Trade Challenges - 1718-093 and 1718-095

[Glenn_Austen]

As previously stated, I do not question the integrity of any of the owners involved. I do think that this situation might be avoided in the future if we consider implementing a few tweaks to our constitution.
Perhaps we should look at a "trade moratorium" for a period of time after the regular season concludes. Owners would have to indicate whether or not they plan to return to the league by a set date - maybe August 1. Once ownership of each franchise is confirmed, trading would be re-opened.
This might help to prevent trades made by owners who are on the fence regarding continued participation in the league, as well as simplify tracking of transactions for Chris.
Obviously owners could still elect to "retire after that point, but the process would be a bit cleaner. As Terry suggests, if an owner quits after August 1, any trades completed by the departing owner during that window of time could be overturned, and the new owner given the option of revisiting the deals.
Just my two cents

Glenn

[Chris_Savard]

As previously stated, I do not question the integrity of any of the owners involved. I do think that this situation might be avoided in the future if we consider implementing a few tweaks to our constitution.
Perhaps we should look at a "trade moratorium" for a period of time after the regular season concludes. Owners would have to indicate whether or not they plan to return to the league by a set date - maybe August 1. Once ownership of each franchise is confirmed, trading would be re-opened.
This might help to prevent trades made by owners who are on the fence regarding continued participation in the league, as well as simplify tracking of transactions for Chris.
Obviously owners could still elect to "retire after that point, but the process would be a bit cleaner. As Terry suggests, if an owner quits after August 1, any trades completed by the departing owner during that window of time could be overturned, and the new owner given the option of revisiting the deals.
Just my two cents

Glenn

I have lots of thoughts on this one Glenn/CFHL guys - however, lets stay focused on the discussion at hand.

[Mitch_Zappitelli]

I vote to allow both trades. I trust all GM made the trade in good nature. I have been accused of collusion before and the feeling is not great. I am sorry each GM has to go through this.

Zappers

[Lance_Bowman]

I vote to allow both trades. I know these GMs would only make trades in good faith to the league.

[Chris_Savard]

From OIL KINGS

I will put my two cents in. There have been over the years many strange
looking trades made. Usually someone is looking for a particular player and
over pays or someone has a long term plan for his/her team that may not be
apparent on the surface. Prior to submitting a protected list the GM's have
many tools and assets to move so a few deals may benefit one versus another
and look strange from the outside. I have had a few GM's say that I overpaid
or got a steal on a trade, but this was always the way the league has gone.
I cannot gauge the trades indicated as they are not overly one sided in my
opinion, and Jerry has been an honorable opponent for many years, so I put
faith in what he is saying.

John Baird

[Chris_Savard]

FROM MISSION

This is laughable....

Keyboard warriors strike again !!

I will NOT get drawn into voting on the integrity of 3 of my friends, fuck
that !!! There will always be a " best " player involved in a deal,
otherwise whats the point. I, like John have gladly overpaid for a player
that belonged to another team.

And when did it become apparent that we now have to make sure the new GM has
a " decent ", team , fuck him, let him figure it out. You's come on here
bragging about your friends & how astute they are, then let them build their
team. When I joined 13 yrs ago my starting goalie wasn't even in the NHL
anymore !! Where were the bleeding hearts ???

Chris, thank you so much for bringing our CFHL to the pinnacle of hockey
pools ! Ronzo is so proud of this !!

However as direct result of this pettiness and fucking whining the Mission
are for sale. I'm pulling out, there is more to life than having to validate
the workings of a fucking hockey deal in a fantasy pool.

Bubbah

[Kelly Boisvenue]

The trades in question is very lopsided to a certain extent. The Gm's in question of the trade must say to themselves would they have taken that trade if they were the Buds owner? Take in mind I have dealt with the Gm's in question and they always want something for nothing. But as most Gm's whom are inquiring for such trades do that all the time. I feel you must go back in past trades that were made for certain players and decide if these current trades reflect the value they are getting in return. So I will be NEUTRAL on these trades in question.

[Chris_Savard]

FROM ICE MINERS


Guys,
Apologies but I am going to play the Switzerland card on this discussion.
When I first got into the cfhl, many questioned me for numerous deals I offered/accepted. This pool costs us all money and if a lopsided deal is made, then the “perceived” loser in that deal must just want to throw his money away. Or he just really loves the player(s) being offered to him.

Win some, we lose some. This is all just fantasy and supposed to be about comradery and having fun. Don’t lose sight of that guys.

I am not challenging the trades for the above commentary given.

P.s. I have a number of lw willing to be moved in addition to goalies. Mid round pick is all I am looking for.

[Dean Eastman]

As per my email...
Allow both

Let’s move on. Bubba don’t go...,with whom will I trade with.
As for Murphy’s comments, I think he is just looking for mayoral votes lmfao

[Chris_Savard]

FROM RAIDERS....

I have no issue with the trades...for the record.