ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL History Books => Dynasty NHL: Transactions => Dynasty NHL => NHL Archive => Dynasty NHL: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: Anthony on September 07, 2011, 09:58:52 PM
-
Chicago gets
RW Brandon Yip, $0.7m (2011-2012)
G Jeff Frazee, $m (P-2011)
D Ryan O'Byrne, $1.7m (2012-2013)
A PROMISE TO BID ON CAMPBELL
Colorado gets
TO BID ON D Brian Campbell, $7.1m (2014-2015)
C Riley Nash, $0.2m (P-2011)
I also drop campbell to free up some space and i like where my D is at right now. i get 1.4m of cap, he gets 2.4m we both get good prospects. WIN - WIN
-
apparently :iatp: since the presedence was already set with these type of deals
-
Oh no, you can't include that in the deal, so I veto.
-
Oh no, you can't include that in the deal, so I veto.
actually you can. first your trade was approved , 2nd it can be if we outlined it in the trade
-
actually you can. first your trade was approved , 2nd it can be if we outlined it in the trade
According to everyone on the TC, they voted as if it wasn't in the trade, so then this can't be in the trade either.
-
:iatp: Whether you want to consider Campbell as part of the deal it's your choice. Even without him in the deal its a fair trade. he is getting Yip and Frazee (better prospect than Riley) to take on Obyrne's contract, Riley was there just to even things out.
-
According to everyone on the TC, they voted as if it wasn't in the trade, so then this can't be in the trade either.
NO, the ones that votes YES all included the Gomez deal, the ones who votes NO did not include it..... Since the other one was passed there is absolutley no reason this one shouldnt, and even so its a better deal than the Leigton deal even without the bid on Campbell. At least the players involved are actually in the NHL or will be
-
Sam, I'm not sure why you're complaining, your deal passed. And I argued on your behalf both here and on the ProFSL TC. Anyway, the purpose of handing your deal over to the 3rd party TC was to eliminate drama here, so don't start any!
:iatp:
-
Maybe we just let all teams have 1 guy they can drop and take off half their cap hit? Then we won't have to do nonsense trades. Because I could really go without having Huet's 5.6m handcuffing me, but don't really want to get it off the books in a round about way, which is what we are coming to.
-
i actually like this as it forces teams to be creative in their deals and creates movement/activity in the league.
-
I approve, the other trade passed and I'd take a prospect over Leighton any day.
-
Maybe we just let all teams have 1 guy they can drop and take off half their cap hit? Then we won't have to do nonsense trades. Because I could really go without having Huet's 5.6m handcuffing me, but don't really want to get it off the books in a round about way, which is what we are coming to.
:iatp: for sure as it will def lead to a lot of these deals... as we have some cooking right now LOL
-
I hate these "bid on my dropped player" crap trades.
Just replace me on the TC now, because I am not interested in dealing with approving this garbage or arguing over them anymore.
I think we tried to make this league as realistic as possible, and this is just a nice loophole to circumvent bad contracts, that I don't feel is very realistic. I don't if know that there is a better way to handle it, but I don't want to sit here and have to argue one side or the other.
-
I hate these "bid on my dropped player" crap trades.
Just replace me on the TC now, because I am not interested in dealing with approving this garbage or arguing over them anymore.
I think we tried to make this league as realistic as possible, and this is just a nice loophole to circumvent bad contracts, that I don't feel is very realistic. I don't if know that there is a better way to handle it, but I don't want to sit here and have to argue one side or the other.
That is why I am saying each team has a 1 time only waiver of a player to take 1/2 their salary off the books. Then we wipe away these trades as precedents and veto any hereafter.
-
I hate these "bid on my dropped player" crap trades.
Just replace me on the TC now, because I am not interested in dealing with approving this garbage or arguing over them anymore.
I think we tried to make this league as realistic as possible, and this is just a nice loophole to circumvent bad contracts, that I don't feel is very realistic. I don't if know that there is a better way to handle it, but I don't want to sit here and have to argue one side or the other.
:iatp:
-
I think without a complete overhaul to the waiver rules these trades will still happen, they just wont be public but behind closed doors.
You wont offend me whether it is approved or veto'd.
My suggestion to close off the loop hole would be to create a waiver priority list 1-20 teams. order currently by last years final nhl standings. After a successful waiver claim that team moves to # 20 all other teams below them would bump up by 1.
Waivers last for 72 hours by which any team can make a claim on them (the team claiming would have to assume their current contract) releasing the other team of their contract 100%. If more than 1 team puts in a claim the team with the highest priority will get the player.
If the player goes unclaimed they go to free agency. The dropping team would be on the hook for their salary for 1 to 3 years max.
-
i would like to edit that.
The player waived should remain on waivers for the entire season but after a claim is made the 72 hours. otherwise people will just wait the 72 and hope to get him cheaper in FA
-
I am certainly open to something like Gypsie or snugerud have suggested if we can get the details in a way that most people think are fair. I think to make this a great league, its good to realize that there are gray areas that we may need to clean up if possible so that things like this don't leave owners with a bad taste in their mouth.
This is nothing against the teams that are doing these types of trades or who did them before, its done within the rules that are currently there, but just because we have a rule now, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at it closer and see if we can do this a better way. Maybe its just a small tweak so that there is a more distinct disadvantage to doing this type of thing.
We can't make things perfect, but I just would like to make the league as fun and as realistic as possible. One of the reasons to start with the real contracts is so that you have to manage within the similar constraints that the NHL team does.
-
i think Both are good rules and think the 1 free drop to fa would be great as you would get some cap relief but still be on the hook for a 50% portion of the contract! would help a lot of cap tied and roster limit teams
-
What Snugerud suggests is essentially what they do in the NHL except when an NHL team waive/drop a player, a team can pick them up for 1/2 of their contract amount and the original team then only owes 50%; instead of the full contract swap that he suggests. And I like either way really.
-
I do like the part about picking up the other half of the contract.
-
Sam, I'm not sure why you're complaining, your deal passed. And I argued on your behalf both here and on the ProFSL TC. Anyway, the purpose of handing your deal over to the 3rd party TC was to eliminate drama here, so don't start any!
:iatp:
I guess my trade started all the drama, cause right when it was made people bitched and moaned.
I veto.
-
i veto. i agree with snugard on his rule change
-
Robo once gave someone a pat on the back, so why cant snug give me a promise. right now it is
3- approves
2 vetos
1 cant vote
1 asked to be out of TC.
i guess it passes but ill leave it to robo
-
Something clearly needs to be done as I really don't want to have this conversation every time a deal like this is proposed. I think Snugy's proposal is the best way to approach this and should have been implemented this way from the start, but we should do it as the NHL does, per Corey's suggestion (each side owning 50% of the contract). Can someone clarify how this works for a multi-year deal? If unclaimed does the player sit on waivers for the entire length of his deal? If not, is there reduction in subsequent years and how is it handled?
As far as this deal goes I think it's completely unfair to veto when the last deal passed. Overall this deal is FAR more fair than the LA/MON deal. Like it or not a precedent was set. Sam you're being a complete hypocrite here.
The trade has a majority approval with Brian abstaining and will be passed, per the rules.
I'm locking this topic and will post on the main board so we can iron out exactly how to handle the waiver system.
-
:thumbsup: