I just got the responses forwarded to me from the week-end. I'm not sure if everything was explained and how the BOD determined this was o.k. Maybe the commish or the BOD could run it by everyone to set everyone's mind at ease.
For those of you who don't know what happend in this trade.
Philly dealt Smid to ATL for Stoll. Which is fair in itself...BUT
They wanted to put a clause on the deal in which ATL could reneg the deal if smid didnt rereate high enough.
THis creates one huge problem. If we start putting clauses in deals it will leave room for collusion and rent a players.
I'm not saying this is the case, but hypothically for the future:
Lets say philly wins the cup with stoll, and (if ATL had his picks) his team lost a few more and got a higher draft pick. This situation would both work out for them. Then at the end of the year they just give each other's players back.
The BOD was working on a rule for next year and it seems that only picks and cash will be allowed to be traded as futures but I think Bryce and Eric will address it more officially in the off-season.
I'll be breif, it seems everyone has put their opinions out already.
1. The reason I deleted the original messageboard post was simply the timing, I just got back into town from the weekend, and Eric was leaving, as you all probably have figured out, Eric is your day to day simmer, and handles the daily operations, when it comes to head office decisions, by and large, I take the brunt of the heat and offer up explanations. Me being out of town, I didn't want to let the issue fester without any word from myself, and with Eric leaving I knew his availability would be minimal.
2. As far as the trade itself goes, the deal was made earlier in the day and I brought it up to the BOD's attention without prompting by any GM because I was aware of the "rental" possibility of the deal. The deal was passed by enough BOD member to be processed through, granted we hadn't heard from the entire BOD at that time. Such is life at a trade deadline.
3. Do I like the deal? No, not really, for the exact points that have been mentioned. DO I think it is a topic that needs addresses? Yes and we've begun doing so as BOD (granted I havent checked that forum yet since I got home).
4. On a side note, I would argue that Smid is MUCH more valuable to Atlanta who has an old overpaid defense and a group of talented young forwards, if I were in there shoes (which I'm not, I'm in the playoff picture) I would be leaning towards keeping Smid.
5. The deal will stand as it was approved by the BOD, the conduct however of a few organizations will be dealt with accordingly.
THe problem I have with that though Bryce is....If Kirk (ATL) wanted to know what Smid's rating would be before he traded for him. Why couldnt he just wait till the ratings come out? I think if we leave room for take backs based on ratings it opens of a whole can of worms we dont want to open..
Ex. I could choose to trade Sidney Crosby to my friend montreal for all his prospects and picks and next years picks with the option that i could take it back at the end of the year. Obviously i would...and montreal gets a top center for the playoffs. WIthin the rules set, it would be fair..
Sabres wrote: THe problem I have with that though Bryce is....If Kirk (ATL) wanted to know what Smid's rating would be before he traded for him. Why couldnt he just wait till the ratings come out? I think if we leave room for take backs based on ratings it opens of a whole can of worms we dont want to open..
Ex. I could choose to trade Sidney Crosby to my friend montreal for all his prospects and picks and next years picks with the option that i could take it back at the end of the year. Obviously i would...and montreal gets a top center for the playoffs. WIthin the rules set, it would be fair..
That's why it will be addressedin the off-season so that it doesn't happen again but it's too late for now.
