Should it be allowed that teams can "bribe" other teams to terminate negations with a player of mutual interest?
My apologies for being the technical guy.
What you are describing would likely fall under the tampering umbrella. You are giving other teams an advantage in negotiations with another club for one of their players. I'd have to do more research to be certain and find relevant information that either says you can or cannot do it.
Consider if a bunch of teams in the league got together and decided to blackball Sakic on Duchene negotiations in order to bring the price down.
They are tampering with the market value of the player, interfering in negotiations, and possibly interfering with a player who wants to go to another team, among other things.
It would also have negative side effects on the reputation and relationships of GM's.
There's nothing to stop a GM from deciding to drop out of a bidding war for a player, but to include that as a term in a trade is shady at best.
Should it be allowed that teams can "bribe" other teams to terminate negations with a player of mutual interest?
My apologies for being the technical guy.
What you are describing would likely fall under the tampering umbrella. You are giving other teams an advantage in negotiations with another club for one of their players. I'd have to do more research to be certain and find relevant information that either says you can or cannot do it.
Consider if a bunch of teams in the league got together and decided to blackball Sakic on Duchene negotiations in order to bring the price down.
They are tampering with the market value of the player, interfering in negotiations, and possibly interfering with a player who wants to go to another team, among other things.
It would also have negative side effects on the reputation and relationships of GM's.
There's nothing to stop a GM from deciding to drop out of a bidding war for a player, but to include that as a term in a trade is shady at best.
Should we just remove that part of the deal, and then proceed with the trade? it's not a deal breaker on my end if that part must be removed.
What you are describing would likely fall under the tampering umbrella. You are giving other teams an advantage in negotiations with another club for one of their players. I'd have to do more research to be certain and find relevant information that either says you can or cannot do it.
Consider if a bunch of teams in the league got together and decided to blackball Sakic on Duchene negotiations in order to bring the price down.
They are tampering with the market value of the player, interfering in negotiations, and possibly interfering with a player who wants to go to another team, among other things.
It would also have negative side effects on the reputation and relationships of GM's.
There's nothing to stop a GM from deciding to drop out of a bidding war for a player, but to include that as a term in a trade is shady at best.
Should we just remove that part of the deal, and then proceed with the trade? it's not a deal breaker on my end if that part must be removed.
I would recommend you do, but I can't definitively say it is illegal yet.
I know where to find the CBA, but I need to locate the by-laws and/or constitution to see if anything applies.
Should we just remove that part of the deal, and then proceed with the trade? it's not a deal breaker on my end if that part must be removed.
I would recommend you do, but I can't definitively say it is illegal yet.
I know where to find the CBA, but I need to locate the by-laws and/or constitution to see if anything applies.
Ok. I'll make the trade official in trade thread, but leave out the Klingberg Klause unless you find evidence that it's legal. Thanks rico!
I would recommend you do, but I can't definitively say it is illegal yet.
I know where to find the CBA, but I need to locate the by-laws and/or constitution to see if anything applies.
Ok. I'll make the trade official in trade thread, but leave out the Klingberg Klause unless you find evidence that it's legal. Thanks rico!
Ok. I'll make the trade official in trade thread, but leave out the Klingberg Klause unless you find evidence that it's legal. Thanks rico!
What am I missing here?
Quoting: Zach
Quoting: matt59
Ok. I'll make the trade official in trade thread, but leave out the Klingberg Klause unless you find evidence that it's legal. Thanks rico!
What am I missing here?
I made a trade w/ Vancouver for demers and we originally included a clause where me sending demers to vancouver would allow them to withdraw from Klingberg negotiations since demers was a guy I planned to use to get Klingberg. The question was whether it was legal for that clause to be included or not.
I made a trade w/ Vancouver for demers and we originally included a clause where me sending demers to vancouver would allow them to withdraw from Klingberg negotiations since demers was a guy I planned to use to get Klingberg. The question was whether it was legal for that clause to be included or not.
Okay.
You know, if it is legal, you could have done that with me in the Reinhart deal, but now I'll have to take you down!!!!!! LOL
Ok. I'll make the trade official in trade thread, but leave out the Klingberg Klause unless you find evidence that it's legal. Thanks rico!
What am I missing here?
They were planning on making "You can't try to get this player (Klingberg)" a condition in a trade.
I don't see any way that crosses a league desk and passes inspection.
Proving that is a little difficult, since the league bylaws aren't readily available to the public.
You can find some information on article 15 referenced in articles, but I can't find the actual wording.
Even if that one doesn't cover it, good chance there is a different bylaw that does.
How would you rate me on a scale of 1-10 on how well I've done as GM?
I'd give you a 7-8. I think you might've gotten the best of me in the Hertl trade, only deal I didn't like was the Tyler Johnson for Beaulieu and a 2nd. I think you could've gotten more than you did in that deal, but you still got a solid young d man. Most importantly, you've climbed out of cap hell without destroying the roster or your futures.
All laughs aside, probably a 7. You've improved the d, and its a pretty good forward corps, especially on the left side. Still a little thin on the right side at forward now but you've definitely built a roster that'll be dynamite five years down the road. Also For being one of the most entertaining Gms on here, I'd give you a 7-8 too
Just because everyone is doing it, I need to know how well on a scale of 1-300 oops, looking at my bathroom scale on a rating scale from 1-10 how well have I done as Carolina's GM?
All laughs aside, probably a 7. You've improved the d, and its a pretty good forward corps, especially on the left side. Still a little thin on the right side at forward now but you've definitely built a roster that'll be dynamite five years down the road. Also For being one of the most entertaining Gms on here, I'd give you a 7-8 too
Yeah right side is very thin. You dont have to lie about that haha. But it will get changed (Babcock face).
Just because everyone is doing it, I need to know how well on a scale of 1-300 oops, looking at my bathroom scale on a rating scale from 1-10 how well have I done as Carolina's GM?
I'd give you a 7 as well. Forwards are much better, defense isn't quite as deep, but you have the two elite pieces in Slavin and Trouba who are good enough to make up for less depth. I'm not sold on MAF being starter quality, mainly because I'm still in denial that he could have played as well as he did against my Jackets . ullmark and if subban turns things around, both are good young options. Solid roster.
Just because everyone is doing it, I need to know how well on a scale of 1-300 oops, looking at my bathroom scale on a rating scale from 1-10 how well have I done as Carolina's GM?
I'd give you a 7 as well. Forwards are much better, defense isn't quite as deep, but you have the two elite pieces in Slavin and Trouba who are good enough to make up for less depth. I'm not sold on MAF being starter quality, mainly because I'm still in denial that he could have played as well as he did against my Jackets . ullmark and if subban turns things around, both are good young options. Solid roster.