Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not a future pick, he traded a present pick with a gentleman's agreement for their future selection.

 

It's essentially the same thing.

 

I didn't want to raise the point in this trade since it's not really a secret that every team does this, but what exactly is the point of that rule then?

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83100
Share on other sites

It's essentially the same thing.

 

I didn't want to raise the point in this trade since it's not really a secret that every team does this, but what exactly is the point of that rule then?

Point of the rule is to avoid trading future selections several years in a row. What is wrong with a gentleman's agreement that they chose to make public? I fail to see a significant issue here.

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83101
Share on other sites

Point of the rule is to avoid trading future selections several years in a row. What is wrong with a gentleman's agreement that they chose to make public? I fail to see a significant issue here.

 

What is the difference between straight up trading say your S40 1st round pick and S41 2nd round pick in a deal in S38 or trading two 3rds in S38 and then swapping those 3rds for the pics mentioned earlier?

 

And again, I don't have a problem with this deal, since like I said, everyone does it, but I don't get why we have that rule in place then.

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83102
Share on other sites

What is the difference between straight up trading say your S40 1st round pick and S41 2nd round pick in a deal in S38 or trading two 3rds in S38 and then swapping those 3rds for the pics mentioned earlier?

Absolutely nothing, but one is abiding by the trading rules, while the other is not. We are going to formulate a new rule that negates all gentleman agreements? It happens several times per season. The rule is perfectly fine as placed currently from my perspective.

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83103
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing, but one is abiding by the trading rules, while the other is not. We are going to formulate a new rule that negates all gentleman

agreements? It happens several times per season. The rule is perfectly fine as placed currently from my perspective.

 

That's exactly my point. Both cases have the same end result, so why do teams have to go through this little dance then? Might as well just let teams trade any future pick instead of the 2 season in advance rule we have now.

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83105
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point. Both cases have the same end result, so why do teams have to go through this little dance then? Might as well just let teams trade any future pick instead of the 2 season in advance rule we have now.

You know damn well if we lifted that rule, trading would get incredibly out of hand by some teams.

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83108
Share on other sites

http://www.vhlforum.com/index.php?/topic/7791-colrig-s37-off-season/

I brought it up last season, lol. What's good for Riga is not good for all.

 

Which is part of the reason I wasn't going to bring it up in this thread. Like I said, I don't have a problem with this trade, just don't get why we even bother having the rule if we allow trades like these.

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83110
Share on other sites

The second year in a row where the market is terrible for sellers... Makes me wonder if this is a trend that will continue and what implications it should have, since  we actually seem to be getting close to a point where we actually have too many active/high TPE-players for the non-rebuilding teams to fit under the cap.

 

And yeah, just loosen the rules on trading future picks a bit. Don't do away with them entirely so that teams could go beserk with their picks, but allow for them to be traded one more year in advance than they can now.

Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83152
Share on other sites

The second year in a row where the market is terrible for sellers... Makes me wonder if this is a trend that will continue and what implications it should have, since  we actually seem to be getting close to a point where we actually have too many active/high TPE-players for the non-rebuilding teams to fit under the cap.

 

And yeah, just loosen the rules on trading future picks a bit. Don't do away with them entirely so that teams could go beserk with their picks, but allow for them to be traded one more year in advance than they can now.

From my experience, markets develop through trends, and who can realistically compete. In this current season, I would say the market is dry for the aforementioned reasons. First, several teams have established their core, and few teams are just initiating their rebuild like Quebec. Second, and perhaps more importantly, teams realistically understand that New York will be incredibly difficult to defeat, and would prefer to not offer major assets to slightly improve their already daunting odds. This truly hurts Quebec, because they are the only team willing to sell off legitimate pieces, but few teams are vigorously attacking the market. Tough break for them, and Frank HAD to get something for pieces that are expiring.  

Edited by Seth
Link to comment
https://vhlforum.com/topic/9053-seaque-s38/#findComment-83153
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...