VHL Bot 2,760 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Seattle receives: Joel Ylonen Calgary receives: Thorny Underyew S69 CGY 3rd S70 SEA 1st This trade has been accepted by all parties and is pending league approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nykonax 1,550 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banackock 7,638 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, Nykonax said: 1st 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berocka 2,191 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, Banackock said: 2nd 3rd could we beat dil Also welcome to the DRUNKBIRD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motzaburger 1,590 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) TRADE! LOOK! TRADE! Also didn't Seattle trade away poor drunk bird already? Edited October 2, 2019 by Motzaburger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustav 6,097 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 @Banackock if the :DrunkBird: emoji hasn't made it into Seattle's locker room, now's the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advantage 2,769 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 6.7 – Reacquiring a Player Previously TradedA player may not be re-acquired by the same team within the next 2 seasons (including the one the player was traded in) via trade. This is still in rulebook so I assume this is still a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushito 1,945 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Advantage said: 6.7 – Reacquiring a Player Previously TradedA player may not be re-acquired by the same team within the next 2 seasons (including the one the player was traded in) via trade. This is still in rulebook so I assume this is still a thing? It’s been done about 5 times already in the past 10 seasons Banackock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgehog337 3,480 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 rip Seattle cup run S68-68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banackock 7,638 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 51 minutes ago, Bushito said: It’s been done about 5 times already in the past 10 seasons This. Also, who gives a shit? They’re fair deals - with value being exchanged each time? There’s nothing malicious. No intentions of bending loopholes or the system. Just movements of assets and players for legitimate reasons. I don’t see the harm. DA BEARS STRIKE FEAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esso2264 772 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, GustavMattias said: @Banackock if the :DrunkBird: emoji hasn't made it into Seattle's locker room, now's the time... its already done, i cant go in a LR and not have this DoktorFunk and Gustav 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissioner Beketov 8,642 Posted October 2, 2019 Commissioner Share Posted October 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Bushito said: It’s been done about 5 times already in the past 10 seasons Has it though? I don't recall seeing any; though admittedly I don't pay attention to every single trade. Holding off on putting this through until we can look into things. As per the rules it's not allowed however I'm not sure if precedent has been to let that rule slide or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banackock 7,638 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, Beketov said: Has it though? I don't recall seeing any; though admittedly I don't pay attention to every single trade. Holding off on putting this through until we can look into things. As per the rules it's not allowed however I'm not sure if precedent has been to let that rule slide or not. Why is it not allowed..? What are we preventing? With these two trades - what exactly was harmful or malicious? They’re good deals - good assets - not bull shit trades? What exactly is the problem here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissioner Beketov 8,642 Posted October 2, 2019 Commissioner Share Posted October 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, Banackock said: Why is it not allowed..? What are we preventing? With these two trades - what exactly was harmful or malicious? They’re good deals - good assets - not bull shit trades? What exactly is the problem here? The problem is the rules are very clear. We can’t just say “we’ll the rules say this but this instance is fine so fuck the rules.” People want more things in stone instead of being subjective, that’s what you get. I’m not saying we won’t allow it I’m saying I want to look at it. As per the rules it’s an illegal trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banackock 7,638 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Beketov said: The problem is the rules are very clear. We can’t just say “we’ll the rules say this but this instance is fine so fuck the rules.” People want more things in stone instead of being subjective, that’s what you get. I’m not saying we won’t allow it I’m saying I want to look at it. As per the rules it’s an illegal trade. I’m asking what it prevents or what the purpose of it is... What harm is there in trading back assets? Look at both deals? What’s harmful? What’s negative? How does it poorly affect the league? Both deals were good with solid assets moving to each team every team? I don’t see anything to raise an alarm or have a rule about here - just saying. As per the rules, it is. I’d look at the rules because it seems that rules is slightly outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaviss 4,949 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 If it makes a difference it doesn't offend me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enorama 1,980 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 This rules are generally in place to avoid literal rental deals. Lending a player to another team for their playoff run just to re-acquire them that off-season. Which honestly I don't think is a terrible thing. Is there any difference between that and trading an expiring FA just to sign them again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissioner Beketov 8,642 Posted October 2, 2019 Commissioner Share Posted October 2, 2019 32 minutes ago, Enorama said: Is there any difference between that and trading an expiring FA just to sign them again? That’s also generally frowned upon and something I was pretty sure was in the rules until Quik and I looked at them a few seasons ago. It’s also in place to generally avoid teams dumping cap space to rebuilding teams in exchange for taking it back at a slightly later date. In general, like you said, not a huge deal. With @Quik on vacation I discussed it with @Will and we agreed to amend the rule to the following: 6.7 – Reacquiring a Player Previously Traded All trades involving a player being re-acquired by a team that traded them within the previous 2 seasons, including the season in which they were traded (i.e. if they were traded in S68, S68 and S69), will be subject to extra scrutiny by league administration. If the trade is found to have malicious intent that is damaging to the league (such as a temporary cap deferral arrangement), the Commissioner's Office reserves the right to veto it. So this trade will be allowed but in the future please don’t try to just get away with things that are against the rules. We’re way more likely to allow things if you just come to us with them instead of breaking the rule and then trying to argue it’s a dumb rule. Advantage, SidTheKid87 and Rayzor_7 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidTheKid87 166 Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Beketov said: We’re way more likely to allow things if you just come to us with them instead of breaking the rule and then trying to argue it’s a dumb rule. Word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.ed69a7260a477fcf4feead7a0e4b7506.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now