TOR/RIG: VOID

[Beketov 9,095]

23 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

I mean obviously if that is how it goes then he has to auto retire. Or not actually. Technically the rules state that he only has to auto retire when another player is on my own team via the GM rule. So until Rift comes to the team, he could still play. Just only for Toronto. Right? Am I understanding our vague rules correctly? Lol.

 

Anyways, obviously yeah veto this then and sorry to @DollarAndADream if I want to trade you, I can but then you have to retire. Or you can play right until Rift comes up. Whatever you wanna do. 

IIRC what’s how it was handled with Arkander. He was allowed to remain until Kingfisher was brought up to the team.

 

I don’t deny the rules are vague and misleading, it’s ultimately  why we considered just dropping P2 all together but that’s kinda how it needs to work. Otherwise how is it fair that you be given Ironside and your new player both for free? Teams could just keep swapping GM’s every season and never need to draft anyone. Obviously thatnwould never happen but we can’t open the door to it. I think we just need to formalize dukes for every possible situation with it which is a bit complicated.

[Quik 4,113]

Yeah, my interpretation was always that ex-GM players can be traded at any time, just can’t be in the VHL at the same time as the new GM player. Which is why it was ok to trade Shephard and he can finish his career, since Kronos enters the league after he gets auto retired. 

 

Its unfortunate that things got confusing with Ironside, but it’s rare a GM steps down so early in their GM player’s tenure, and maybe it’ll lead to some clarification for future situations like this. 

[Tagger 2,722]

Knowing what the rule was in advance, reading this trade gave me a heart attack, glad it was cleared up though.

[Beketov 9,095]

8 minutes ago, Devise said:

Edit - Also just re-reading this. I'm also wrong on a front. Because technically can't a player that wasn't acquired via the GM rule still be designated as a GM player? Ergo if a GM steps down and gives the role to a player on their team acquired via an asset. That player would be designated GM player per the rules no? Yeah this absolutely needs ironing out just in terms of how we present it so that it reads like we enforce it. 

In that instance they are allowed to create a GM player as their 2nd because the team paid for their first. This is what happened with @Beaviss and @Spade18

 

What makes it complicated is there are so many situations to account for. It used to be tough already that you had to differentiate between if it was an external or an internal GM change but that was manageable. Now those are still present but it becomes complicated with which of the 2 players are the GM player and how did the team get them. Makes for a lot of potential variables that muddy the rules up and make things almost entirely based on situation.

 

Even precedent here is the Arkander situation however that wasn’t identical because it was an internal GM not an external. Could probably be run off the old regulations and just have Pajari involved in the deal which would result in him becoming the GM player but then you get into the mud of not getting a player free. It’s all very complex.

[oilmandan 688]

2 hours ago, hedgehog337 said:

@oilmandan Ryan Kastelic Toronto jersey OUT NOW

But I already have a mustard stain on the Riga one .

I guess back to the store I go. 

[hedgehog337 3,483]

Just now, oilmandan said:

But I already have a mustard stain on the Riga one .

I guess back to the store I go. 

 

actually, Toronto jerseys are cancelled.

 

Riga Reign Ryan Kastelic jerseys back in store!

[oilmandan 688]

 

34 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

actually, Toronto jerseys are cancelled.

 

Riga Reign Ryan Kastelic jerseys back in store!

Phew!! Toronto gear is pretty expensive!!

Edited October 9, 2018 by oilmandan

[Gooningitup 1,290]

What happened with Arkander was.

 

Stz stepped down, Spade took over and created Fisher who he named his GM player. 

 

Rather than just deal the new GM a huge blow Arkander was allowed to stay a season as Fisher was not VHL eligible yet.

 

However his offical draft year, Arkander was force retired. And Fisher had to play hence why despite New York having likely 1 more season to compete if Ike didnt have to they sold. 

[pennypenny 227]

The Maleronside connection is gone

[Spade18 1,308]

1 hour ago, Gooningitup said:

What happened with Arkander was.

 

Stz stepped down, Spade took over and created Fisher who he named his GM player. 

 

Rather than just deal the new GM a huge blow Arkander was allowed to stay a season as Fisher was not VHL eligible yet.

 

However his offical draft year, Arkander was force retired. And Fisher had to play hence why despite New York having likely 1 more season to compete if Ike didnt have to they sold. 

 

The only reason he was allowed to stay for the season was because I took over for STZ once the season had already started if I remember correctly.

[Gooningitup 1,290]

9 minutes ago, Spade18 said:

 

The only reason he was allowed to stay for the season was because I took over for STZ once the season had already started if I remember correctly.

 

You took over offseason. Late in but season hadnt started from what i remember

[Spade18 1,308]

12 minutes ago, Gooningitup said:

 

You took over offseason. Late in but season hadnt started from what i remember

 

I'll blame the concussions for my memory, or lack there of.

[Devise 4,475]

Just as a heads up we do need this processed and veto'd on the portal before we can use said assets for say, another trade with a little less value.  

[DollarAndADream 3,357]

I mean, if I have to retire or something, I have a proposal.

 

Since Ironside is only on contract for S63, you should at least let him play S63 in Toronto, then go to FA. That way there won't be 2 GM players on Toronto, and then Toronto gets nothing for him when he goes to FA.

[Beaviss 4,958]

4 minutes ago, Devise said:

Just as a heads up we do need this processed and veto'd on the portal before we can use said assets for say, another trade with a little less value.  

 

I believe you are not allowed to move him at all

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Beaviss said:

 

I believe you are not allowed to move him at all

 

What? No. He doesn't have to retire at all until Rift comes up as it is. The only reason he'd have to retire before then is if I do move him, because once being moved per the rules he'd then have to retire. That is literally what this entire discussion has been about. I even said and both Will/Bek responded to the argument that a former GM player can at nothing best be more than a rental player. A retiring player can still play in their final season. At that point your really just splitting hairs. Because if we want to play that kind of hard ball, uncreate Rift, and I'll wait until pre-season to take over as GM and wala. Then Dollar retires him, then he can be traded because he'll still play in Season 63. 

 

He can be used as a rental. There is nothing in the rulebook that says the former GM player cannot be traded under any circumstances, only that they must retire upon that happening. They are a rental that can't update. 

[Devise 4,475]

@Beaviss

 

A GM player cannot be traded or released unless retired. 

 

That is the specific ruling. While somewhat vague too, that one does more clearly outline that it isn't illegal to trade a player with the designated GM player tag. (Which I'm assuming only refers to free players acquired via the GM rule.) As I stated above, would just come down to when I created. If we are going to be that big of sticklers about us not doing the GM change/player creation at pre-season for all these very vague rules with this Project Two GM stuff after seasons of Dollar looking for a new GM and helping the league by not just dropping it? Pretty scummy. We aren't manipulating anything here. Every other GM player gets the opportunity to trade themselves as a rental or use themselves in a final season whether they are recreating as a new player or it's a new GM to a player already on the team. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Devise

[Beaviss 4,958]

1 minute ago, Devise said:

@Beaviss

 

A GM player cannot be traded or released unless retired. 

 

That is the specific ruling. While somewhat vague too, that one does more clearly outline that it isn't illegal to trade a player with the designated GM player tag. (Which I'm assuming only refers to free players acquired via the GM rule.) As I stated above, would just come down to when I created. If we are going to be that big of sticklers about us not doing the GM change/player creation at pre-season for all these very vague rules with this Project Two GM stuff after seasons of Dollar looking for a new GM and helping the league by not just dropping it? Pretty scummy. We aren't manipulating anything here. Every other GM player gets the opportunity to trade themselves as a rental or use themselves in a final season whether they are recreating as a new player or it's a new GM to a player already on the team. 

 

makes sense i could be wrong

[Beketov 9,095]

36 minutes ago, DollarAndADream said:

I mean, if I have to retire or something, I have a proposal.

 

Since Ironside is only on contract for S63, you should at least let him play S63 in Toronto, then go to FA. That way there won't be 2 GM players on Toronto, and then Toronto gets nothing for him when he goes to FA.

For what it’s worth I’m fine with this unless we want to avoid further precedent. Only caveats would probably be keeping the regulations regarding 2 players so you can’t just guarantee a team Ironside and Twinger but even that I don’t care that much.

[Will 4,662]

39 minutes ago, Devise said:

Just as a heads up we do need this processed and veto'd on the portal before we can use said assets for say, another trade with a little less value.  

 

I've veto'd the trade

[hedgehog337 3,483]

so I assume we still can't make a trade for him? at least that's what I understood from @Beketov

[Devise 4,475]

I mean if we work it out so Dollar can play the rest of his career, I'm fine with that. I'm only saying at what point does that turn into "he can't return to Toronto" because what if he later goes to FA and wishes to return? It gets messy because it starts to become a "you were once free to Toronto so this is complicated" situation. 

 

I'll also point out again, there presently isn't two GM players on Toronto's roster. Rift is a S64 draftee. If I had a player previously on Toronto's roster, retired him and created Rift as opposed to creating him as a 2nd player, I would be fully allowed to trade Ironside as a rental and he would be auto retired upon being traded. That is per the rules.

 

But obviously this is a different scenario what with Player Two essentially gifting Toronto the free player. What I don't get is why that seems to be such a big deal? This often gets presented as this "oh they get a free 2nd player" as if it's some magical gift that will always work. You pretty much have to plan for the GM player at this point. Because assuming he is forced into retirement, look at Dollars situation? And countless other former GM's. The mandatory GM player puts them in a position where they have no choice but to have the player on their team. Even if they are going through a rebuild or what have you. If a trade goes wrong, or an unsuspected GM switch happens, an entire players career can be wasted, cut short, what have you. 

 

I'm not saying it still can't be manipulated and that we have to watch that. I just kind of feel like giving GM's the ability to try to compliment a team with the opening of 2nd player gets treated as this gift when it can often be an anchor too. Especially considering, if you either don't have any GM swaps, or you do so internally you are free to trade your former GM players as rental assets. Is it really that unfair to allow GM's who find that transition from another team, and use the GM 2nd Player system to get a new GM player basically, just the same opportunity as every other GM has with their existing GM players? 

[hedgehog337 3,483]

34 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

so I assume we still can't make a trade for him? at least that's what I understood from @Beketov

 

still want an answer to finish these talks once and for all.

[Beketov 9,095]

29 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

still want an answer to finish these talks once and for all.

I’m gonna say no. We need to figure things out with this but based off the precedent his would be void.

[Devise 4,475]

3 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I’m gonna say no. We need to figure things out with this but based off the precedent his would be void.

 

Not to press, but is it possible a ruling could be made on this before the draft? If we can trade him as a rental, it would involve a pick in this draft starting in an hourish regardless.