ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise NHL: Transactions => Franchise NHL => NHL Leagues => Franchise NHL: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: JohnnyWeissflog on August 23, 2014, 05:10:29 PM
-
PPG proposed me a master plan, and after only minor modifications we came up with the following monster deal between four franchises.
:CBJ: sends to :NYI:
C Antoine Vermette, $3.8m (2012-2015)
:NYI: sends to :CHI-NHL:
RW David Clarkson, $4.5m (2013-2016)
:CHI-NHL: sends to :WIN:
Round 1 - 2014 (21st overall from :CHI-NHL:)
RW Tom Wilson, $0.8m (2014-2016)
D - Stuart Percy (2011: 1/25 - 0 Games)
:WIN: sends to :CBJ:
C Lars Eller, $4.7m (2013-2016)
C J.T. Miller, $2.0m (2013-2015-EL)
This deal should be effectively plugging holes in our rosters.
My :NYI: wanted to get rid of one of the highly paid RW's and needed a C in return.
:WIN: needed cap space and had too many centers.
Thanks for the smooth talks PPG! :toast:
-
PPG proposed me a master plan, and after only minor modifications we came up with the following monster deal between four franchises.
:CBJ: sends to :NYI:
C Antoine Vermette, $3.8m (2012-2015)
:NYI: sends to :CHI-NHL:
RW David Clarkson, $4.5m (2013-2016)
:CHI-NHL: sends to :WIN:
Round 1 - 2014 (21st overall from :CHI-NHL:)
RW Tom Wilson, $0.8m (2014-2016)
D - Stuart Percy (2011: 1/25 - 0 Games)
:WIN: sends to :CBJ:
C Lars Eller, $4.7m (2013-2016)
C J.T. Miller, $2.0m (2013-2015-EL)
This deal should be effectively plugging holes in our rosters.
My :NYI: wanted to get rid of one of the highly paid RW's and needed a C in return.
:WIN: needed cap space and had too many centers.
Thanks for the smooth talks PPG! :toast:
This is what it's all about gentlemen.
8 lines in chat!
4 PMs.
4 teams.
2 men.
1 hell of a godzillian blockbuster mindblowing finger numbing trade to end all trades.
Now watch e40 step up and out do us. LOL
Johnny was interested in Vermette and didn't want to keep Clarkson's fat cap hit on the Island but I didn't need him in Columbus so we figured a 3 team deal. But since we own 2 franchises a piece, Johnny and I hammered out a deal to shift players along where they were needed. Not overly complex because my brain can't handle it. LOL
Basically we did this
:WIN: >>> :CBJ: >>> :NYI: >>> :CHI-NHL: >>> and then back to :WIN:
We also knew Jets wanted to move Eller's cap and create some space for other moves so we sent them a sweet package of a 1st (21st overall), Percy and Tommy Wilson and his cheap contract. We like Clarkson in a Hawks uni and willing to roll the dice that he can rebound. Eller and JT will be overaged prospects for Columbus.
Thanks for the trade. This is ground breaking, earth shattering stuff. :thumbsup:
We leave it to the :TC: Trade Committee to verify the feasibility and validity of this 4-way deal.
:CHI-NHL: and :CBJ: confirm and accept this 4-way trade with :NYI: and :WIN: :toast:
-
:iatp: Had to read the deal 5times. Seems straightfwd enough. In the end it looks like Jets Win out of the 4 teams. Clearing lots of cap and getting a great young gun in Wilson.
-
:iatp:
4 team deal, but only 3 owners so i give it an asterisk* as far as the biggest fantasy trade...
Still,
3 way deals are super tough, especially since most TC's look for a loser.
There is no loser here.
-
:iatp:
I agree with what Daddy said about the asterisk given there are actually two owners involved however it is still a very complex trade with 4 teams negotiating wants and needs. Bravo!
I think there are two Winners. Both winners belong to Mr JohnnyWeissFlog :NYI: and :WIN: for mainly clearing cap.
-
:thumbsup: :iatp:
That's a monster of a deal with 4 teams moving players. Blue Jackets are getting 2 good players but Lars Eller's cap hit is harsh. Jets appear to be getting the best deal by getting a 1st round pick, a solid defenseman prospect who was a former 1st rounder, another former 1st rounder 16th overall in Wilson who's 20yo and Winnipeg cleared almost 6 million in cap! If :WIN: is not a clear winner then I don't know what a winner is.
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
4 team deal, but only 3 owners so i give it an asterisk* as far as the biggest fantasy trade...
Still,
3 way deals are super tough, especially since most TC's look for a loser.
There is no loser here.
I think you mean 2 owners.
-
I think you mean 2 owners.
:iatp:
PPG and Johnny are the only owners in the deal.
-
:iatp:
-
: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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
I agree and I do think that it would be very good for us to vote on this type of thing as a league.
-
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.
Yes, very much so and gives an advantage to those who own 2 teams. If my Oilers need help somewhere and my trade partner wants more than I can offer, it seems awfully easy to just look on my other team to facilitate the deal. Seems like the same thing as trading with yourself. Not saying this happened in this deal, as I am not in TC and have not even analyzed it.
-
That said, it muddies the water for future deals of a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" nature.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the basis of any agreement between parties one where each side's "itch" gets "scratched"? That is the foundation of any trade, meeting the needs of parties involved, no. This trade passes that litmus test and other tests in my opinion.
I believe the fact that only two owners were involved helped facilitate negotiations between 4 teams and that resulted in a much quicker and smoother discussion. That is a positive.
I propose that (future) deals of this sort be put to a formal vote. It's a simple solution.
I think PR stated this trade could be put to a league wide vote. However I do not believe there are any steadfast rules to say which trades need to go through the ringer. Or are there? Worth discussing.
-
I just wanted to throw this out there that even prior to this trade I am not a fan of owners having more than one team. I think it's not good for the league and it can lead to some issues. It's just my opinion.
With that said, I have no problem with this trade. I just don't like the multi-team thing from when it started.
-
Very good points taken up here :toth:
I actually never even thought this deal would be vetoed. As already mentioned there are no players moving from the same owner's team to another. However, I must admit that owners with two franchises in possession have more opportunities or alternatives when negotiating a trade. Is it fair to the GM's with one franchise? Maybe not.
I understand and accept if this trade doesn't go through. But only for the reason that GM's with 1 franchise are in unequal position compared to me and a couple of others. I would like to get a rather quick verdict on this matter anyhow, because the outcome will quite heavily affect my near future actions and planning.
If there are people concerned about the duel ownership, I can put :WIN: on sale.
-
I will put this out there as well. So maybe we should limit the number of trades any given team can make because god forbid an active owner might have a competitive advantage over an inactive one. :rofl:
Wow guys. Everyone go back and reread your posts. Some read like my tongue n cheek comment above.
-
So I count 1 clear VETO on this trade the reason being ------- I'm not 100% clear. Is it that :COL-NHL: Avs owner is flaggin conflict of interest or rule infraction or ?
Slackjack can you clarify.
Anyone else, do say what's on your mind. However, a trade will not be vetoed solely on a discomfort because I won't veto a 30oz AAA angus steak that's been aged and shows perfect marbling just because it gives my a crap load of gas afterward. LOL
-
I just wanted to throw this out there that even prior to this trade I am not a fan of owners having more than one team. I think it's not good for the league and it can lead to some issues. It's just my opinion.
With that said, I have no problem with this trade. I just don't like the multi-team thing from when it started.
Multi owner thing is a whole other ball o wax Papps.
Of course, the alternative was seen as being boring with teams sitting unowned so why not bridge the gap between now and the next amazing owner that dares step into this league to challenge us. :toast: Anyone want to buy the Canes :CAR-NHL: there's talent in that roster!
I still hear you man! I'm not a huge fan of guys holding multiple teams in 1 league (but I appreciate the trust and vote of confidence by those same guys voting with their cash to say YES, I believe in this league and I believe I can kick ass from several different locations LOL) but it works for now especially given we're 30 deep. Maybe 31 when Seattle lands an NHL franchise. :taco: And ultimately activity level and good activity at that gents, means we have ourselves an incredible league for the foreseeable future! :judge:
-
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:
OK, Thunderblade you've spoken now let's be clear was that a VETO from Toronto :TOR-NHL: ? And if it is, what is the precise reason so we're all clear. The Trade committee we have in FNHL is knowledgeable and strong in hockey. Gents know what should fly and what should in a 5th yr league.
I'm not pushing for this 4way to go through necessarily but if it's to be vetoed it should be done for the right reason and not because guys discover there needs to be a new rule.
A new rule is a different discussion altogether and doesn't happen overnight in Franchise NHL.
-
All FNHL Owners are asked to vote on this 4-way trade.
Please add you feedback either way as comments could lead to future rule change or possible revisions to guidelines for multiple team ownership.
PPG proposed me a master plan, and after only minor modifications we came up with the following monster deal between four franchises.
:CBJ: sends to :NYI:
C Antoine Vermette, $3.8m (2012-2015)
:NYI: sends to :CHI-NHL:
RW David Clarkson, $4.5m (2013-2016)
:CHI-NHL: sends to :WIN:
Round 1 - 2014 (21st overall from :CHI-NHL:)
RW Tom Wilson, $0.8m (2014-2016)
D - Stuart Percy (2011: 1/25 - 0 Games)
:WIN: sends to :CBJ:
C Lars Eller, $4.7m (2013-2016)
C J.T. Miller, $2.0m (2013-2015-EL)
This deal should be effectively plugging holes in our rosters.
My :NYI: wanted to get rid of one of the highly paid RW's and needed a C in return.
:WIN: needed cap space and had too many centers.
Thanks for the smooth talks PPG! :toast:
Thank you ALL! :toast:
-
I will reply this evening.
-
This is a trade gents. I don't want to hear talk of owners pulling out prematurely because they don't like the outcome.
We're all adults here and can work it out. Gents, over and above that we're men and men don't cat fight over petty things.
Let's have a clean discussion and move it along one way or the other.
-
Now. Let's get back to what's important here gents
(http://media0.giphy.com/media/mjhm6kEwIEYLK/giphy.gif)
(http://media2.giphy.com/media/KbPPtQvWh7gPe/giphy.gif)
-
Now. Let's get back to what's important here gents
(http://media0.giphy.com/media/mjhm6kEwIEYLK/giphy.gif)
(http://media2.giphy.com/media/KbPPtQvWh7gPe/giphy.gif)
:iatp:
-
In all fairness to Slackjack, I think the point is taken that ownership of multiple teams should be reopened for discussion since it's the first time FNHL is allowing it and we are starting to notice some things that don't feel the way "ordinary" should feel, "ordinary". The regular way of doing things isn't necessarily going to work when it's not 1 owner, 1 team.
However, in this case I do feel the owners and teams were transparent and might have even gone to the extent of keeping players traded in 1 direction to 1 team to avoid this type of discussion regarding "precedent setting" trade.
-
I really had nothing more to add at this time but I have been asked to reiterate my stance.
To be clear I think the trade on the table is fair but that alone isn't reason for approval. I don't think this type of deal should be allowed. There is a built-in check and balance with typical trades. Namely competition. Both parties are working to improve their respective teams often at the perceived expense of the other. Of course we all talk a good talk about "win win" deals but the truth is only one GM can hoist the cup. I know who I want that to be and so do you.
So in a normal trade with both parties trying to get the best deal they can for their own team the playing field is clearly level.
In the 4 franchise, 2 GM deal we have on the table, competition has given way to cooperation. In itself this is not a bad thing but in context it is a step away from collusion. While it is true that no player has transferred directly between teams of the same owner; these GM's have put themselves in a position to determine which of their own franchises wins the trade. In other words the door is open to subtly tank one team in order to deal for better assets for the other.
In this type of trade the playing field actually tilts in favour of both GM's. (Against those with only one franchise.)
It is clear that these issues will continue to arise unless we adhere to the rules as they are intended in spirit. Personally I read it as thus: No trading between teams owned by same owner to the effect that no owner of two franchises has an unfair advantage over those who only own one....therefore let's remove temptation by enforcing the rule to prohibit the possibility of one franchise benefiting at the expense of another that is owned by the same person.
So, are trades governed by rules and vetted by the personalities on the trade committee? Or does the trade committee just decide on a case by case basis moving forward? As I am strongly in favour of the former, and because I read the intent of the rule to mean the playing field must be level for all, I must formally submit my veto.
:veto:
Thanks to all for participating in the discussion. It is the only way for a league to be vibrant, thriving, and healthy.
-
Thunderblade is %100 against any transaction that involves 2 teams of same ownership in the future. PigsRule, our Commish allowed multi ownership for the benefit of our league. Put a rule in place to try and prevent any misconduct. Of course if analyzed enough, a loop hole, of a existing rule can be circumvented. For me personally, who is probably by far the oldest manager here, and could also be in the running for longest tenure manager, am absolutely against a transaction of this nature in the future. For me this trade is OK, but no longer allowed in future. That's my opinion.
-
The guideline was agreed to and put in place to avoid situations like the one mentioned where an owner of multiple teams sacrifices one to better another.
In this case, I as well as other FNHLers who have been around to witness how Johnny and PPG compete know there is a very low probability either would throw one of their teams under the bus to improve the other. In fact, both would only make a deal to improve their franchise likely with the hope of having their 2 teams meet in the finals (:CHI-NHL: vs :CLS: for PPG or :NYI: vs :WIN: for JWF).
Either way, All owners and GMs are welcome to comment and provide constructive feedback.
I think the intention is/was positive to flag a concern regarding this trade and we will let the league vote on this deal. I believe majority will rule one way or the other.
-
Now. Let's get back to what's important here gents
(http://media0.giphy.com/media/mjhm6kEwIEYLK/giphy.gif)
(http://media2.giphy.com/media/KbPPtQvWh7gPe/giphy.gif)
TIG OL BITTIES!
Daddy loves Breateseseseses :koolaid:
-
Bump
Would like to see this solved in a matter of days, if possible :)
-
:CBJ: eats lots of cap for 2 young players
:NYI: swaps players to fill need
:CHI-NHL: overpays for a RW ( but still helps him )
:WIN: clearly wins this with a big cap dump + getting a 1st round pick , a solid young RW and a prospect .
That's how I see it now :toth:
But nothing to be vetoed there :judge:
There is always winners and losers in trades but no one can really tell before the end of the season .
-
Bump
Would like to see this solved in a matter of days, if possible :)
I've set a 7 day posting period for this vote. Since we're in Free agency, most if not all owners/GMs should be available to vote with forcing them here.
:CBJ: eats lots of cap for 2 young players
:NYI: swaps players to fill need
:CHI-NHL: overpays for a RW ( but still helps him )
:WIN: clearly wins this with a big cap dump + getting a 1st round pick , a solid young RW and a prospect .
That's how I see it now :toth:
But nothing to be vetoed there :judge:
There is always winners and losers in trades but no one can really tell before the end of the season .
Thx for the feedback Hockeyfreak47! :toast:
-
Thx for the photos! Keeps the day interesting.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=169627.0
I'm going to merge this trade thread with the vote thread! Only makes sense because the POLL will appear at the top of each pg of this trade thread.
-
Same comment as I made on the actual 4 team Trade thread
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=169244.0
I'm going to merge this VOTE/POLL thread with the actual trade thread.
-
2 threads merged to clean Transaction board a little and keep the same topic together! :judge:
-
Satisfied I understand how the league wants to roll. For the sake of conformity I withdraw my veto.
-
Soooooo when can we expect to have this processed? :judge:
-
Satisfied I understand how the league wants to roll. For the sake of conformity I withdraw my veto.
Don't withdraw it for conformity's sake. That would mean we pressured you Slackjack. :P
Seeing as how the Colorado Avalanche submitted the only Veto for this trade and has since withdrawn their Veto I believe we can proceed with processing this trade within 24hrs. :judge:
-
Don't withdraw it for conformity's sake. That would mean we pressured you Slackjack. :P
Slackers don't do pressure. I made my point now it's time to move on. (Until next time then buckle-up because if I'm in, I'm all in.) :koolaid:
-
Slackers don't do pressure. I made my point now it's time to move on. (Until next time then buckle-up because if I'm in, I'm all in.) :koolaid:
:winner: :toast:
-
PPG proposed me a master plan, and after only minor modifications we came up with the following monster deal between four franchises.
:CBJ: sends to :NYI:
C Antoine Vermette, $3.8m (2012-2015)
:NYI: sends to :CHI-NHL:
RW David Clarkson, $4.5m (2013-2016)
:CHI-NHL: sends to :WIN:
Round 1 - 2014 (21st overall from :CHI-NHL:)
RW Tom Wilson, $0.8m (2014-2016)
D - Stuart Percy (2011: 1/25 - 0 Games)
:WIN: sends to :CBJ:
C Lars Eller, $4.7m (2013-2016)
C J.T. Miller, $2.0m (2013-2015-EL)
This deal should be effectively plugging holes in our rosters.
My :NYI: wanted to get rid of one of the highly paid RW's and needed a C in return.
:WIN: needed cap space and had too many centers.
Thanks for the smooth talks PPG! :toast:
Fantraxed. :judge:
-
Slackers don't do pressure. I made my point now it's time to move on. (Until next time then buckle-up because if I'm in, I'm all in.) :koolaid:
Them be figthin words!
See you in the finals Slack! :win:
-
Fantraxed. :judge:
What about team page? :toast:
-
What about team page? :toast:
4 Rosters all done! :judge: