Mr. Grumpy Bear 347 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) To Seattle Tom Valiq (60% cap) To Quebec S39 3rd* *S39 3rd will be swapped for S41 2nd when the offseason comes Edited June 12, 2014 by Bushito Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler 1,514 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Welcome tommy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth 92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I can assure everyone that the future 2nd will NOT be an active. #SethKnows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball 453 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 DaBurrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgins 3,617 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Don't bother putting the condition in just do the trade later #gentlemensrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 708 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 yep legally you can't have future picks in the trade technically this is void Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregreg 930 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 yep legally you can't have future picks in the trade technically this is void Mike the hard ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 708 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I do a lot of bum busters Edited June 12, 2014 by Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth 92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 yep legally you can't have future picks in the trade technically this is void It's not a future pick, he traded a present pick with a gentleman's agreement for their future selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Grumpy Bear 347 Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yeah, sure bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Tortorella 2,653 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth 92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Tortorella 2,653 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth 92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Tortorella 2,653 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Grumpy Bear 347 Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth 92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Tortorella 2,653 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgins 3,617 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying don't put a condition in, just make the swap later without anyone knowing and consequently making a big deal out of trading a future pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yeah not sure why it was released on the board, kind of creates stir. Sttttooopid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle 667 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Valiq sucks even down to his last moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Grumpy Bear 347 Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yeah not sure why it was released on the board, kind of creates stir. Sttttooopid. Probably because Frank wanted it written in stoopid. Besides that, it's done every season so who gives a shit besides Riga? Nobody, that's who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth 92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 My client Brock Lesnar has a few words he would like to share, though this is probably not the best time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RomanesEuntDomus 442 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 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 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth 92 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) 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 June 12, 2014 by Seth 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