Jump to content

Fantasy First Hockey Podcast


James

Recommended Posts

I don't doubt that it's happened multiple times.  That particular time was BIH and Slough Shark in the WCFL, but yeah I'll bet it's happened before.

 

The Executive Committee was actually created after some nastiness went down when I unilaterally vetoed a rental-type trade (I believe Josh Harding was involved?).  I hated making the decision on my own, so I pulled the committee together the next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, James said:

Oh wait, I stand entirely corrected.  Did a little research into this... the Executive Committee discussed it extensively back in April 2019, and the outcome was the creation of Appendix G of the rulebook.

 

"Additionally, a trade that the Committee feels violates any of the following specific rules may be sent to arbitration or even rejected outright (this list will be added to as situations arise, and is not in any way exhaustive):

  1. Player Loans – A player (or draft pick) cannot be traded to a team with the expressed intention of being traded back following the completion of the season (or at some other predetermined date).  Cap space can be loaned in this manner if a circumstance permits it. "

So was my offer valid or invalid? I feel as long as it is open to the committee  .. clarified and defined it shouldn't be a problem. I fully believe an NHL GM could make a trade like this if integrity  had a play.  I am also unaware of the stipulations of NHL trades. 

 

I honestly think that was a fair deal for a Capwise GM that I know loves his player,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I heard the show and trade offer I thought a lot about it.

 

Is it fair, ya, sure, maybe. Is it "OUT SIDE THE BOX" thinking?  There's a fine line

 

Lets not look at it from a rule stand point, lets look at it another way.

 

The trade is a WIN/WIN for both GM's. But it has an adverse effect on other GM's.

 

But with that said, if Ralphdog and I are in other leagues together what should or could stop us from making inter league trades together. He scratch's my back in one league I scratch his back in another. I certainly cant be the only GM to think of that angle.

 

SOOOOOO here is my ruling. Regardless of the rules it would be an unwritten rule for me.

 

I LOVE THE DEAL💘 yes it's valid, but it has too much stink on it.

 

Sorry man, I just couldn't accept an offer like that.

 

Music Man

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Music ManI hear you.  But the offer was picks for a player . Those picks were premium and the player was premium. It's a valid trade that no one would have a problem with. Me telling Dan I would take the same picks back and we would make public is almost like  I stood up and pointed at the trade and screamed

"look at this trade!! look how fair it is!".

 

Giving @weeoilerthat option wasn't meant to be collusion as much as it was meant to be persuasive. The committee, the rulebook and the trading GM's all have a say when the caveats are on the table and not in the private messages. 

 

I'm not deflating footballs or greasing up baseballs. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a difference between trading with the intention of trading back later (which is illegal), and trading with the option to trade back later. No doubt about that. But it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to confirm your intention. It’s all a very grey area.

 

I wouldn’t advise anyone to make a trade with the assumption that you’ll be allowed to trade back later, because the committee is well within its rights to block that future trade. 

  • Stick Tap 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James said:

There’s a difference between trading with the intention of trading back later (which is illegal), and trading with the option to trade back later. No doubt about that. But it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to confirm your intention. It’s all a very grey area.

 

I wouldn’t advise anyone to make a trade with the assumption that you’ll be allowed to trade back later, because the committee is well within its rights to block that future trade. 

This is why we talk. To get to the bottom of the grey areas. well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah ... that was a gooood nap. What did I miss? 

I thought that @leevaughn offer for Connor was certainly a good one, but not one that I seriously entertained, and I think that Lee knew that as well. The addition of the "and I'll give you the option of reversing the trade at the end of the year" part was more tongue-in-cheek than anything, because he knew there was no way I was gonna trade Connor, no matter what the offer was. I didn't take it as collusion or underhanded or anything like that, not even for a second ... just a GM trying to be creative in a deal that he knew deep down had almost no chance of being accepted. It was all in good fun, as Lee described on the podcast, not nefarious,  but it would have been interesting to see what the Executive Committee would have done with it.

  • Stick Tap 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...