Buds Board Keepers League

To Nashville
Tuomo Ruutu
Jochen Hecht
2013 2nd Round Draft Choice (CAR)
2012 3rd Round Draft Choice (DAL)

To Carolina
Niklas Hagman
Kris Russell
Ales Kotalik
Teemu Laakso

Radiohead wroteCOLONTo Nashville
Tuomo Ruutu
Jochen Hecht
2013 2nd Round Draft Choice (CAR)
2012 3rd Round Draft Choice (DAL)
Future Considerations (conditional)

To Carolina
Niklas Hagman
Kris Russell
Ales Kotalik
Teemu Laakso
Future Considerations (conditional)

Conditions:

If Ruutu plays in less than 60 games in 2010-2011, NAS will receive future considerations
If Ruutu plays in less than 40 games 2010-2011, NAS will receive more future considerations

If Kotalik spends the majority of the season in the AHL in 2010-2011, CAR will receive future considerations
If Kotalik signs with a KHL team for the 2010-2011 season, CAR will receive more future considerations

Confirmed.

Hopefully neither one will need compensation at the end of next season!

OMGZZZ RAPE

naw i like this for Carolina

I like this for Nate,

but overall fair value

nate wins.

Agree that Nate overall got better value out of the deal.. and more potential as well.

This is son of the 60 men limit and of my situation.

He was there willing to take advantage of it, something no one else (aside from Habber in the Havlat deal) seemed interested to do.

kyuss wroteCOLONAgree that Nate overall got better value out of the deal.. and more potential as well.

This is son of the 60 men limit and of my situation.

He was there willing to take advantage of it, something no one else (aside from Habber in the Havlat deal) seemed interested to do.

there are other ways to get below 60 than trading away two good players + +. so either this is bad gming or you're posturing. and theres no need to posture lol you obviously made this trade because you thought it helps you. enough complaining about the 60 man limit already .

SuperMario wroteCOLON there are other ways to get below 60 than trading away two good players + +. so either this is bad gming or you're posturing. and theres no need to posture lol you obviously made this trade because you thought it helps you. enough complaining about the 60 man limit already .

damn, you won't get it eh?
other ways to cut my roster enough to get under 60 would be cutting players that i consider to be valuable assets.. hence i think i am better off making a 4 for 2 trade of this kind while keeping on 2 more of those assets.

I am currently at 73 players. WIthout this trade i would have had to cut 15 players to stay under the limit.
At the moment i can't know if guys like Forsberg or Vehanen will get signed or not by the end of the offseason. If they don't i'll have no problem cutting them.. but even guessing those kind of guys won't be signed, i've estimated i'll have a max of 12 i don't mind too much losing. Anything more would be cutting something i value, which i don't want to do.
Now, without this trade i would be at 75, take away 12 (and that's only if none of those longshots get signed) and you still have at least 3 valuable (imo) assets that would be lost. With this trade i'm down to at least 1 (again, could be more depending on offseason signings).. so i will still need more trades to reduce the roster by a couple more spots at least.
So much for posturing, i hope this clarify it fo you.

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....

Im sure shiv was busting your balls Mik, don't think you had to write an essay

Wow...73 players? How in gods name did it get so big? and yes, I am talking about your roster...

jcarton wroteCOLON Im sure shiv was busting your balls Mik, don't think you had to write an essay

we talked about it through msn a few days ago.. he just seems convinced about that lol.

and if instead it's just busting, anyone interested can use the essay to realize there is nothing more than busting there.

mr. bruin wroteCOLONWow...73 players? How in gods name did it get so big? and yes, I am talking about your roster...

13 waiver picks probably... plus the entry draft picks.. all seasoned with a few FA signings..
but it's not a real number, i'm not positive a guy like Yashin will sign in the NHL for example
(probably just signed one more year in Russia btw.
Note: obviousy he is one of those aforementioned 12 that could easily bec dropping material)

Yea no risk high reward players are good to have in the offseason. Id love to see Yashin back. They could be paying him twice...that would be hilarious. I have a few of those guys. Svitov being one. Hoping for the best.

This deal is on hold as per the CC until you guys rework it, the conditions are absolutely bogus and not at all authentic, we have to stop this now before a precedent is set. Change the conditions or this deal is donzo.

Just to be clear and repeat what Kareem has said.


There is no way we can allow conditions like this to be accepted, too unrealistic, too hard to track, and just non-sensical.


I don't believe another trade has ever had more then one condition, and that is appropriate, also the NHL requires payment be made official and known (if not public), we should require the same.

More future considerations

is not acceptable, and I believe we've ended the players as conditions stage.

I didn't even see those conditions when I first read the trade..

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONThis deal is on hold as per the CC until you guys rework it, the conditions are absolutely bogus and not at all authentic, we have to stop this now before a precedent is set. Change the conditions or this deal is donzo.

not 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.

facey wroteCOLON is not acceptable, and I believe we've ended the players as conditions stage.

what does "ended the players as conditions stage" mean?

i see a problem is considered the number of conditions.. whereas it's basically about GP by 2 players;

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

Snipeshow wroteCOLONI didn't even see those conditions when I first read the trade..

@new signature: It's TarAsenko dude, give him to me already, you can't even spell his name right!

kyuss wroteCOLON@new signature: It's TarAsenko dude, give him to me already, you can't even spell his name right!

Where?