Buds Board Keepers League

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

wait a second.

1. We're talking about fantasy hockey here. trades are a MAJOR part of fantasy hockey. that can never be mimiced like reality. if that were the case, the whole bbkl season would be 1/2 trades and we jjust leave it at that. so dont argue about reality when it comes to that.

2. While we can't control reality vs. fantasy hockey (i.e. this is not like GMing an ACTUAL team), we can control other things (i.e. goalies can play max certain games per season/per week in the playoffs). rules like that makes this more real and hence more fun.

3. Future considerations are great, and i use them all the time. But there needs to be a line (in fact i have to rework a deal with dallas because of this decision but I COMPLETELY agree). You cannot get obscure with future considerations. it needs to be simple, and something that isnt too out there in terms of what is being included in the trade. Here is a circumstance where you guys pushed the penny a bit.

4. What's the big deal? You guys can EASILY rework this deal.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON
you've passed the point of comparing apples to oranges and went straight to fruits and vegetables.

LOLLLLLLLLL

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONand in no way does it relate to the vetoing of this trade

I've already stated why this trade shouldn't be vetoed, you completely ignored it.

Future considerations can be anything: picks, players, or nothing at all. The NHL doesn't prevent teams from doing this.

And Shiv, stop kissing Kareem's ass.

Radiohead wroteCOLON
I've already stated why this trade shouldn't be vetoed, you completely ignored it.

Future considerations can be anything: picks, players, or nothing at all. The NHL doesn't prevent teams from doing this.

Nate let me ask you something. Would this Future Consideration seem legal to you:

To Team A

Player X

To Team B

Future Considerations (ALL picks in ALL drafts will be shipped to Team A, AS SOON AS the pick is tradeable under the BBKL rulebook)


Where do you draw the line? You cannot make this IDENTICAL to the nhl. you have to make it realistic within the framework of a fantasy hockey league. just rework the trade.

Radiohead wroteCOLONAnd Shiv, stop kissing Kareem's ass.

Only if you agree to stop acting like a dumbass.

Radiohead wroteCOLONAnd Shiv, stop kissing Kareem's ass.

its basic logic. people who understand will agree. you dont have to get emotional about it lol.

Radiohead wroteCOLONI've already stated why this trade shouldn't be vetoed, you completely ignored it.

Future considerations can be anything: picks, players, or nothing at all. The NHL doesn't prevent teams from doing this.

As per usual Mike, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about...The NHL forbids the exchanging of players and/or cash in a future considerations deal, futhermore the terms need to be clearly and explicitly laid out, and they certainly forbid the exchange of an asset based on GP. I'm also under the impression that the NHL does not allow more than one future consideration per transaction.

SuperMario wroteCOLONNate let me ask you something. Would this Future Consideration seem legal to you:

To Team A

Player X

To Team B

Future Considerations (ALL picks in ALL drafts will be shipped to Team A, AS SOON AS the pick is tradeable under the BBKL rulebook)


Where do you draw the line? You cannot make this IDENTICAL to the nhl. you have to make it realistic within the framework of a fantasy hockey league. just rework the trade.

That's nothing like our deal.

Also, Kareem himself said the CC hasn't even implemented the rule yet. How are we supposed to follow the rules when there aren't any to follow?

Radiohead wroteCOLON
That's nothing like our deal.

Also, Kareem himself said the CC hasn't even implemented the rule yet. How are we supposed to follow the rules when there aren't any to follow?

you just hit the nail on the head. you said "that's nothing like our deal." so my follow up is, you admit that there SHOULD be a line.

this league is in its 1st year. OF COURSE not all rules are codified yet. but the way rules are made in a situation like ours is that when something that seems off happens, we use it as a benchmark to make a rule. thats the only way this league will get better. by taking anything bad that happens and ensuring it doesnt happen again. this trade triggered the debate. hence you should rework it.

and again, my view is COMPLETELY unbiased. i have a trade that is ALSO being asked to be reworked because of this new rule and i've gone up against the CC a couple of times myself. but we all can admit that they do a good job of running this league.

and credentials aside the rule makes sense. you have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to future considerations being traded. if you make it a free for all i.e. everything goes with future considerations, you are going to see ridiculously lopsided trades begin to happen.

p.s. ill be honest, i've almost even exploited this rule. before Cliff traded Pronger to Neel, i had a deal going with him which was:

To PIT: Pronger
To ANA: Mark Streit + Future Considerations (1st in 2011 + 1st in 2011 + 2nd in 2011)

Wanna know the catch? I didn't own any of those picks at the time. I couldve basically rented pronger for a championship run because of "future considerations." i didnt end up doing it because 1) cliff said no and 2) i figured CC would veto. but this proves that there should be a limit.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONAs per usual Mike, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about...The NHL forbids the exchanging of players and/or cash in a future considerations deal

Please tell me where in the CBA where it says you can't trade players as future considerations. Please tell me where in OUR league rules it says you can't trade players as future considerations.

Til then, fuck off.

Radiohead wroteCOLON
Please tell me where in the CBA where it says you can't trade players as future considerations. Please tell me where in OUR league rules it says you can't trade players as future considerations.

Til then, fuck off.

read my post above nate. it makes sense.

This is retarded.

nate dude you gotta chill.

its not personal against you.



This trade has been vetoed. You can rework it or not, up to you & mik.

I think we've already reached majority support on the following (not all members have spoken, but none in opposition either):
- future considerations cannot be based on GP
- cash can not be exchanged in future considerations
- only one future consideration per deal
- terms need to be clearly and explicitly stated in the transactions thread for everyone to see (this one is particulaurly important imo)
- 1 condition per deal.

Radiohead wroteCOLONPlease tell me where in the CBA where it says you can't trade players as future considerations. Please tell me where in OUR league rules it says you can't trade players as future considerations.

Til then, fuck off.

I'm not going to go through the CBA...Heres a better idea, find me one trade (since the lockout) that involved a future consideration that resulted in a roster player. I've looked through a few different scenarios, and the only players I can find being exchanged are prospects (specifically Robyn Regehr) pre lockout, and/or an agreement for X team to stay away from a player team Y is interested in, and that too was pre lockout.

facey wroteCOLONnate dude you gotta chill.

its not personal against you.



This trade has been vetoed. You can rework it or not, up to you & mik.

I think we've already reached majority support on the following (not all members have spoken, but none in opposition either):
- future considerations cannot be based on GP
- cash can not be exchanged in future considerations
- only one future consideration per deal
- terms need to be clearly and explicitly stated in the transactions thread for everyone to see (this one is particulaurly important imo)
- 1 condition per deal.

We'll rework the deal. I just think you should have made these 'rules' clear from the beginning.

This is a keeper league being run for fun, theres no way we can predict every potential outcome or occurrence. We address the issues as they arise.
The CC has already decided that your 2013 pick included in this deal is fine, because this deal was made before that announcement, so it would be unfair to punish any reworked deal as well.

At the end of the day, reworking the futures of this deal isn't the end of the world.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON I'm not going to go through the CBA...Heres a better idea, find me one trade (since the lockout) that involved a future consideration that resulted in a roster player. I've looked through a few different scenarios, and the only players I can find being exchanged are prospects (specifically Robyn Regehr) pre lockout, and/or an agreement for X team to stay away from a player team Y is interested in, and that too was pre lockout.

We're not trading roster players.

Just because a team hasn't traded a player to be named later doesn't mean it's not allowed.

everyone watch this. It is funny as hell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Y6PchDYfw


ps-> hell is funny, ask kareem, he knows.

It's a must watch...