Buds Board Keepers League

To Philadelphia:

Ondrej Pavelec

To Washington:

Jesse Blacker
2012 1st Rounder (PHI)

Confirmed

Ooohhh

Somehow that doesn't seem like a condition that should be allowed. To my knowledge you can't do that with players/prospects, just picks.

inferno31 wroteCOLONSomehow that doesn't seem like a condition that should be allowed. To my knowledge you can't do that with players/prospects, just picks.

It either is or isn't allowed, you can't allow conditions for picks, and not players/prospects. The NHL has conditions set that allow the future dealing of both picks and prospects, as can been demonstrated by the original Adam Foote deal to the Colorado Avalanche, from the Calgary Flames.

If the above is determined illegal, we can just change the deal to show an unnamed future consideration going to PHI, as other teams have done in the past, NBD.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON It either is or isn't allowed, you can't allow conditions for picks, and not players/prospects. The NHL has conditions set that allow the future dealing of both picks and prospects, as can been demonstrated by the original Adam Foote deal to the Colorado Avalanche, from the Calgary Flames.

If the above is determined illegal, we can just change the deal to show an unnamed future consideration going to PHI, as other teams have done in the past, NBD.

I'm not sure if I'm correct you'll have to get an Admin or CC member to confirm for you. But as I recall you can't use a player/prospect as a condition i.e. will be sent back or go forward. Furthermore in future consideration deals you still can't have a player going for future considerations, only picks.

I'm not saying these are NHL rules, I'm saying these are the rules of our league as I remember them. They may have been altered, or I can surely be recalling them incorrectly. Just pointing it out is all.
Also whats a regulaur season?

inferno31 wroteCOLONI'm not sure if I'm correct you'll have to get an Admin or CC member to confirm for you. But as I recall you can't use a player/prospect as a condition i.e. will be sent back or go forward. Furthermore in future consideration deals you still can't have a player going for future considerations, only picks.

I'm not saying these are NHL rules, I'm saying these are the rules of our league as I remember them. They may have been altered, or I can surely be recalling them incorrectly. Just pointing it out is all.
Also whats a regulaur season?

If the rules forbid future considerations for players/prospects than there is something wrong...There are countless examples of it in the NHL, to allow it for only picks is not authentic, nor does it make any sense.

Anyways...If the admin or CC rule against this it can be easily reworked.

inferno31 wroteCOLONTo my knowledge you can't do that with players/prospects, just picks.

this is correct.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

inferno31 wroteCOLONTo my knowledge you can't do that with players/prospects, just picks.

this is correct.

Who is the idiot that made that rule?

SuperMario wroteCOLON

inferno31 wroteCOLONTo my knowledge you can't do that with players/prospects, just picks.

this is correct.

Also, how do you know whether this is correct or not? There is no rule listed in the CBA, and Kezia asked both Mike and Matt, and last I heard, neither of them knew what the ruling was either.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

inferno31 wroteCOLONTo my knowledge you can't do that with players/prospects, just picks.

this is correct.

Also, how do you know whether this is correct or not? There is no rule listed in the CBA, and Kezia asked both Mike and Matt, and last I heard, neither of them knew what the ruling was either.

this has been a rule for about a year. you cannot place conditions where players can be sent back and forth because of the fact that our cba prohibits player loans. the CC and Admin have ruled on this. I just dont have the energy to find it. but its a rule guaranteed.

We've had this issue come up several times in the past. The way I remember it happening was it was a decision in the CC that for future considerations and for conditions on deals you can't use a physical asset i.e. player and pick. I recall Mike agreeing to this, and it going through him. I also remember Nick, oddly enough you, as well as I being in the conversation discussing it. We even went as far back to go through old NHL deals when discussing this rule. I could be completely off base but thats how I recall it. It's not listed in the CBA but a ton of things aren't listed in the CBA, this rule to my knowledge has been enforced prior to this deal and there is a precedent then.

Thats my recollection of this, purely from memory. As I've started I may not be correct, but Mike should be asked. If Nick were around maybe he remembers about this as well.

inferno31 wroteCOLONWe've had this issue come up several times in the past. The way I remember it happening was it was a decision in the CC that for future considerations and for conditions on deals you can't use a physical asset i.e. player and pick. I recall Mike agreeing to this, and it going through him. I also remember Nick, oddly enough you, as well as I being in the conversation discussing it.

this is also as i remember it and true by my accounts.

inferno31 wroteCOLONWe've had this issue come up several times in the past. The way I remember it happening was it was a decision in the CC that for future considerations and for conditions on deals you can't use a physical asset i.e. player and pick. I recall Mike agreeing to this, and it going through him. I also remember Nick, oddly enough you, as well as I being in the conversation discussing it. We even went as far back to go through old NHL deals when discussing this rule. I could be completely off base but thats how I recall it. It's not listed in the CBA but a ton of things aren't listed in the CBA, this rule to my knowledge has been enforced prior to this deal and there is a precedent then.

Thats my recollection of this, purely from memory. As I've started I may not be correct, but Mike should be asked. If Nick were around maybe he remembers about this as well.

I have no recollection of it at all, but I don't have the best memory...Anyways, I think the rule is stupid, but if it is in fact a rule can we get some clarification asap, so Lee and I can rework the structure of the deal.

Edit: I do recall a ruling stating that we cannot use future considerations because they potentially impact new general managers, and are thus difficult to reinforce, but still nothing about conditions.

I still dont get why Kareem does this....

bills09 wroteCOLONI still dont get why Kareem does this....

+1

bills09 wroteCOLONI still dont get why Kareem does this....

Nor do I, great trade for Lee.

facey wroteCOLON

bills09 wroteCOLONI still dont get why Kareem does this....

+1

Lee must have let Kareem felate him.

bills09 wroteCOLONI still dont get why Kareem does this....

Operation Nail Yakupov and Alex Galchenyuk. I'm going to acquire both.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

bills09 wroteCOLONI still dont get why Kareem does this....

Operation Nail Yakupov and Alex Galchenyuk. I'm going to acquire both.

I was looking forward to getting a "Fail for Nail" banner made. Please continue my legacy.