04-22-2019, 11:56 PMztevans Wrote:

04-22-2019, 11:49 PMBDonini Wrote: I still don't understand all the outrage in this thread. It's like JNH said here, it's still the GM's responsibility.


If my manager at work is responsible for a task and they hand that task off to me, I'm being paid to do that task but it doesn't clear my manager of his responsibility. If I mess up, I'll be held accountable but so will my manager as the task was their responsibility in the first place. Yes, there was a pick tracker and he didn't do his job properly but if a GM also has the responsibility to track his own picks then he's also partially at fault.

Imo there's no right or wrong option in this situation, HO could've justifiably given COL compensation for the pick just like they could justifiably deny COL of compensation for the pick.

I guess my biggest issue is that there's a well-established precedent for this exact scenario.  When a pick gets double-traded, the offending team loses an extra pick and the "receiving" team still gets the pick.  This precedent dates back several scenes and came back up very recently.

To go away from that precedent suddenly now because "it's the other team's fault too" ignores that in every other instance we've applied this result, the other team could have spotted the error as well.  Furthermore, HO seems to be leaning a bit on "Well, we've changed pick trackers since then" which, like, yeah, both teams have changed at least one GM since then.  That's only evidence of how badly the ball was dropped by all parties.  So making an exception to the precedent on this one occasion because "It's sorta Colorado's fault too" is really dangerous, imo.

These are really two different issues. We can't expect from a GM to double check if a pick they trade for is available, but we definitely can expect GMs to keep track of which picks they have traded away and which picks they received.

I'm gonna address the whole thing now that I'm finally at home, because it was really me, who cinvinced the rest of HO about the whole thing. Every argument I've read in this thread so far, has come up in the internal discussion in HO and I can really stay behind the decision. So if you have any new point, I'm open to hearing it. I'm also open to criticism about SMJHL HO in general. I know, we can do better and I give my best to do so. 

With that said, let me explain why I'm convinced that our reaction was adequate in this case:

There are 3 parties at fault in this case:

• STL management, who picked at a position they shouldn't have and therefore got a free player.
  
• COL management, who saw the wrong draft order posted and didn't remember that they should own the pick in quesiton.
  
• The pick tracker, who didn't process the trade correctly, which lead to the wrong draft order being posted.
  

If you want to blame HO for not firing the pick tracker sooner, that's fair. But you can't expect from HO, to go over every trade from the last couple of seasons to double check the draft order, before posting it.

Colorado and St. Louis made the exact same mistake in this case - not keeping track of their own picks. Sure, Colorado ended up getting the short stick in the whole thing, but that doesn't change the fact that they just as much at fault here as St. Louis is. If we simply gave Colorado their pick back, we're saying that you don't have to keep track of the picks, you've traded for, because if you miss one, we'll just punish the other team and hand it back to you. That's not how we keep these situations from happening.
St. Louis got taken away two picks, because they actually got a player out of the trade and we can't unmake that.

For anyone who doesn't know yet, the picktracker in question has been fired and @Weretarantula is doing a great job as pick tracker so far. Should a mistake ever happen to him or someone who does the job in the future, we expect GMs to catch it before the draft, so a situation like this will never appear again.