its part of the VHL nature to do so because how the teams are setup where 1 power star player can make an incredible difference due to the small size of our league rosters. Albeit this makes me sad as i wanted to make Seattle a contender, seems like an uphill battle here on out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,652 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Good work guys, now tfong is sad. Shame on you. eaglesfan036 and Baozi 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.ed69a7260a477fcf4feead7a0e4b7506.png)
Recommended Posts