Reversed Vancouver Moves

Philippe27 · Guru

Reversed Vancouver Moves

Eric_Isles · BRHL2 Co-Commish

The deals involving Vancouver with PHI and BUF were overlooked by me. They have also been reversed under the same understanding as the others.

Someone brought up the deal made with Washington, and to my knowledge that deal came a few days prior to "Jagr-gate"

I apologize for the confusion, it's my fault. Thank you.

Pittsburgh GM · Senior Member

If the deals with Vancouver are being overturned, can I ask why my deal with George for Dumont is also being overturned ?
And if it is because he has made the case that the deal was done due to his dealings with Vancouver then would this not have to affect every deal involved by every team Vancouver dealt with before and after with all teams ?

I did not agree to turning the Dumont deal at all and as far as i am concerned it had no direct link to any vancouver dealings with me. Sorry but I wass not selfish in the other happenings even if I did not like it but now I have a major beef with this. Wonder how many others there are ?

Sorry Eric , not trying to attack you and if there was no cash involved I wouild not care, but every thing that happens in this league can directly impact the outcome of the finish with all teams. So this definately needs some sort of explanation on an open forum.

Hawks_G · Guru

Pittsburgh GM wrote:

If the deals with Vancouver are being overturned, can I ask why my deal with George for Dumont is also being overturned ?
And if it is because he has made the case that the deal was done due to his dealings with Vancouver then would this not have to affect every deal involved by every team Vancouver dealt with before and after with all teams ?

I did not agree to turning the Dumont deal at all and as far as i am concerned it had no direct link to any vancouver dealings with me. Sorry but I wass not selfish in the other happenings even if I did not like it but now I have a major beef with this. Wonder how many others there are ?

Sorry Eric , not trying to attack you and if there was no cash involved I wouild not care, but every thing that happens in this league can directly impact the outcome of the finish with all teams. So this definately needs some sort of explanation on an open forum.

This one is easy. The only reason I made this deal was to fit Gonchar in under the cap. I actually had to consumate this deal before sending in the Gonchar deal to be cap compliant.

We don't take a ratings hit and the lesser player if we don't agree to the Gonchar deal.

I wouldn't in my right mind deal Dumont for Schaefer unless I am trying to save cap space. Dumont>>>>Schaefer.

Pittsburgh GM · Senior Member

Well George I can say the same thing, I don't deal for Sakic if I don't get Dumont, and I don't waste two weeks of my teams time and effort thinking i might give it a shot and make a run at it, if I don't get Dumont, and I don't make a move for Norrena if I am not trying to make a run at it, or Todd White for that matter !

The point is Dumont for Schaefer has nothing to do with Vancouver as far as i am concerned. the deal was not with him, and the fact that you made the deal based on those premises, also has nothing to do with me.
If we are reversing all deals, and I mean all deals in regards to Vancouver since the Jagr fallout, then every deal after Jagr regardless of the teams would have to be reversed cause all might have a link to Vancouver somehow.
This deal has nothing to do with Mike's bad dealings and therefore I should not be penalized because of it.
Like I said i wonder how many deals in a round a bout way were directly related to the Vancouver dealings ? Do we take back all deals since that time for all teams ?
If not then this deal cannot be taken back either.

Again George not trying to be selfish and it has nothing to do with you at all. This is a can of worms Eric should have never opened up, and I am not willing to accept it and want this particular deal fixed properly.
Dumont is mine fair and square. You made the offer, you made the deal. Vancouver or no Vancouver.

-- Edited by Pittsburgh GM at 21:29, 2007-12-12

Hawks_G · Guru

Pittsburgh GM wrote:

Well George I can say the same thing, I don't deal for Sakic if I don't get Dumont, and I don't waste two weeks of my teams time and effort thinking i might give it a shot and make a run at it, if I don't get Dumont, and I don't make a move for Norrena if I am not trying to make a run at it, or Todd White for that matter !

The point is Dumont for Schaefer has nothing to do with Vancouver as far as i am concerned. the deal was not with him, and the fact that you made the deal based on those premises, also has nothing to do with me.
If we are reversing all deals, and I mean all deals in regards to Vancouver since the Jagr fallout, then every deal after Jagr regardless of the teams would have to be reversed cause all might have a link to Vancouver somehow.
This deal has nothing to do with Mike's bad dealings and therefore I should not be penalized because of it.
Like I said i wonder how many deals in a round a bout way were directly related to the Vancouver dealings ? Do we take back all deals since that time for all teams ?
If not then this deal cannot be taken back either.

Again George not trying to be selfish and it has nothing to do with you at all. This is a can of worms Eric should have never opened up, and I am not willing to accept it and want this particular deal fixed properly.
Dumont is mine fair and square. You made the offer, you made the deal. Vancouver or no Vancouver.

-- Edited by Pittsburgh GM at 21:29, 2007-12-12

No, not true. I made the offer because I needed to cut salary. And there are only a couple GMs arguing against doing what is best for the league.

You only want the deal to stand because you know you got the better of the deal. I knew it at the time but made it to add Gonchar. So with no need to make that deal because of the retro of all the Vancouver deals, why should you be the benefactor of upgrading a player that I wouldn't never deal you unless I hadn't been obliged to lose the million in salary.

The reason I am sure that Eric found it simple to reverse our deal as well is because during the whole scenerio, I was on ICQ with him constantly to make sure the Gonchar deal wasn't processes until my deal to cut salary was made.

Rod, I know you are a good guy....but in all of these arguments, all you bring up is how it affects you. Personally, I would love to have our deal go through and me keep Gonchar....but for the best interest of the league, I understand that putting all the pieces back to where they were is necessary.

Am I happy about it, no. Do I understand why it has to be this way...sure.

Sabres_Luke · Guru

the whole reversal of non VAN trades is out of the question.

philly · Guru

lol, i love how you all think this is a democracy.....

just to let the commishes know, my opinion doesnt count for ****...

perhaps, everyone else should let the decision be made by those making the decisions...

NOT the other way round

Hawks_G · Guru

Sabres_Luke wrote:

the whole reversal of non VAN trades is out of the question.

Let me ask you a question...you have a trade scenerio like this...you are in the middle of negotiating for Jarome Iginla. You have a deal struck with Phil for Dustin Brown and a 2nd for Iggy. But you are going to go over the cap if you make the deal. Phil sends it in...you have Eric on ICQ and say...I am not going to confirm that deal until I make a move to get under the cap....but woot...I got Iggy.

Let's say you traded Jay Bouwmeester for Ryan Suter and a first with Rich in Florida to cut salary to fit Iggy in.

The whole scenerio goes down, but Eric finds out that Phil and Kirk are the same person and they get fired. Eric says that all Montreal deals are to be reversed.

You are comfortable taking the hit of moving downward from Jay Bo to Suter and a pick even though you no longer have the benefit of adding Iginla.

If you aren't adding Iginla, then there is ZERO chance you are going to make that deal.

I am sure, in that same scenerio, you would feel as I do. And on top of it, Eric already stated that the Dumont/Schaefer deal was going to be reversed...I don't really need to defend it, but it sure makes sense to me.

-- Edited by Hawks_G at 11:49, 2007-12-13

Habs · Senior Member

philly wrote:

lol, i love how you all think this is a democracy.....

just to let the commishes know, my opinion doesnt count for ****...

perhaps, everyone else should let the decision be made by those making the decisions...

NOT the other way round

I like Rex's view on this

Hawks_G · Guru

philly wrote:

lol, i love how you all think this is a democracy.....

just to let the commishes know, my opinion doesnt count for ****...

perhaps, everyone else should let the decision be made by those making the decisions...

NOT the other way round

Here Here!!

Sabres_Luke · Guru

George, I understand where you're coming from, but what if the guy who got dumont made room for him, and dealt another player, or let another player he wanted go because he had dumont? Like where does it stop?

You know what I'm saying?

Like lets say I traded brown and a 2nd for iggy ( I like that example :D) but who I also wanted the same amount was lecav. And I did the brown for iggy deal but then you dealt Lecav to someone else but I was happy with it because I got Iggy. But then Iggy was reversed and I missed out on Lecav. So many situations could have happened.

Hawks_G · Guru

Sabres_Luke wrote:

George, I understand where you're coming from, but what if the guy who got dumont made room for him, and dealt another player, or let another player he wanted go because he had dumont? Like where does it stop?

You know what I'm saying?

Like lets say I traded brown and a 2nd for iggy ( I like that example :D) but who I also wanted the same amount was lecav. And I did the brown for iggy deal but then you dealt Lecav to someone else but I was happy with it because I got Iggy. But then Iggy was reversed and I missed out on Lecav. So many situations could have happened.

If the league is intent on reversing all of Vancouver's deals, then they have to look at the whole trail. If there is a compelling argument for a GM for how the circumstances occured, then they bring to Eric and let him make the call.

G