DAV/SEA: S63 off-season

[VHL Bot 3,018]

HC Davos receives:

S65 SEA 2nd

S66 SEA 1st

Seattle receives:

The Charm

This trade has been accepted by both parties.

[Banackock 8,040]

Fast, easy talks @ShawnGlade. I fished around the market after the initial two deals and found it to be reasonably priced. Tyler's an excellent member, has a good player on his hands and brings to Seattle a lot of experience that will be useful here too. Hard to replace a talent like Gabriel McAllister, but adding Charm and Tyler to the roster and LR is a plus, even if the price is steep (which I don't overly see due to those traits). I got to go out and get my boys the best team possible to win.

 

GO BEARS and welcome @Tyler

 

 

[hedgehog337 3,483]

Uhmm....

 

TOR/RIG trade part 2? I believe Charm can't be traded.

[diamond_ace 3,111]

13 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

Uhmm....

 

TOR/RIG trade part 2? I believe Charm can't be traded.

I'd think the opposite, that he has to be traded, or leave in FA before Katie Warren officially skates for Davos.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

I'd think the opposite, that he has to be traded, or leave in FA before Katie Warren officially skates for Davos.

 

Don't see a difference between Ironside and Charm situation.

 

- previous GM stepped down

- new GM arrived

- new GM created a GM player

- in first case, Ironside stays in Toronto until Rift comes up. what's the difference between these trades?

[diamond_ace 3,111]

1 minute ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

Don't see a difference between Ironside and Charm situation.

 

- previous GM stepped down

- new GM arrived

- new GM created a GM player

- in first case, Ironside stays in Toronto until Rift comes up. what's the difference between these trades? (IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE: IRONSIDE IS CHOOSING TO STAY IN TORONTO, HE IS NOT OBLIGATED, AS I'M ABOUT TO PROVE)

 

Italics denote my writing, non-italics are quoted rules directly:

 

https://vhlforum.com/topic/55462-minor-announcement/ says that "As a compromise, given the new GM Player rules in place, we have decided that Ironside will be allowed to play this final season with Toronto, but, rather than being forced to retire, he will become a Free Agent following the S64 season. In allowing this provision (given that the new rules state a former GM Player must become a Free Agent in the Off-Season prior to the New GM Player's first season), Toronto will not be allowed to recall Rift during the S64 season (should he cap out of the VHLM prior to the start of the season, he will have to sit out Season 64)." So Ironside CAN stay in Toronto, not HAS TO stay in Toronto.

 

Going then to the link for "GM Player Rules" which is in the Trade Deadline announcement, the Ironside/Rift scenario is External Hire, option 2. "New GM may create a GM Player of their own, leaving their original player with the team they belong to. The previous GM Player is sent to FA as soon as the new GM Player’s draft year arises (i.e. If the new GM Player is a S67 Draftee, the previous GM Player would become a Free Agent following the S66 Season).

• Previous GM Player may not return to original team (or any team they are traded to during that season) via FA, or contract extension, within 2 seasons but can be traded for.
• For Example: If @Quik steps down and the new GM of Helsinki wishes to create a S67 Draftee, Kronos Bailey would automatically become a Free Agent following the S66 Season. Should Helsinki trade Bailey to another team, he would be ineligible to sign with either Helsinki or the 2nd team, until after the S68 Season.
  • If for some reason the 2nd team also trades Bailey, he would be ineligible from signing with the 3rd team as well."

So if Ironside is still on Toronto at the time Rift comes up, he goes to FA and can't go back to Toronto. It even specifies what happens in the event of a trade (which is proof that trades can happen, if there's a scenario for it) where the team who trades for him, he can't go there in FA either. He CAN, however, be traded. Therefore, if this scenario is also External Hire, option 2, Charm can be traded. He's not required to be, like I first thought, but he's certainly not prevented from it.

[Tagger 2,722]

Looking at the new GM rules that were made here, this seems to be the situation that fits this deal:

External Hire: 3 Options

 

1. New GM may create a GM Player of their own, leaving their original player with the team they belong to. The previous GM Player is sent to FA as soon as the new GM Player’s draft year arises (i.e. If the new GM Player is a S67 Draftee, the previous GM Player would become a Free Agent following the S66 Season).
   • Previous GM Player may not return to original team (or any team they are traded to during that season) via FA, or contract extension, within 2 seasons but can be traded for.
   • For Example: If @Quik steps down and the new GM of Helsinki wishes to create a S67 Draftee, Kronos Bailey would automatically become a Free Agent following the S66 Season. Should Helsinki trade Bailey to another team, he would be ineligible to sign with either Helsinki or the 2nd team, until after the S68 Season.
     • If for some reason the 2nd team also trades Bailey, he would be ineligible from signing with the 3rd team as well

So going off that, Tyler would be an FA next off-season (for the Season 65 Draft that Glades second player is in) and wouldn’t be able to sign for either Davos or Seattle in that FA period until the offseason with the Season 67 Draft (which is irrelevant as I think Charm would be retired already anyway?). 

[diamond_ace 3,111]

Just now, Tagger said:

Looking at the new GM rules that were made here, this seems to be the situation that fits this deal:

External Hire: 3 Options

 

1. New GM may create a GM Player of their own, leaving their original player with the team they belong to. The previous GM Player is sent to FA as soon as the new GM Player’s draft year arises (i.e. If the new GM Player is a S67 Draftee, the previous GM Player would become a Free Agent following the S66 Season).
   • Previous GM Player may not return to original team (or any team they are traded to during that season) via FA, or contract extension, within 2 seasons but can be traded for.
   • For Example: If @Quik steps down and the new GM of Helsinki wishes to create a S67 Draftee, Kronos Bailey would automatically become a Free Agent following the S66 Season. Should Helsinki trade Bailey to another team, he would be ineligible to sign with either Helsinki or the 2nd team, until after the S68 Season.
     • If for some reason the 2nd team also trades Bailey, he would be ineligible from signing with the 3rd team as well

So going off that, Tyler would be an FA next off-season (for the Season 65 Draft that Glades second player is in) and wouldn’t be able to sign for either Davos or Seattle in that FA period until the offseason with the Season 67 Draft (which is irrelevant as I think Charm would be retired already anyway?). 

Yep, basically what I was just saying - he can be traded, but all that does is mean he couldn't go to Seattle as well as his original Davos in FA.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

So basically The Charm is a rental for Seattle?

[Tagger 2,722]

1 minute ago, hedgehog337 said:

So basically The Charm is a rental for Seattle?

Yep

[hedgehog337 3,483]

3 minutes ago, Tagger said:

Yep

 

Ok, that's weird. thought he would be gunning for Louth instead tbh.

[Victor 10,918]

Davis just consistently fleecing Seattle whether they're buying or selling.

[Beketov 9,005]

It technically follows the rules however I’m not sure it was the intention of the rule to allow a former GM player to be traded aside from like a deadline rental right before the new one comes in. The intention was to make sure that teams couldn’t get value for their formerly free players which this does. Maybe I just skimmed the rules as @Quik wrote them up but this definitely doesn’t seem like what we intended for them.

 

Like Ibsaid it fits the rules as they are written mind you so I can’t really say it’s void but it seems like an odd interpretation.

[diamond_ace 3,111]

3 minutes ago, Beketov said:

It technically follows the rules however I’m not sure it was the intention of the rule to allow a former GM player to be traded aside from like a deadline rental right before the new one comes in. The intention was to make sure that teams couldn’t get value for their formerly free players which this does. Maybe I just skimmed the rules as @Quik wrote them up but this definitely doesn’t seem like what we intended for them.

 

Like Ibsaid it fits the rules as they are written mind you so I can’t really say it’s void but it seems like an odd interpretation.

Probably not what Seattle thought they were getting either, to be fair.

[Quik 4,113]

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

It technically follows the rules however I’m not sure it was the intention of the rule to allow a former GM player to be traded aside from like a deadline rental right before the new one comes in. The intention was to make sure that teams couldn’t get value for their formerly free players which this does. Maybe I just skimmed the rules as @Quik wrote them up but this definitely doesn’t seem like what we intended for them.

 

Like Ibsaid it fits the rules as they are written mind you so I can’t really say it’s void but it seems like an odd interpretation.

No, this is pretty much the exact intention. It’s really not much different than a GM retiring in the pre-season (except Charm can continue updating). Seattle is just paying a premium price for one season of @Tyler, who can no longer return to either Davos or Seattle for S65.

[Beketov 9,005]

44 minutes ago, Quik said:

No, this is pretty much the exact intention. It’s really not much different than a GM retiring in the pre-season (except Charm can continue updating). Seattle is just paying a premium price for one season of @Tyler, who can no longer return to either Davos or Seattle for S65.

Fair enough, I misunderstood the intention.

[Banackock 8,040]

5 hours ago, diamond_ace said:

Probably not what Seattle thought they were getting either, to be fair.

It isn’t, so we’d like the deal void and to move on with our lives. We can pay for this season, but next he has to forcefully leave us despite us paying for it? Not a rule for me. I remember the point behind it, but we paid for the assets. If anything, they should be free as it’s a GM player. 

 

@Commissioner  I negotiated and dealt for a player with a 3 year contract. My expectation was 3 years with him.  If I’m unable to have him for those years, it’s not a deal I accepted knowingly. 

[Victor 10,918]

17 minutes ago, Banackock said:

It isn’t, so we’d like the deal void and to move on with our lives. We can pay for this season, but next he has to forcefully leave us despite us paying for it? Not a rule for me. I remember the point behind it, but we paid for the assets. If anything, they should be free as it’s a GM player. 

 

@Commissioner  I negotiated and dealt for a player with a 3 year contract. My expectation was 3 years with him.  If I’m unable to have him for those years, it’s not a deal I accepted knowingly. 

Although I reckon you'll be allowed to void it because of the Riga Ironside situation last season and #LeaguesGoneSoft but the rule was announced, pretty easy to interpret and you were in the BOG when it was discussed and designed.

[Banackock 8,040]

Just now, Victor said:

Although I reckon you'll be allowed to void it because of the Riga Ironside situation last season and #LeaguesGoneSoft but the rule was announced, pretty easy to interpret and you were in the BOG when it was discussed and designed.

I've been very busy and was unaware. My bad  

 

If I knew while negotiating, this deal would not have been made. Thanks ! @Will 

[Quik 4,113]

48 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I've been very busy and was unaware. My bad  

 

If I knew while negotiating, this deal would not have been made. Thanks ! @Will 

I mean, you are in the BOG, GMs were all notified the rule was changed, and it’s been weeks since.

 

I’m inclined to leave it as is, since there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be have known the rules. It was even discussed in the Davos GM change thread when the topic of Glades new GM player. 

 

Also, this isn’t really the same situation as Ironside. With that trade, Devise was told he could trade him and ironside could continue his career. That was an error on the Commissioners part. This is a lack of attention to detail, which sucks for Bana, but is not an error on anyone but his own part. 

[Victor 10,918]

It's not actually a horrific overpayment anyway - the Charm is probably worth a late first even for a season.

[Tagger 2,722]

It would be nice though to see these rules that we've brought up make it into the rulebook given that they were announced a month ago. Part of the problems that we'd had with the prior rules was that the rule about a GM being forced to retire once he stepped down was only mentioned in the thread announcing the decision and never transitioned into the official rulebook.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Tagger

[Peace 1,518]

If it’s not in the official rule book available for everyone to read, it is therefore still unofficial? Seems kinda strange to hid information like that from a brand new GM and those who would otherwise be interested in managing a big league team. 

[Victor 10,918]

17 minutes ago, Peace said:

If it’s not in the official rule book available for everyone to read, it is therefore still unofficial? Seems kinda strange to hid information like that from a brand new GM and those who would otherwise be interested in managing a big league team. 

Well it's not the brand new GM that made the mistake here.

[Peace 1,518]

4 minutes ago, Victor said:

Well it's not the brand new GM that made the mistake here.

 

Well, no you’re right, but being educated is a two way street. Would Glade have been asking as much if he knew before hand that it was technically a one season rental? 

 

Just my thoughts.