11-04-2021, 09:24 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I've seen people compare this to illegally double-trading a draft pick, where the onus is on the team trading away the pick to make sure they actually have it, and not on the team receiving the pick to triple-check the status of the pick they receive. However I would argue that this case here is different. We are not talking about a draft pick with a possible hidden history, but an actual player with an actual contract. Everyone can double-check that with ease - ESPECIALLY if your argument is that you specifically paid this kind of price because of the retention. Why is the onus on a team trading away a retained player to know the rules, but not on the team that takes that player on with the explicitely stated intention of benefitting from said retention?

I mean I think you could definitely argue that it should be on both parties but per the rule book, it is not. There is no "bad faith trade negotiations" rule in the rulebook, and until there is, I don't think you can just throw a punishment out there because you don't like that somebody didn't stop someone else from doing something they got punishment for (with the obvious exception of HO, who in this case already are being punished for not stopping the illegal thing from happening).