Page 1 of 2
FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:31 pm
by Florida Chris
To Nashville
2018 4th Rounder (BUF)
2018 5th Rounder (PIT)
To Florida
2019 3rd Rounder (WSH)
2019 6th Rounder (NSH)
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:54 pm
by kyuss
Florida Chris wroteCOLONTo Nashville
2018 4th Rounder (BUF) - #124
2018 5th Rounder (PIT) - #140
To Florida
2019 3rd Rounder (WSH)
2019 6th Rounder (NSH)
confirmed
despite 2018 4th Rounder (BUF) being the lower 4th rounder in my hands, 2018 4th Rounder (WSH) goes to DAL instead (being a better pick than the originally appointed NSH's 4th) to satisfy the condition in the Turris deal:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14122&p=289758#p289758
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:53 pm
by CasperX22
Didn't you already have a 4th? So you go out and trade for the last pick in the 4th? Lol. Jesus.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:43 pm
by kyuss
more like I wanted to add picks and Chris happened to be the one willing to deal 2018s for 2019s..
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:47 pm
by CasperX22
Sure...
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:59 pm
by kyuss
you found others? if so let me know
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:44 pm
by Shoalzie
Curious...why did you trade a pick that you had involved in a conditional trade? Is Will going to an accept a later pick?
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:55 pm
by CasperX22
Shoalzie wroteCOLONCurious...why did you trade a pick that you had involved in a conditional trade? Is Will going to an accept a later pick?
A very good question.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:56 pm
by kyuss
Shoalzie wroteCOLONCurious...why did you trade a pick that you had involved in a conditional trade? Is Will going to an accept a later pick?
I don’t remember, might be because it was going to be a very late pick anyway, hence I thought of it as easily replaceable later on with any other 4th, or I outright forgot such pick was under condition
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:56 pm
by Jordan (VGK)
Are conditions tied to a specific pick? I though it just had to be a 4th.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:59 pm
by CasperX22
Malette18 wroteCOLONAre conditions tied to a specific pick? I though it just had to be a 4th.
Check again.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:50 pm
by Matthew
yeah, unless darkness says ok...its pretty explicit which 4th u owe him, or an earlier pick...
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:53 pm
by Bruyns
I thought picks were usually any pick in the round unless the trade specifies which team the pick is from, not sure if that was the case here.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:56 pm
by Matthew
that was the case here.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:15 am
by lightupdadarkness
Shoalzie wroteCOLONCurious...why did you trade a pick that you had involved in a conditional trade? Is Will going to an accept a later pick?
Considering he traded for wash pick few days ago and it’s literally one spot ahead where miks originally 4th falls that he traded away, then he proceeds to trade for the last possible pick in the 4th although couple spots less that what was owed and immediately just offers that up as the pick he owes I think it’s pretty obvious what the goal was here lol
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:17 am
by lightupdadarkness
Bruyns wroteCOLONI thought picks were usually any pick in the round unless the trade specifies which team the pick is from, not sure if that was the case here.
Those conditions were set by Mik not by me. He wanted specific picks
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:34 am
by kyuss
First of all, there is a reason I wanted specific picks in the deal:
http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1206 ... ons#p78253
A new policy regulating trades and conditions has been approved by the CC:
-cannot trade assets you don't own
......
going strictly by our rules, putting a generic pick in a deal is not even allowed, you need to put in the deal a pick you own.
There has still been the tendency to have unspecified picks involved in deals/conditions, but here I'm basically getting attacked for playing it by the book back then, and that's even if the specified pick was a very late one.
To my memory, it is the first time replacing a very late pick with another very late pick is not considered fine.
Luckily I also have pick #121, so DAL GM can have that pick to address everyone's concerns.
It might be the first time someone with multiple picks in one round (or even more so, in the same narrow area) gives out the better one to fulfill a condition. Not that It would be wrong anyway, I was the one at fault for trading NSH 4th.
I think it’s pretty obvious what the goal was here lol
the goal was adding another pick in the area, since one was due your way.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:46 am
by Bruyns
That was a post from 2011, I don't remember that rule ever being invoked. I just recently had a trade with Vegas to satisfy a condition and it was listed as a generic pick and no one mentioned anything about it.
At least you have that 121 pick, but going by that rule you should have never been allowed to trade the NSH pick as it was already in play.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:48 am
by Sensfanjosh
kyuss wroteCOLONFirst of all, there is a reason I wanted specific picks in the deal:
http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1206 ... ons#p78253
A new policy regulating trades and conditions has been approved by the CC:
-cannot trade assets you don't own
......
going strictly by our rules, putting a generic pick in a deal is not even allowed, you need to put in the deal a pick you own.
There has still been the tendency to have unspecified picks involved in deals/conditions, but here I'm basically getting attacked for playing it by the book back then, and that's even if the specified pick was a very late one.
To my memory, it is the first time replacing a very late pick with another very late pick is not considered fine.
Luckily I also have pick #121, so DAL GM can have that pick to address everyone's concerns.
It might be the first time someone with multiple picks in one round (or even more so, in the same narrow area) gives out the better one to fulfill a condition. Not that It would be wrong anyway, I was the one at fault for trading NSH 4th.
I think it’s pretty obvious what the goal was here lol
the goal was adding another pick in the area, since one was due your way.
You're not playing it by the book here anymore than a generic pick would. You can include a generic pick understanding that you cannot move an asset you do not own later, so, so long as you own a 4th or multiple 4ths it wouldn't matter which one is used to satisfy a conditional trade unless it is made specific in the original trade.
Re: FLA/NSH
PostedCOLON Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:08 am
by kyuss
Bruyns wroteCOLONThat was a post from 2011, I don't remember that rule ever being invoked. I just recently had a trade with Vegas to satisfy a condition and it was listed as a generic pick and no one mentioned anything about it.
that’s what I am saying, we have a rule in place that people are fine amending when they make their deals, yet when I care about it and specify the pick rather than saying 4th rounder, people becomes super strict with the similar pick I give back?
Bruyns wroteCOLONAt least you have that 121 pick, but going by that rule you should have never been allowed to trade the NSH pick as it was already in play.
forgetting about a conditioned pick and trading it is a mistake, my fault as I said.
Putting a generic 4th rounder in a deal when you don’t have one goes against the rule not by mistake.