11-04-2021, 09:14 AMJayWhy Wrote: Yes, it has been. I had to renegotiate trades for this exact same situation, as have others. We have all had situations where we lost assets over this, but suddenly this team gets off free.
I can absolutely see where you're coming from there and for sure it must be frustrating to see this unevenly enforced in a situation where you weren't granted the same allowances in the past. And I fully sympathize with the desire to have the trade renegotiated, but I have yet to see anybody suggest a real, feasible scenario in which that is even possible given the numerous things that would have to be untangled - do you un-draft the players that were drafted with those picks? do you just make the team that originally sent the picks acquire those players they might or might not have drafted? do you involve a third party and make Minnesota suffer for it too since they had a piece of the pie at that point?). I cannot come up with a renegotiation scenario in my head that makes any sense at all (although I realize that doesn't mean there isn't one).
If anything, I think I might have leaned towards a harsher punishment here in light of the fact that the trade was at that point all but impossible to renegotiate (in my eyes, I think that puts it on a different level than just the standard "trading a pick that you don't have").
I am just saying, it sounds to me like people want some kind of actual punishment to be levied against Toronto here, and I just don't see any grounds for that at all in the rulebook.
11-04-2021, 09:08 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: this is a serious question and not me being sassy, but has the non-offending party in an illegal trade ever been punished for it? Is there any precedent for that at all? I don't understand why people are suddenly expecting TOR to have babysat another GM to make sure both halves of a trade were legal. Has that ever been a thing? Hasn't the onus always been on individual teams to make sure the asset they personally are moving is able to be moved?
Like sure, it would be nice for a GM to be like "hey we might want to rethink this because your half of this trade seems illegal and you could get slapped for it" but as far as I know there is no precedent for that and no grounds in the rulebook for punishing someone for not doing it. Like, as a GM I'm going to mind my own house - if I see something egregious I'm going to call it out but I don't think it's my mandated responsibility to make sure other people know how to do their jobs.
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?
11-04-2021, 09:27 AM(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 09:27 AM by sköldpaddor.)
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).
11-04-2021, 09:14 AMJayWhy Wrote: Yes, it has been. I had to renegotiate trades for this exact same situation, as have others. We have all had situations where we lost assets over this, but suddenly this team gets off free.
I can absolutely see where you're coming from there and for sure it must be frustrating to see this unevenly enforced in a situation where you weren't granted the same allowances in the past. And I fully sympathize with the desire to have the trade renegotiated, but I have yet to see anybody suggest a real, feasible scenario in which that is even possible given the numerous things that would have to be untangled - do you un-draft the players that were drafted with those picks? do you just make the team that originally sent the picks acquire those players they might or might not have drafted? do you involve a third party and make Minnesota suffer for it too since they had a piece of the pie at that point?). I cannot come up with a renegotiation scenario in my head that makes any sense at all (although I realize that doesn't mean there isn't one).
If anything, I think I might have leaned towards a harsher punishment here in light of the fact that the trade was at that point all but impossible to renegotiate (in my eyes, I think that puts it on a different level than just the standard "trading a pick that you don't have").
I am just saying, it sounds to me like people want some kind of actual punishment to be levied against Toronto here, and I just don't see any grounds for that at all in the rulebook.
Personally am not someone who wants to see TOR punished since they punished themselves enough with this trade but just a renegotiation take place between these 2 teams here, which has been done in the past. In that renegotiation obviously TOR will hold most of the power considering the major asset they have given up. The most infuriating part for myself is that HO was made aware the retention of this trade was illegal prior to the draft. Also in case the teams can't come to a satisfactory renegotiation HO could be used as the arbitrator ( which has happened in the past once according to JY when an outside hire was made for GM and the new GM couldn't come to trade conclusion for his own player) and almost happened when JSS got the then SEA gig.
Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)
11-04-2021, 09:44 AM(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 09:47 AM by RomanesEuntDomus.)
11-04-2021, 09:27 AMsköldpaddor Wrote:
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).
I'm not sure which aspect of the rulebook you are referring to exactly, maybe you can quote it here. But if a trade is deemed "illegal" for breaking the retention rules, isn't it technically irrelevant which team was the one trading away the player and which one took him on? Aren't both to blame here both because the rulebook doesn't specify in which direction a punishment is to be levied, and because both teams did get an advantage out of the illegal trade (Team A gets to pay less salary, Team B got higher trade value for their player because of the lower cap hit)?
11-04-2021, 09:27 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: 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).
I'm not sure which aspect of the rulebook you are referring to exactly, maybe you can quote it here. But if a trade is deemed "illegal" for breaking the retention rules, isn't it technically irrelevant which team was the one trading away the player and which one took him on. Aren't both to blame here both because the rulebook doesn't specify in which direction a punishment is to be levied, and because both teams did get an advantage out of the illegal trade (Team A gets to pay less salary, Team B got higher trade value for their player because of the lower cap hit)?
Well that's my point - it's not in the rulebook. There's nothing to quote because there is no rule about punishing the receiving party for an asset that was illegally traded. There are some punishments specified for other types of illegal trades, though, and I think that is where you reasonably have to start here (even though like you said, and as I have mentioned in another post, I don't think this is exactly the same thing as trading a pick one does not possess due to the seemingly irrevocable nature of the trade).
Extrapolating from the "no trading picks you don't have" rule and making a judgment here seems like the right call to me (although I think there would have been grounds for a harsher punishment here using that as a starting point). But I don't think you can just say "okay we're going to start issuing punishments to both sides of illegal trades now even though we've never done that for any other illegal trade in the past"
11-04-2021, 09:08 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: this is a serious question and not me being sassy, but has the non-offending party in an illegal trade ever been punished for it? Is there any precedent for that at all? I don't understand why people are suddenly expecting TOR to have babysat another GM to make sure both halves of a trade were legal. Has that ever been a thing? Hasn't the onus always been on individual teams to make sure the asset they personally are moving is able to be moved?
Like sure, it would be nice for a GM to be like "hey we might want to rethink this because your half of this trade seems illegal and you could get slapped for it" but as far as I know there is no precedent for that and no grounds in the rulebook for punishing someone for not doing it. Like, as a GM I'm going to mind my own house - if I see something egregious I'm going to call it out but I don't think it's my mandated responsibility to make sure other people know how to do their jobs.
????
It's not TOR baby sitting someone. It's them doing their due diligence and knowing that the trade they are making is illegal. It takes two parties to make a trade and as such both are culpable.
Credit to Ml002, King, Wasty, Carpy, Bruins10, Rum_Ham, Turd Ferguson, Ragnar and Enigmatic for the sigs.
sköldpaddor![[Image: gunnarsoderberg.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/gunnarsoderberg.gif)
![[Image: xJXeYmQ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xJXeYmQ.png)
![[Image: DG0jZcS.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DG0jZcS.png)
![[Image: 7MO9RpC.png]](http://i.imgur.com/7MO9RpC.png)
: .
![[Image: blurrybad.jpg]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/228335852336578560/685497110250127390/blurrybad.jpg)
![[Image: zomboy3.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/228335852336578560/878828980214575154/zomboy3.png)
![[Image: Pw202QP.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/Pw202QP.jpeg)
![[Image: KSelich.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/KSelich.gif)
![[Image: vhY18i8.png]](http://i.imgur.com/vhY18i8.png)
![[Image: Raptors.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/323061921261551616/626488103170998304/Raptors.png)
![[Image: gs89eGV.png]](http://i.imgur.com/gs89eGV.png)
![[Image: eE2UQZC.png]](https://i.imgur.com/eE2UQZC.png)
![[Image: 66624_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/66624_s.gif)
![[Image: 56096_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/56096_s.gif)
![[Image: wMGKypg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/wMGKypg.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/324331891547176961/851889728176521246/unknown.png)
![[Image: wearingabear.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/wearingabear.gif)
![[Image: avakaelsig.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/avakaelsig.gif)
![[Image: winter-500.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/709471992100945974/1109520965404201021/winter-500.png)
![[Image: geRnYPO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/geRnYPO.png)
![[Image: 0S9kFQ6.png]](https://i.imgur.com/0S9kFQ6.png)
![[Image: BirdmanSHL.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/BirdmanSHL.gif)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/668218443115397133/962504023796224030/unknown.png)
![[Image: fishyshl.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/fishyshl.gif)
![[Image: czechpp.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/537644128066994197/593617273575440433/czechpp.png)
![[Image: czechup.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/537644128066994197/593618761756704779/czechup.png)
![[Image: theziegs.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/theziegs.gif)
![[Image: buster.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/buster.gif)
