IMO even 2 weeks seems kinda long. Because it could also change plans of future deals. What if someone makes a trade, then a week later they make another trade which only works if they make the original deal, then a week later the original trade is taken back, then what? (I'm not saying the 2nd deal involves a piece they got in the 1st deal. I mean for example, they traded a defenseman and then a week later they add another defenseman to replace him in the lineup. This would work with any position.)

You make trades that are unlikely to be reversed.
If you think you made too good of a trade, wait 2 weeks to see if it gets locked in. Don't make a risky trade assuming it will stand, and make other trades dependent on it.
Best tactic is to avoid it entirely by making sure both sides get fair value.

Didn't he just have his chance to move on from SJS?? He could have very easily signed in Toronto with his buddy Patty Marleau but chose to stay in San Jose. Wasn't that all the summer talk, How are the Leafs gonna sign both of them?

I can't say I agree with this thought. I'm fully aware the GM of ANA before me ran the club into the ground. I'm also fully aware that far too many of the current or long term GM's of the other clubs either don't want to make deals with you OR they do nothing but try and screw you over in potential deals because you're new. I mean seriously, go check out an offer I got from one GM recently via my team page and try to tell me how anyone thinks it remotely a fair offer.
I've had discussions with a few others who are very respectful, helpful and willing to exchange thoughts and ideas on trades with no malice from either side. THIS is the way it should be for ALL 31 of us GM's. I've also dealt with some GM's that every time you basically agree to something they halt things by wanting more or someone else.
So far on a personal level I'd say I'm happy with 2/3 trades I've managed to make so far. Ya I screwed up my first ever trade through a miscommunication, but we worked it out and all is good now. The 2nd one earned me someone I particularly wanted so I consider that a minor victory for me. The last one....jury's still out on that for now, ask me later how I feel about it.
Sorry, got off topic there. What I'm trying to say from MY OWN PERSONAL THOUGHTS is that IF my team were to be awarded these magical make up picks, it could create tension with the other GM's who didn't get bonus picks......especially if a bonus pick was used to take a player some other team right behind me wanted. Yes, it's possible to still take a player a team right behind you wants, but that would be from using an actual draft pick your teams owns or have acquired via trade and not just handed out by the BOG because someone prior to us screwed things up so badly. Like I said, it's hard enough for new GM's to get treated fair by others right away, so I see this as something that could only add to that.

Basically I see it this way. MY team was mentioned in 2 trade revisions for things that took place long before I came on board to the game. But because the BOG has made the decision that revisions need to be made, I will honor that and have made the desired changes to my team (well one of them so far).

What's done is done. I have to live with my team and work my butt off to try and rebuild it into the team I now want. I'm really not trying to be the bitchy new guy, just sharing my thoughts in hopes it contributes to the conversation.

@ricochetii

Teams who purposefully depleat their draft assets will be worse off. GMs will not be given BCPs if they are manipulating the eligibility to receive BCPs.

I would say that the BOE revision is a reccomendation until one of two things happen:

1. GMs agree to compensation that statisfies the BOE/BOG that isn't verbatim to what the BOE recommended
2.) GMs cannot agree to compensation will be forced to complying with the reccomendation

I support the idea that the compensation should be GM driven, but there needs to be a "fallback" option if they cannot reach an agreement.

@matt59

How many NMCs does SJS have and do you have any evidence that supports your claim(s)?

I just want my damn pick back lol. If not I want some revision on older trades then to make everything fair

what if it's close to the deadline? Then you can't wait 2 weeks.

I agree with Rodzikhockey93. If a team keeps making bad trades that's their problem IMO.

I don’t think there is much truth to that report. Leafs certainly do not have the cap space to sign Thornton even to a half discounted deal which i doubt he’d have been willing to take. I read an article saying he wanted more than 1 yr term but had to settle on the 1 yr ([url=Thornton Re-Signs With San Jose]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2017/7/1/15886578/joe-thornton-contract-signing-san-jose-sharks-nhl-free-agency-2017[/url]). Other teams were actively pursuing Joe but which ones I do not know. Toronto would not have been able to offer multiple years to both Joe and Patrick.

I see what you’re saying, but here’s the current problem.
1. We (the BOG/E) did not act quickly enough to revert deals that needed to be considered. This is a problem that went back a month or more, and that’s on us and we’ll own that mistake.
2. It’s really really hard for another group to truly determine fair value between two other parties. There’s numerous factors to consider. How does a GM value different styles of players? Was one of the players involved in a trade a piece that one GM really didn’t want to give away but was given a price where it did make sense to move? (Ex: i was the initial owner of Tomas Hertl. I really did not want to move him and i wanted to keep him as a part of my young core and future. Well, i was made an offer that was really good but turned down for a couple days, but eventually gave in as everyone else really wanted the players involved in the deal. I wound up giving compensation piece(s) back even though i wouldn’t have traded Hertl for less since he was supposed to be a guy i wanted to build around. No hard feelings over giving up compensation pieces to even it up, but i wasn’t in love with having to do it lol)
3. Lots of deals with picks/ prospects going one way and a proven player going the other are hard to judge. Same with guys who will be soon to be UFAs since the dates and processes for when UFAs can be extended is a little fuzzy. Should value be based off of how good of a player the pending UFA is or based on the fact they have contract uncertainty?
4. Teams won’t want to give compensation pieces back it seems. Forcing teams to give picks back would create far more tension than just creating a couple new picks. And those new picks are not guaranteed yet in placement or quantity. If people are gonna get mad that they got bumped down 1-2 draft slots even though they made some rip-off-y trades that’s on them. They could’ve made deals more fair to begin with and prevented this from happeneing. Also, it’s better for their teams to move down 1-2 pick slots than have to give up first round picks and move down up to 100s of spots.
5. It is unfair for trades to be reverted only a month or two back. If we’re going to revert deals we should have either gone all the way back, or done none at all. Ex: @Rodzikhockey93 s Case. Another regret but what’s done is done.

In conclusion, i think that the simplest, most stress free way for things to be improved starting now is if the past reversions proposed by the BOE are nullified, the new policy with clear deadlines is implemented and modified to a most efficient format, and we move on from there.

*sorry for the post being super long

The in game trade deadline isn’t until April 1. If you make a super lopsided deal and wait to do it at the TDL that’s on you.

I like this. I'm not a fan of the halfway action - only revising semi-recent trades won't solve the problem.

it won't. This revision should have either been Implemented at the beginning of the game, or just started when the rule was in place. You can't simply implement this rule and then change everything prehistoric to it. Thats simply not fair to anyone.

I don't think the BOE should make a recommendation. If one side likes the recommendation, it gives them less incentive to consider alternative proposals.
Revert and allow the teams to renegotiate. We don't need the BOE to play armchair GM with our teams. We don't need a final solution for when the parties can't agree. If they can't renegotiate, the trade doesn't happen, the only thing they lose is time and effort.

I tend to agree that the BOE should not "force" compensation or predetermine what should be given up. But, I do think that when announcing a trade should be revised or undone, the reasons that the value is egregiously unfair should be written out and explained thoroughly so that both parties are aware of the issues of the deal.

As long as the explanation doesn't assign values to the discrepancy or the pieces involved.
ie ...
Crosby is only worth a 4th because he's declining
You'd need to add a 1st for this to be considered fair
This team wouldn't make this trade without David McDahlin being included
Etc

im gonna repeat this because I seriously feel like this is an issue that needs to be taken up with more of a fight. The Board can't pick and choose which trades to revised especially from a month or two ago.

I fully understand the importance of the BOG reviewing every trade that is made between 2 clubs and considering it's "fairness" value. BUT before making the executive decision to have what the BOG deems to be an unfair trade there could be a discussion started with both the GM's who were involved in making the deal to hear each sides individual reasons for agreeing to what they did in making the trade happen.
I only say this because there may be instances where a trade is made because one of the GM's simply wanted a certain player in the deal for personal or "fan of the guy" reasons and is perfectly fine with maybe giving up more than expected in order to get him on his team.
One thing that's really really hard to implement into this game is "player value" because it seems like we are basing a players performance on his "real world" stats which is a good indicator but for the purpose of our game doesn't hold the same weight. Without real world evidence there's no way of knowing if one good player would still be that good when moved to a new team and playing with new linemates.
Again, I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, just adding my thoughts to the discussion

I too agree with this. Best case scenario is to create a NEW RULE, choose a start date for that rule and move forward. No going backwards. It would suck for some people, me included because I actully regain a 2018 1st rd pick in one of the revisions which is good for me but bad for the other GM involved. And that's not really fair to him as he made that deal with the GM at the time which they both agreed to.
So I do think the BOG should use the remaining days of Jan to come up with a new rule, post it and and put it to a GM vote for approval (16/31 yes's to approve) then as of Feb 1st have it become effective and go fro there.
AT least it gives us all the remainder of this season to adapt and adjust,

When the BOG comes across trades they feel are lopsided in one way or another use them as a guide to show others how/why they feel it's unfair in the boards eyes as a learning tool for not only the new GM's but everyone. I mean if you're the GM of a team who's trades continually show up in the "unfair trades" thread, you'll start to think twice before trying to get someone to overpay for what you're offering them in return. And it will help others make more informed choices in who they choose as trad partners.

Exactly great statement. None of this revision crap from trades in the past. This should have been an issue taken care of prior to V2

@flamesfan419

If you check back for matt's original proposal, the current discussion is an alternative. The previously suggested trade revisions would no longer take place with this suggestion put into effect.

I have a suggestion (just making a suggestion):

Someone could come here (A GM, BOE, or maybe even another person) and 'report' a trade by giving their reasoning on why they think it should be taken back, and the BOE could discuss it and make a decision on whether the deal stays or if it is taken back. Though if nobody reported the trade in the first 3 days (72 hours) after the trade was made, the trade would stay. Also, i'm not a big fan of taking back trades just because they're bad. I mean, if someone does something like Crosby or McDavid for a pick, or anything that obviously wasn't a real trade, then the trade would be taken back, but otherwise the trades would stay the same.

Plus two optional ideas for this plan:
1) Whenever a trade is reported, the BOE posts on that team's page that the trade has been reported.
2) Each GM has 2 trade reports per month.

Once again, this is just a suggestion.

For the last time, no one does trades that aren't "real".

Final Proposal before Public Voting:

1. All "Trade Revisions" posted on Thursday, January 18, 2018 are considered null and void.
2. New Trade Revision Policy: In order for a trade to need to be revised or undone, the average trade rating must be >4.5 for one team OR <1.5 for the other. Thus a 3 way trade with an average rating of 4-4-1 is eligible to be considered for revision. On top of this, ALL GMs involved in the trade being considered MUST be notified WITHIN A WEEK of the trade being posted in the "Official Trades Thread". NOTE: just because a trade has an average rating >4.5 for one team or <1.5 for another team DOES NOT mean it will AUTOMATICALLY be reverted and redone. In addition, ALL 5 BOE members must agree that the trade needs to be undone/revised for it to be considered for reversion.
3. How GMs will be notified of a Concerning Deal: within a week of the troubling trade being identified, all GMs involved will receive a notice that the deal between them may be problematic, with an explanation as to why there are issues with the deal from the BOE. The GMs involved will be given a chance to explain as to why they think the deal is fair for them and why they agreed to the deal. If it is agreed among all parties (BOE and all involved GMs) that it is best for the deal to be undone and revised, it will be THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the involved GMs to change or nullify the deal entirely. The BOE can only suggest that one or more parties were not compensated fairly. The BOE may NOT explicitly state what that compensation is or should be.
4. Once the involved GMs have come to an agreement on what should be done, the trade can be re-published (not counting as an additional trade for the month). As long as the average rating of the deal is less than 4.5 for one team and 1.5 for the other, the deal will be final. If a new deal is unable to be struck, the deal falls through entirely.

Example Process of Deal Reversion or Not:
Trade A average rating: 4.75-1.25, made on 2-1-2018
Trade B average rating: 4.6-1.4, made on 2-2-2018

BOE unanimously agrees that Trade A is problematic for the general balance of the game in a timely fashion. All GMs are notified PRIOR to 2-8-18 that the deal is problematic and reasons why are outlined. GMs are asked to explain their stance on why the trade was made/ why it is fair for them at this time.
BOE discusses problems with Trade B but is not in full agreement that Trade B is problematic for the balance of the game. Trade B is FINAL.

GMs explain their stances on Trade A, agree that trade is imbalanced. Deal is reverted and the GMs involved attempt to create a new and more fair deal. If they are unable to agree on a more fair deal, the deal does not occur and both GMs keep that trade "available" for the month. If they are able to find a fairer deal, and it meets criteria to pass, Trade A is now FINAL.

If at seasons end, it is recognized that a team is in dire need of replenished assets, BOE-Compensation Picks may be issued. These are a LAST RESORT option, only to be used if a team was direly mismanaged in the past. These picks ARE NOT tradeable, and will be issued within 2 weeks from the start of the draft. The player selected with a BCP may NOT be moved until ONE YEAR after being drafted. The exact placement and number of picks used is TBD. No team will ever recieive more than two BCPs in total and if a first round BCP is granted, that is the ONLY BCP they will recieve. BCPs will NEVER fall in the lottery pick range if used in Round 1. GMs are NOT allowed to "try" and get a BCP. Proof of intentionally making moves to purposefully obtain a BCP will result in termination from a GM position.

**If there is anything I forgot, let me know and I will add it back into this proposal**

No one in this league agrees that trades that were revised should have happened. This rule should have been implemented when the league happened or it should only be in affect to trades AFTER THE RULE IS IN PLACE