Merrill has since been placed on waivers and Bjugstad is overpaid for what he provides. Getting Merkley and 2018 2nd is definitely a 4-2.

We will be looking at September and October trades.

Road apples. Merrill was just extended for 2 years by a Vegas team that has like 12 d-men to choose from - all sorts of guys have been waived in the game, that shouldn't have any impact. Bjugstad is comparable to Victor Rask who obviously has good trade value in the game when you see the deals he's been involved in. https://public.tableau.com/shared/R2H3B9BBR?:display_count=yes

Not too worried about it, I'll give up Terry if I get Svechnikov or Bertuzzi back.

DAMN RIGHT he is lol

Rask has 108 points over the past 3 seasons, Bjugstad has 68.

We will look into September and October trades. You may not be able to get someone like Svechnikov back since he has been moved since, but we will do our best to make sure everyone is fairly compensated.

Fair enough, but Bjugstad missed like 40 games in that span and you're conveniently leaving out his best 2 seasons in terms of production. My beef is not with you (and I can't justify that Bjugstad is amazing haha), I just wanna make sure that the Detroit team doesn't get shafted here, because DET lost a lot of value before I became GM and I'm just trying to bring them back into relevancy.

I don't understand. We me and Van GM both agreed on a trade yet the board had to get involved and remove a 1st....... wtf is this crap

After reviewing the proposed trade revisions and the rules for the game, I'd like to formally object to the entire idea of trade revision.

Reversion has always been on the table, but given the timeline involved and the initial unwillingness to revert any trades earlier in the season, when it would have at least acted as a deterrent, even that is impractical in the majority of cases.

This is a significant wrench to throw into the game at this stage, and goes entirely against the principle of GMs negotiating their own trades. If we wanted to ensure a balance throughout, a trade approval process was the way to go. Prevention rather than correction. It's the only practical system that would serve that purpose.

These corrections are also being made with the benefit of hindsight at this point. If trades were reviewed and rejected around the time they were made, a current valuation could be established. Looking back, those values can fluctuate when influenced by recent performance, and doesn't take into account the projected performance at the time of the trade.

I think the whole idea should be reconsidered and scrapped. If you want to implement something different moving forward, that's a consideration, but adding or subtracting team assets is not the way.

if a GM is too oblivious to make a trade that gets there team fleeced then thats their own problem. I think the board should not be getting involved what so ever in any trades.

I think if the BOE wants to take back a trade it should be right away. It's getting really annoying IMO when trades from months before are getting taken back. And also, i don't think it should be for all bad trades, only the ones that obviously were meant as a joke, or to get people talking, etc.

One of the biggest issues with V1 was that after only a few months, many teams were absolutely horrible and other teams were totally stacked.

The whole point of trade revisions is trying to keep the V2 teams relatively even for the long term good of the game.

I do agree that these issues should have been addressed much earlier, but unfortunately that did not happen for reasons that I really don't understand. There has been a lot of discussion within the BOG of how we could deal with these issues, but we really weren't getting anywhere. Over the past week or so I have been pushing my fellow BOG members to agree on trade revisions and get them posted as soon as possible. We could have spent more time discussing the issues, but the longer we waited to post these revisions, the more unhappy people would have been.

Unless people actually think that it is fair to let new and inexperienced GMs be targeted and basically robbed by other GMs, then I think that either revising or reverting trades has to be part of the game. Obviously it should be done much sooner after the actual trades are made, but I will say that it is very hard to get five BOG members to agree on things especially when everyone has a life and can't be online 24/7 and even when they are they don't always seem that interested in actually taking action.

Raif please stop bitching about things that have no effect on you at all.

Also do you seriously think that teams are making trades "as a joke or to get people talking"???

When's the last time someone made a trade as a joke in V2? Exactly. ******* never. Also, if you're going to bring up V1 for "joke trades", your point is irrelevant.

OK fine, sorry. I was just saying my opinion. [Deleted part of post here]

even though none of these trades really affect me, I think that a few of these trades that were chosen for revision are extremely nit picky... IMO the Bjugstad trade shouldn't have any revision, nor should the Toffoli trade

Reverting is fine, in a timely manner. If we can't do things in a timely manner, put them through an approval process, rather than amending them at a much later date. It's more difficult to undo the damage than it is to prevent it from taking place.
If a trade is rejected, it sends the parties back to negotiations to allow the GMs to come up with something that will pass approval. The GMs retain control of their assets.
If you don't want a trade to be rejected, you put more effort into ensuring it is balanced from both sides. Fleecing someone becomes counter-productive.

If you want to add revisions to the game moving forward, that is one thing. Perhaps not having that option in place sooner was an oversight. We learn and adjust.
GMs should not be punished or lose assets based on something that happened before. Applying revisions retroactively is a punishment with no basis in the rules.
Reverting a trade, where possible, was covered, and I argued for trades to actually be reverted previously, because it would act as a deterrent. There was hesitance to use that tool, so it had no impact.

If we want something in place moving forward, and we can act on things in a more timely manner, that's fine. Instead of a forced revision with no GM having control over their own assets, revert the trade and allow them to renegotiate on their own. I don't have an issue with trying to make improvements, but revising trades as proposed is not the answer.

Based on some of the feedback seen today I’ll propose a solution on here so everyone can look at it and discuss it here.

New Possible Policy: Trades cannot be reverted after 2 weeks from the time the trade was posted in the “Official Trades Thread”. This policy would go into effect immediately, automatically resulting in the past “trade alterations” posted recently to be fully null and void. If a trade gets an average rating of 4.5-1.5 or worse it is eligible for review and reversion. Trades with an average rating that is less can NOT be reverted.
- in addition, since the Anaheim and New York Islanders teams have been rather depleted in the past they will be granted a early 2nd and early/mid 3rd round pick. These will be newly created picks so that other GMs do NOT lose picks previously acquired. The “compensation picks” will be the first two picks of the second round, and possibly the first two picks of the third round. All subsequent picks will be pushed back.

* Remember that this policy is not official yet, it is a possibility i am posting to get feedback and debate on. Please leave a comment below for feedback*

If GM’s were dumb enough to make bad trades that’s on them. If an issue is at hand it should be taken up as soon as it happens. None of this month crap.

Also if that’s the case then I want my duchene trade revertted considering I overplayed for him. There has to be some sort of balance ffs

That's more reasonable. I'm curious as to what qualifies those two teams for compensatory picks though. Is it based on an average rating, number of lopsided trades, etc?
As long as there is an objective benchmark, and those are the only two teams meeting the criteria, it should be a suitable compromise. If there are more teams meeting that criteria, it could have a bigger impact than intended. I'd suggest it is a one time corrective measure as well, and that those compensatory picks can not be traded. Since further trades will be reverted, there will be no need for additional compensation at a later date, and trading these picks away could result in additional skewing if other teams were able to acquire them.

If a trade made in the final two weeks of the previous month is reverted, the team should be permitted an extra trade in the following month to account for the one they have to renegotiate, and give them enough time to do so properly. Even if it's a completely different trade, since they would have had time to negotiate a different deal if not for the possible 2 week delay.

Other than that, I don't see any issue.

deleted

So if this solution were to be implemented, any trades thag have been revised way too late proior to the trade would go back to the original?

@Rodzikhockey93

Any trades that have been made prior to the implementation of the rule will not be revised/modified/reverted.

Any trades that have been made after the implementation of the rule will be eligible to be revised/modified/reverted.

@ricochetii

There is no formal qualifications. BCPs (BOE Compensation Picks) will be subsided as necessary at the end of the season. The reason for this is because if we hand them out in the middle of the season, teams might acquire picks that mean they no longer need BCPs. Some might ask themselves "but can't you just take the BCPs back." The answer is yes, we can, however, by giving them out in the middle of the season may influence some of their trades, negotiations, etc.

We won't have an objective benchmark for the purpose that we don't want GMs to manipulate the system. Whether that is capable or not, the risk associated with manipulation outweighs the risk to having a non-formal or objective benchmark.

BCPs cannot be traded at any point.

I don't have a response to your idea on giving a trade back, but I would say that it will vary case-by-case since there are multiple factors that need to be weighed in order to properly assess the situation.

I saw your clarification as well, and I agree, I'd take a note now and be sure teams aren't actively vacating their picks before the end of the season.

I quoted this post because the original did not included "revised" as a possibility. The BOE should only evaluate the trades and then put them back in the hands of the GMs if they don't pass muster. I'd rather not see the BOE deciding which pieces need to be added, removed or changed. Other than the timeline, that was my biggest issue. Those are GM decisions to make. You take out or change a key piece, or add a piece that a GM has no intention of moving, and that trade probably doesn't happen in the first place. If a trade is deemed as "bad", both parties should have the option of walking away.

Unrelated to the trade revision discussion, I would like to ask to see if Joe Thornton's NMC can be waived. He is nearing the end of his career, has yet to win a stanley cup and would want to be on a team that has a legitimate shot at being a contender. Since San Jose is rebuilding, it does not make sense for Thornton to remain a shark and waste another chance at winning a cup.