Flyers/Sharks Deal

To Flyers: Patrick Marleau, Thomas Greiss

To Sharks: Ray Whitney, Year 2 WIN 1st, Year 2 NJ 2nd, Year 2 ANA 2nd, Year 3 VAN 2nd Darroll Powe, Prospects Jamie McBain, Denis Bodrov, R.J. Anderson

That is a First, 3 2nd's and some solid young players and prospects
Also Ray Whitney is old as shit but still rated 76 for 2 seasons. He is in the deal for Cap reasons to even out the deal. Also he does have alittle trade value. He is a 2nd Line LW on most of the teams.

Flyers Agree

san jose agrees and the rebuilding phase is complete. with a few veteran FA signings in the future for some added leadership im set.

whitney could definitely be traded for picks at the deadline.

auto-veto.

when i did a trade for marleau for ryder, kobasew, picks and cash jake, the wild gm, immediately jumped on the trade and said that "stuff" for marleau wasnt enough and mike, the san jose gm, immediately removed the trade. ok, fair enough, but anyone else who does a deal is going to be held to the same standard i was.

This should not be auto-vetoed.

If the OV trade goes thorugh this one must as well

ok woah woah, auto-veto? this is a new and invented rule that isn't fair

Exactly, the commish can't be making up rules as he goes along.

no, this trade is vetoed. marleau for "stuff" is not an appropriate deal as i found out. not going to have my marleau deal tanked so someone else can come along and make the same kind of offer and have it pass. we should all be held to the same standard.

Then why should OV be traded for “stuff”?

This trade is no more lopsided then that one.



I suggest a trade committee be formed again so we can avoid this sort of thing.

A trade committee in light of new events must be formed.

no TC in the SDHL.

this trade is vetoed for cause as mike is a new gm and it has already been established that marleau for "stuff" is not an appropriate deal. i had to deal with it. so does everybody else. same standards for everyone.

i think a good amount of prospects and picks is not just "stuff" if this is the case then the AO deal should be vetoed as well.

let the league decide joe, like they did the time before

it's only fair

I agree, if this one is vetoed so should the OV one.

Why no TC joe? It's the fairest way of doing it.
If the commish is also a GM, he should not have full power over things like trade vetos.

why dont we let the league decide if this "auto-veto" rule should be allowed if the league is also in charge of trades in general?

i think thats fair, however i think an auto-veto is a little bit of an abuse of powers, but if deemed allowable i'll live with it

I agree on the TC idea.

I also think think deal doesnt make much sense for SJ. There was no way I could get Marleau when we talked unless i dealt Duncan Keith, and now you trade him for McBain, a 1st rounder and random other low-end stuff??

I also dont think you should be allowed to auto-veto a deal based on the fact that you couldnt do the same kind of deal (although Ryder, Kobasew is better than what he receives now ) but only based on the deal itself. So i think you either let the league decide (aka do like we used to do..anarchy etc...) or form a TC, which is the best way to do it IMO.

I'd volunterr to be on such TC if there ever is one.

well, mike, we didnt think our trade for marleau was "stuff" either until someone came along and started telling you it was.

listen, my deal of ryder, kobasew, picks and cash for marleau was considered "stuff". this certainly falls into that same category. we could argue about which is worth more and why, but in the end this deal is just as much "stuff" as that one was. and i want all of you to ask yourselves what you'd want me to do if you were in my shoes: on the verge of acquiring an 81ov player, only to have the deal tanked, but then turn around and see someone else make the same kind of deal. i believe a lot of you would feel that it was unfair that you were being held to a higher standard trade then the next team that came along.

why is it ok for one team to give "stuff" for a player, but not another? the same standard should apply to everyone.

also, as a side note i must admit that my use of "auto-veto" was incorrect. its just a plain veto. 'auto-veto' is for something that violates league rules.

Joe
I am kinda shocked by this
Maybe I should have been a good Gm and just kept my mouth shut about your deal.

This is not looking good at all on the league right now
Seems like there is a new rule every month

Please answer why no TC??

It makes the most sense.

because a TC is a few people who think they know more than everyone about trades. there will never be a trade council in the SDHL. we can all take turns voting on trades.

well there shouldnt be auto-veto from the commish either. If you want everyone to voice their opinion, don't make decisions by yourself IMO.

I also don't think a TC is people that think they know better. TC should be formed by members voted on by all GMs. Poeple that all GM can relate to and trust and think they are knowledgable enough to make good decisions.

As long as every deal is ''voted'' on by everyone that wishes to post, i have no problem with the current situation. I just completely disagree with the almighty power of the commish to just veto a deal without the league's opinion.

this trade needs to either go through or be vetoed in the traditional fashion.

it's your opinion that the flyers offered the same deal you did, and therefore you're using your hockey intelligence to veto it.

which is the exact same logic you're using to deny the trade council.

Minnesota Wild wrote:

this trade needs to either go through or be vetoed in the traditional fashion.

it's your opinion that the flyers offered the same deal you did, and therefore you're using your hockey intelligence to veto it.

which is the exact same logic you're using to deny the trade council.

actually, im applying your logic. i guess you dont like it when you or mark on the other side of it.

the same standard should be applied to everyone, jake. not a different set of rules for you and mark.

joe, when have i ever tried to apply a different set of rules?

if you want to make an accusation, make it and explain it.

as of now, it's within my full right to challenge or not challenge deals.

in fact, recently, a deal that sort of screwed me over, i didnt even challenge. i said i disagreed but even told you i would not challenge. how do i think i play under different rules?


are you aware of how divided the league is getting?

Quote :

joe, when have i ever tried to apply a different set of rules?

do you, or do you not have an issue challenging philly mark's trades?