Flyers/Sharks Deal

it's your choice to challenge the trade. of course i have no problem with it because anyone can challenge anything they want and that is how the league works and if it gets vetoed it gets vetoed.

I did not see the BOS/SJS deal and i can't find it anywhere! so therefore did not get the opportunity to have an opinion of it!

But this deal is a fair one. It might not be one most of us would do but its fair nonetheless.

lets for a minute assume prospects Mcbain and Griess cancel each other out. both decent prospects. that leaves Marleau for Whitney, a 1st, three 2nds, and prospects Bodrov and Anderson. Seems fair to me!

Joe
I don't see how Jake and I have our own rules at all.

We come online and try and be active. We help new gms with learning the rules and also on how to use the roster editor.
We both enjoy this league and I dont want any special treatment or see how we would get any. Is special treatment me looking for gms on facebook so we can have enough guys to start the FA season or being a gm who cares about the league. Then I guess I am special.

Enough, this is getting tedious and stupid.

The deal is fair, Joe's yours was fair as well but it was the Sharks GM who pulled out of it, not because it was challenged and vetoed by the league as a whole.

Marleau is a up and down player to begin with, one who had the benefit of a good year and a spot on the PK unit. He'll remain on the PK, but if his stats drop you're looking at a 78 player. Whitney is a 76ov, cheaper and can be moved at the deadline if things aren't going well for the Sharks.

I think this deal is fair. I paid 2 firsts and a player whose had one good year for Koivu and that deal wasn't challenged. Basically, I see the Sharks getting more value for Marleau. Could they have got more, sure. Who couldn't say that in hindsight, the fact is, no one was willing to offer the farm like Philly was. Could VanR been included, sure... he wasn't though. Is the trade fair, yup, right up and down the middle.

If these are the players SJ wants on his roster, so be it. If he had issues regarding your deal, so be it too. It's his team, his path and his choice.

If he wants this, let it pass.

If he doesn't, then let him speak out.

so what is the conclusion after all of this?

lol

and mark has been a huge help for me in understanding how this league works.

the trade is vetoed.

if philly wants to offer you something legitimate for a "number one center" instead of just "stuff" then he can.

thats how it was told to me, so im just relaying the message. marleau is a very big piece for you. 81ov is elite in the sim. tbh, i wasnt even upset that our deal got tanked. but after our deal did get tanked, i see no reason why the next guy who comes along should be able to get marleau for a similar deal(value wise).

the same standards should apply to everyone.

Well, if vetoed the SJ GM should simply add VanR into the mix, lol.

I haven't been here for long so it's tough for me to weigh in. However, from what I hear, Joe offered a very similar deal to this one for Marleau, and it was rejected. I don't know if this was by the other GM or by the league, but if it's the latter, then why should this deal be accepted?

In my opinion, the GMs for Carolina and San Jose could have gotten more for Ovechkin and Marleau, respectively, but if you look at each individually (i.e. without taking previous offers into account), they aren't bad enough to warrant vetoing.

ok, fair enough.

i would like to add, while i dotn think a trade committee is necessary. maybe making each trade with a poll to see if people agree or not would be just as beneficial?

oh boy.


dont get us started on the polls.

Ya, last time there was a poll, the result didn't matter haha, that's not a viable option.

bad subject?

pretend i didnt say anything haha

I don't think polls would be a good idea. I think that if more than one GM weighs in on a trade and provides logical reasoning that cannot be argued for why the deal is bad, then we should take that into consideration and either veto it or try to re-work it to make it fairer.

fair enough. just thought i'd add some input to teh topic

SanJoseGM wrote:

fair enough. just thought i'd add some input to teh topic

lol don't worry, I'm not criticizing you and saying it's a terrible idea :p - i just don't think it would work.

bure_HOF wrote:

the trade is vetoed.

if philly wants to offer you something legitimate for a "number one center" instead of just "stuff" then he can.

thats how it was told to me, so im just relaying the message. marleau is a very big piece for you. 81ov is elite in the sim. tbh, i wasnt even upset that our deal got tanked. but after our deal did get tanked, i see no reason why the next guy who comes along should be able to get marleau for a similar deal(value wise).

the same standards should apply to everyone.

I strongly disagree with this. I see it as you banging the big commish hammer on a deal while most people think it's bad but not vetoable. The fact he refused your previous deal is irrelevant. He had reasons, maybe wrong reasons but reasons nonetheless. Someone might have talked him into not accepting the deal but is not talking him into dropping this one cuz Philly is his friend.. so what? The deal as it is is fine. Very bad for SJ, but not completely out of reason.

Let it go through if SJ really wants it!

^ In the previous deal, was it already posted and agreed to, or was it simply discussions? Because if it's the latter, then I don't really see a problem with this deal, as it is bad, but not absolutely terrible.

The first deal was posted (i think) but then the Sharks backed out before it was proccessed. Which is frowned upon, but not against the rules.

gee francis. mike really wanted our deal too until someone convinced him he didnt...

the commish has veto power(with cause) over the trades involving new GMs. nobody is going to like every set of laws or rules, but that is life. i dont like the fact that i cant appeal a commissioner's decision in the DHL, but oh well. in the SDHL, you can at least appeal any sanctions made against you, something which was strictly prohibited when i took over. what is important about the rules is that they apply equally to everyone. the only exceptions are the new guys, and after some of the trades over the last few days i think we understand why.

Garth Snow wrote:

The first deal was posted (i think) but then the Sharks backed out before it was proccessed. Which is frowned upon, but not against the rules.

this isnt true. verbal or written agreement is a contract in the SDHL. i didnt make a fuss because mike is a new guy.

bure_HOF wrote:

Garth Snow wrote:

The first deal was posted (i think) but then the Sharks backed out before it was proccessed. Which is frowned upon, but not against the rules.

this isnt true. verbal or written agreement is a contract in the SDHL. i didnt make a fuss because mike is a new guy.

glad i understand now

i didnt know the deal was initially posted. If it was then i retract my previous statement

bure_HOF wrote:

Garth Snow wrote:

The first deal was posted (i think) but then the Sharks backed out before it was proccessed. Which is frowned upon, but not against the rules.

this isnt true. verbal or written agreement is a contract in the SDHL. i didnt make a fuss because mike is a new guy.

Oh ok.

on a lighter note, has tehre ever been a trade thread with this many responses?

I just find it really interesting that the deal was up
Nobody said anything about it. Alot of people viewed the deal. The deal seem to be ok with everyone in the league

Then I happen to make a comment about a deal involing Boston and the Hurricanes.
I didnt say the deal should be vetoed. But I just said I didnt like it and the Hurricanes could get more.

Then what do you know my deal is vetoed..

hmmm
things that make ya go hmmmmm