Buds Board Keepers League

Snipeshow wroteCOLON Where?

that was fast

kyuss wroteCOLON that was fast

That's what she said.

kyuss wroteCOLONnot sure what is wrong, especially when generic future considerations are used widespread and considered fine.

Is there written somewhere what conditions are supposed to be fine and what are not?
i'm sure the games played figures have been used in the past. The signing overseas thing as well.
Maybe we need to put a number on GP for Kotalik as well?

or just leave the whole thing as future considerations as everyone else do.

Your absolutely right, it has gone on way too long, and I assure you the CC will have written rules laid out soon. Unfortunately for you and Nate this was simply the straw that broke the camels back.

kyuss wroteCOLONanyway, we'll just write "future considerations" and leave at it if that makes you feel better guys.

That changes nothing...

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON That changes nothing...

you mean you're gonna veto all the trades that went through this offseason containing "future considerations" ?

btw, that wouldn't prevent people to agree on them anyway.

conditions like this are not something we've ran into before, and they set a bad precedent.

There shouldn't be multiple conditions on a deal, especially silly to be going both ways for GP -> just get rid of them all together and accept the risk.

Future considerations actually means a deal in faith, and we've requested that PLAYERS are not future considerations, given that a renting situation could occur, (ie giving a player after an injured player returns, or after cap is cleared, or for the rest of the season) players should also not be conditionally exchanged, as that is not allowed in the NHL.

Great condition example:

Hamhuis to flyers for a conditional 6th round pick if he signs.

Stepped conditional agreements are 100% legit, but each step needs to be laid out:

Pogge to Anaheim for 5th round pick in 2011 + GP conditions. If he starts 20 games before the end of the 2011 season a 3rd 2012 is added, if 40 games a 2nd 2012 is added

Realism is one of our mission objectives; when 2 gm's work something out that is not in-line with the goals of the league, departs from reality, is overly shady, we will step in a put a stop to it.

kyuss wroteCOLONyou mean you're gonna veto all the trades that went through this offseason containing "future considerations" ?

btw, that wouldn't prevent people to agree on them anyway.

If they are over the top like this one, yes, and yes it will prevent them.

facey wroteCOLON Future considerations actually means a deal in faith, and we've requested that PLAYERS are not future considerations, given that a renting situation could occur, (ie giving a player after an injured player returns, or after cap is cleared, or for the rest of the season) players should also not be conditionally exchanged, as that is not allowed in the NHL.

i see no words on players being involved as future considerations in this deal; on the other hand i think i saw a few days ago a trade having something like that going through without complaints ( not 100% sure though; i think it was something like " a prospect could be sent also..").

facey wroteCOLON Realism is one of our mission objectives; when 2 gm's work something out that is not in-line with the goals of the league, departs from reality, is overly shady, we will step in a put a stop to it.

ehm.. let me ask.. how do rosters and GMs shifting teams match with your quest for realism?

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON If they are over the top like this one, yes, and yes it will prevent them.

no, i mean.. if we make it another generic "future consideration" deal, how would it be any different from the others just approved..

First off,its our first season with a meaningful schedule, div's create rivalries if planned properly... really not a comparable issue.... but we were trying to balance the newly important divs just a LITTLE bit more, the rest should balance out over time.


The CC is quickly working on clarifying conditions/considerations, hopefully we can present it shortly.


But lets be clear, Future Considerations is not a binding agreement, and cannot be a player(s) (that is not allowed in the NHL).

kyuss wroteCOLONno, i mean.. if we make it another generic "future consideration" deal, how would it be any different from the others just approved..

I know what you meant...Most "future considerations are made known to the CC, but if not, and they are illegal they will be vetoed, when the announcement of the conditions are made. Besides the CC is working on a rule that will make it mandatory to state the terms of "future considerations."

facey wroteCOLONBut lets be clear, Future Considerations is not a binding agreement, and cannot be a player(s) (that is not allowed in the NHL).

I'm all for re-working this deal, but there is nothing in the CBA that disallows trading players to be named later. In fact, I believe Robyn Regher was a future consideration in the Calgary/Colorado deal years back.

facey wroteCOLONRealism is one of our mission objectives

Horseshit. If you wanted realism, Crosby and Ovechkin wouldn't be on the same roster.

Radiohead wroteCOLON Horseshit. If you wanted realism, Crosby and Ovechkin wouldn't be on the same roster.

easy their Mi... I mean nate , Bad GMing is a reality, in the NHL and in the BBKL


Interpreting and making rules as close to the NHL as is reasonably possible, without causing undue work or harm is 100% our goal.

Radiohead wroteCOLONHorseshit. If you wanted realism, Crosby and Ovechkin wouldn't be on the same roster.

What does that have to do with anything...Great duo's exist all throughout sports, heck the 3 best youngsters at their position recently signed on the same team in the NBA, that's a very poor reason to go after the authentic approach of this league...

nice to see you bring my MSP banner back kareemster .

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONWhat does that have to do with anything...

Uh, it's very relevant. Pittsburgh would never trade Crosby, let alone to their biggest rival.

kyuss wroteCOLON
As for Russell, you had every chance to land this good player.. and it's not like i didn't advice you he would be gone elsewhere soon....

lol dude i would NEVER even do streit for russell + gleason . and i believe you were the one constantly messaging about Streit .

Radiohead wroteCOLONUh, it's very relevant. Pittsburgh would never trade Crosby, let alone to their biggest rival.

We have ZERO control over trades made, ditto with the NHL, while it's unlikely that OV would be traded it is still a possibilty and an option, in no way does that harm or impact the authenticity of this league, and in no way does it relate to the vetoing of this trade, you've past the point of comparing apples to oranges and went straight to fruits and vegetables.

SuperMario wroteCOLONnice to see you bring my MSP banner back kareemster .

Kareemster...You're setting a bad precedent with that one