MEX/MIN/LVA; S68 --- VOIDED

[VHL Bot 3,021]

Minnesota receives:

S68 MEX 7th

S68 LVA 7th

 

Mexico City receives:

 

S70 MIN 1st

 

Las Vegas receives:

 

S68 MIN 7th

 

 

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

 

 

[Bruins10 128]

wait what

[Enorama 2,038]

 

[Nykonax 1,563]

big brain

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

Yep. Not lopsided at all.

[Bruins10 128]

actually, i feel like this is the trade for the conditional 1st in the deal that sent me to Minny

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

4 minutes ago, Bruins10 said:

actually, i feel like this is the trade for the conditional 1st in the deal that sent me to Minny

Then it makes more sense

[Peace 1,518]

3 hours ago, Green said:

Then it makes more sense

 

VHLM GMs aren’t allowed to include future considerations / conditions to picks per the rules that govern us. 

[ShawnGlade 1,010]

um

[Quik 4,113]

yeah, if this is a "conditional" pick, it should be voided...

[Will 4,660]

23 minutes ago, Quik said:

yeah, if this is a "conditional" pick, it should be voided...

 

to me the issue is less so the conditional aspect, more so that it appears the S70 pick is skirting the draft pick rules. 

[Quik 4,113]

3 minutes ago, Will said:

 

to me the issue is less so the conditional aspect, more so that it appears the S70 pick is skirting the draft pick rules. 

 

yeah, either way, if this is a "2nd part" trade, then it breaks both rules , but yeah, it is by-passing the 2-season limit on draft pick trading, so should be voided on that basis

[Will 4,660]

2 minutes ago, Quik said:

 

yeah, either way, if this is a "2nd part" trade, then it breaks both rules , but yeah, it is by-passing the 2-season limit on draft pick trading, so should be voided on that basis

 

I'm kind of confused on the legality of conditions tbqh - I know the rule book says "Future conditions of ANY kind are not allowed to be dealt" but (and I don't know this for sure i haven't looked) I feel like some have been allowed? I would assume any condition would not be enforceable by the league given the rule book but have we kind of allowed gentleman's agreements between GMs to take place, assuming they don't violate other rules? 

[Quik 4,113]

2 minutes ago, Will said:

 

I'm kind of confused on the legality of conditions tbqh - I know the rule book says "Future conditions of ANY kind are not allowed to be dealt" but (and I don't know this for sure i haven't looked) I feel like some have been allowed? I would assume any condition would not be enforceable by the league given the rule book but have we kind of allowed gentleman's agreements between GMs to take place, assuming they don't violate other rules? 

 

Yeah, I think 'conditions' are hard to govern, so the most obvious ones are on the condition that "a player reaches a certain point total" or "a player hits x TPE", etc.

 

I think, for the most part, the only time conditions have been an issue are where it's like this, and it's a 1st for a 7th or something like that. Or, when I traded with Beav and had a condition if a player hit x TPE I'd get a better pick lol, but that part was pretty much blocked from potentially happening as soon as Beaviss added it (whether that was his plan or not...).

 

Tbh, I don't really see the issue of conditional pick trades, as long as the GMs assume the risk that they aren't going to be enforced by the league, and it needs to be a reasonable trade to not get voided from the get go,

 

i.e. Can't trade someone a Superstar for a 3rd with the condition that if the Superstar scores 100 points, it becomes a 1st.

[Will 4,660]

2 minutes ago, Quik said:

Tbh, I don't really see the issue of conditional pick trades, as long as the GMs assume the risk that they aren't going to be enforced by the league, and it needs to be a reasonable trade to not get voided from the get go,

 

i.e. Can't trade someone a Superstar for a 3rd with the condition that if the Superstar scores 100 points, it becomes a 1st.

 

That's what I was thinking too. I don't see why they shouldn't be able to do basic conditions, we have two other key rules that really protect against any issues IMO - the draft pick trading rule and the 'compromising the integrity of a team/league' rule. 

[Nykonax 1,563]

the 1st wasnt a conditional pick, it was guaranteed

[Quik 4,113]

2 hours ago, Nykonax said:

the 1st wasnt a conditional pick, it was guaranteed

then yeah, this is void. basically circumventing the 2-season limit on trading draft picks.

[Nykonax 1,563]

8 minutes ago, Quik said:

then yeah, this is void. basically circumventing the 2-season limit on trading draft picks.

i mean, considering davos/malmo did this exact same thing I don't know why this would be void but their trade isnt

 

https://vhlforum.com/topic/62266-maldav-s66/?tab=comments#comment-628646

https://vhlforum.com/topic/64976-davmal-s66-off-season/

[Quik 4,113]

3 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

i mean, considering davos/malmo did this exact same thing I don't know why this would be void but their trade isnt

 

https://vhlforum.com/topic/62266-maldav-s66/?tab=comments#comment-628646

https://vhlforum.com/topic/64976-davmal-s66-off-season/

 

@ShawnGlade and @Advantage should have had that trade overturned, but it got missed,. It also wasn't as blatant in having one team get a 1st while the other(s) get 7th rounders...

[Nykonax 1,563]

14 minutes ago, Quik said:

 

@ShawnGlade and @Advantage should have had that trade overturned, but it got missed,. It also wasn't as blatant in having one team get a 1st while the other(s) get 7th rounders...

so is the trade being voided?

[Quik 4,113]

1 hour ago, Nykonax said:

so is the trade being voided?

Yes, the picks have been returned to their original teams.