Predators/Canucks Trade

[whiteghost]

All, I am going to recind my support of this trade.  I will engage with Vancouver to see if he wants to tweak it or let it die on the vine. 

More broadly, I find the trade review and veto component of this league frustrating at times.  This has happened more than once which perhaps speaks to my shitty skills as a GM, but I would prefer if GMs were able to have a free hand to make trades even if they are viewed as detrimental to their team and/or one-sided.  Ok, enough of my rant.....back to the drawing board. 

 :beer:

[SlackJack]

All, I am going to recind my support of this trade.  I will engage with Vancouver to see if he wants to tweak it or let it die on the vine. 

More broadly, I find the trade review and veto component of this league frustrating at times.  This has happened more than once which perhaps speaks to my BooYah! ty skills as a GM, but I would prefer if GMs were able to have a free hand to make trades even if they are viewed as detrimental to their team and/or one-sided.  Ok, enough of my rant.....back to the drawing board. 

 :beer:

Okay so I'm totally snowed-in at home with nothing better to do than stir the pot. With that in mind I'm asking "can you do that?"... recind the trade I mean.

As far as I can tell the trade has been posted, accepted, and defended, and is now in the process of being vetoed or approved by the league.

It's a grey area so just want to take the opportunity to ask if in the future I want to back out of an accepted deal before it is ruled on!

[Rob]

Technically, probably not. Though if a GM decides to do this it says something about the trade, I think. Or maybe just about the process, I dunno. But, either way, as a TC vote I would honor that GMs wishes and use my veto. I expect that would be in the best interest of the league.

whiteghost, I hear you. This process sucks. But I think over time we've established that arbitrating trade balance to SOME extent is best for the long-term health of the league.

[SlackJack]

Technically, probably not. Though if a GM decides to do this it says something about the trade, I think. Or maybe just about the process, I dunno. But, either way, as a TC vote I would honor that GMs wishes and use my veto. I expect that would be in the best interest of the league.

whiteghost, I hear you. This process sucks. But I think over time we've established that arbitrating trade balance to SOME extent is best for the long-term health of the league.

That's one way of looking at it but we all know that judging trades is subjective. The process isn't perfect but peer-review is the best we can do. However we may feel about it it's not a surprise. So waffling at this point is just that. The deal was posted, accepted, and defended, AND that defence has been defended. At this point I say vote the BooYah!  through (or veto if you think it's damaging). Just don't veto because one GM has second thoughts!

[whiteghost]

Good feedback, maybe I am not allowed to recind.  No worries, lets see what the vote ends up being and then we will have a decision to work from....thanks, all!

[dedreger]

 :iatp:

I still think it's a lopsided trade but my official vote is that it's passable, i.e. not veto-worthy.

[norrya66]

 :iatp:

I agree, very lop-sided, but not veto worthy.

[Rob]

Danton Heinen has been added to this trade going from Vancouver to Nashville.  Vancouver needed a drop in any case and this helps to even out inequity to an extent, so I can't imagine there'd be opposition - therefore I'm not going to call for a re-vote. 

[Rob]

Fantraxed

[GypsieDeathBringer]

ProFSL and Googled