VOTE: 4-Way deal BJ's - Isles - Hawks - Jets

[PigsRule]

:iatp:

Agree that Winnipeg Jets did well however I think the Columbus Blue Jackets also did well in landing Eller who's only 25 years old and J.T. Miller who can get a cheap extension at 0.6m per year if they Blue Jackets want to go 2yrs instead of 3yrs with a bump up in contract/cap.

Nice trade all around and all teams appear to be gaining something their roster needs. :thumbsup:

[SlackJack]

4) No trading between teams owned by same owner (or ensure the players don't find their way to the other owner's teams without a stop on 1-2 other teams) but at the same time isn't that the job of TC members to determine fairness of deals!?

This provision leaves a lot of room open for discussion regardless of weather we think the trade is equitable or not.

Someone had to say it.

[PigsRule]

This provision leaves a lot of room open for discussion regardless of weather we think the trade is equitable or not.

Someone had to say it.

It's a good point to make and as with most leagues here on profsl all teams/owners can jump into a trade review and post a veto (or yes vote) and rationale. If a veto is backed up with good facts and comments, it will stand and could lead to a Trade Veto or at least the trade being left open longer for more/all owners to review.

ultimately, I and other TC members will try not to impede an owner from building their franchise the way they want to... unless something just doesn't add up or cripples 1 team relative to another in a trade.

[SlackJack]

It's a good point to make and as with most leagues here on profsl all teams/owners can jump into a trade review and post a veto (or yes vote) and rationale. If a veto is backed up with good facts and comments, it will stand and could lead to a Trade Veto or at least the trade being left open longer for more/all owners to review.

ultimately, I and other TC members will try not to impede an owner from building their franchise the way they want to... unless something just doesn't add up or cripples 1 team relative to another in a trade.

I am all for judging the spirit of an agreement over the wording of it.  :thumbsup:

[SlackJack]

4) No trading between teams owned by same owner (or ensure the players don't find their way to the other owner's teams without a stop on 1-2 other teams) but at the same time isn't that the job of TC members to determine fairness of deals!?

And, as much as I think the deal is indeed equitable and made in good will, I read the rule's intent as thus: No trading between teams owned by same owner.

I am against setting a precedent for future deals between teams owned by the same owner.

 :veto:

[LIVE DynastySports]

It's a good point to make and as with most leagues here on profsl all teams/owners can jump into a trade review and post a veto (or yes vote) and rationale. If a veto is backed up with good facts and comments, it will stand and could lead to a Trade Veto or at least the trade being left open longer for more/all owners to review.

ultimately, I and other TC members will try not to impede an owner from building their franchise the way they want to... unless something just doesn't add up or cripples 1 team relative to another in a trade.

Is it so hard to hire GM s to run a team for you? Im not a fan of one guy running 2 teams but it may be necessary here? A league with the kind of cache as FNHL, guys should be begging to run a team for an owner.

I still  :iatp: as the trade is fair for all 4 teams involved...at the end of the day I view my job as TC to look at the names in the trade, not the names of the trading parties. Also my job to make certain no team gets FUBAR...I see no FUBAR happening to any of the 4 teams involved.

The rules should state clearly about conflict of interest, but COI is not an indicator of cheating. There are 30 teams here and they all should be allowed to trade to each other, so long as there is no FUBAR.

Just my thoughts boys, i dont expect everyone to think alike, and diverse opinions are welcome.

[thunderblade]

Toronto management believes everything is kosher with this trade. BUT are extremely concerned with trades dealing with the same owner of 2 teams. PPG really invigorated the league. But in future I believe it should be 2 separate trades. Avoids this discussion and in NO way circumvents the Rules. :soapbox:

[Burkes Boys]

My feedback to Slack's highlighting guideline #4 of multi-team ownership is that in this case the players are not finding their way back to the same owner. Players were sent downstream to a different team owned by another owner. It's interesting in that the teams are not playing in any grey area and I don't think a rule is being circumvented.

Put another way, No Blue Jackets players ended up in Blackhawk hands (PPG's teams) and similarly no Jets ended up an Islander (Johnny's teams).

However given there is some concern, leave this trade open for most of the other owners to post an opinion on. That would be the right thing to do to ensure most if not all owners have a say. :toast:

[izaman3]

I approve the deal.

I was online when it was first posted, and I wanted to take some time to think about it before saying anything. I'm read it over a few times, and read what others had to say.

I think all the teams are getting pretty equitable pieces and that is what is important to me. I think my order of who comes out ahead is WIN>CBJ>NYI>CHI

[SlackJack]

To be clear this deal passes the smell test. I believe it is honest and fair and I have no doubt that on that basis it will be approved.

That said, it muddies the water for future deals of a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" nature.

I propose that (future) deals of this sort be put to a formal vote. It's a simple solution.