Ana/car

[Matthew]

Ur player signed late (but was obvious he would sign and u had 6 days to move him...)

Im saying I don't get why this original deal is illegal?

[Sensfanjosh]

Not obvious he would sign at all (especially given it was a "bad contract" as you pointed out), but that it besides the point. I unintentionally was in a situation where I had too many contracts and was honest about trying to get under, and was fined a 3rd round pick. You tried to trade a player and pick for nothing (which is illegal as per our CBA) and made a waiver claim at the same time. One or both of these actions should be subject to a fine as well.

It was made clear to me by the CC that there are very limited opportunities for the CC to intervene to make sure rules are being followed that they can't make any exceptions or take circumstances into account. As a member of the CC I'm sure you understand.

[Da_Hawks]

Following this thread for sure. The decision will be very interesting.

[Handsome&FairMike]

Not obvious he would sign at all (especially given it was a "bad contract" as you pointed out), but that it besides the point. I unintentionally was in a situation where I had too many contracts and was honest about trying to get under, and was fined a 3rd round pick. You tried to trade a player and pick for nothing (which is illegal as per our CBA) and made a waiver claim at the same time. One or both of these actions should be subject to a fine as well.

It was made clear to me by the CC that there are very limited opportunities for the CC to intervene to make sure rules are being followed that they can't make any exceptions or take circumstances into account. As a member of the CC I'm sure you understand.

Josh - can you find that in the CBA for me? Haven’t had a chance to scour it yet. We are chatting about it in CC.

[dave1959]

I see nothing that says you can't trade players for nothing in return

[dave1959]

Pretty sure you actually need to trade something for this to be legal

not really any different than betting draft picks...nothing goes back in return.

[Chuck Norris]

I see nothing that says you can't trade players for nothing in return

Thats been a bbkl rule since year one. We were never allowed to post nothing or future considerations. Its always been a 7th round pick as a minimum return. Precedent i believe was set on this years ago.

The nhl cant trade for nothing which is why they came up with future considerations. It was decided years ago that future considerations wasnt an option in bbkl and an asset had to be traded.

This decision is so old i bet its in the old forums which we left many years ago. I doubt we can get it.

Thats also why youve never seen a deal with nothing going one way before - those of us who have been here long enough all knew a deal for nothing or future considerations was not allowed.

[Sensfanjosh]

Pretty sure you actually need to trade something for this to be legal

not really any different than betting draft picks...nothing goes back in return.

Actually its not at all the same since one is a bet and one is a trade. I was actually surprised to see you take this stance here though since you tend to be the inflexible and literal arbiter in every other case of the rules.

[KapG]

I see nothing that says you can't trade players for nothing in return

Thats been a bbkl rule since year one. We were never allowed to post nothing or future considerations. Its always been a 7th round pick as a minimum return. Precedent i believe was set on this years ago.

The nhl cant trade for nothing which is why they came up with future considerations. It was decided years ago that future considerations wasnt an option in bbkl and an asset had to be traded.

This decision is so old i bet its in the old forums which we left many years ago. I doubt we can get it.

Thats also why youve never seen a deal with nothing going one way before - those of us who have been here long enough all knew a deal for nothing or future considerations was not allowed.

I still remember many, many moons ago the old New Jersey GM whose name alludes me trying to do this and it was shot down.

[Sensfanjosh]

Scott right?

[dave1959]

Pretty sure you actually need to trade something for this to be legal

not really any different than betting draft picks...nothing goes back in return.

Actually its not at all the same since one is a bet and one is a trade. I was actually surprised to see you take this stance here though since you tend to be the inflexible and literal arbiter in every other case of the rules.

I'm not at all inflexible, in fact i opined that you should pay the same price as i did, the 5th and 6th. I am always willing to take circumstances into consideration.

[Chuck Norris]

Scott right?

Yeah Scott tried that more than once i believe along with many other sketchy things...

[KapG]

Scott right?

Yes, Scott. Couldn’t remember his name

[CasperX22]

I've always been under the impression that you can't give someone assets for nothing in a trade because that has been the precedent as long as I've been here. Even more ridiculous is going through that much trouble just to claim Ruhwedel.

[lightupdadarkness]

So Matthew made a claim putting him at 51 contracts since you can’t trade something for nothing.....am I understanding this correctly?

[Jordan (VGK)]

So Matthew made a claim putting him at 51 contracts since you can’t trade something for nothing.....am I understanding this correctly?

I've always been under the impression that you can't give someone assets for nothing in a trade because that has been the precedent as long as I've been here. Even more ridiculous is going through that much trouble just to claim Ruhwedel.

[Chuck Norris]

So Matthew made a claim putting him at 51 contracts since you can’t trade something for nothing.....am I understanding this correctly?

Basically. Was already at max contracts. Makes an invalid trade at 1150am and then makes a waiver claim at 1159am which he wins. Then fixes the original trade at 1253pm So as of noon he was at 51 contracts when he won Ruhwedel.

The question is if the trade was is ruled invalid does that mean his waiver claim is invalidated as well? Or does he retain Ruhwedel and receives a sanction for 51 contracts?

[Bruyns]

There will be a decision on this. There’s another team that is facing punishment for something that may impact this as well so some moving parts here. Everything will be sorted before next roster lock.

[foofnik]

So Matthew made a claim putting him at 51 contracts since you can’t trade something for nothing.....am I understanding this correctly?

Basically. Was already at max contracts. Makes an invalid trade at 1150am and then makes a waiver claim at 1159am which he wins. Then fixes the original trade at 1253pm So as of noon he was at 51 contracts when he won Ruhwedel.

The question is if the trade was is ruled invalid does that mean his waiver claim is invalidated as well? Or does he retain Ruhwedel and receives a sanction for 51 contracts?

I was fined a year or two ago for what was deemed an invalid claim. I won a player and minutes later posted a trade to get me back to 50 contracts again that was agreed upon before I won the waiver claim. I was fined picks and the player was deemed to have cleared waivers since no one else had posted a claim on him, so it should be the same in this case. Pick fine, claim deemed illegal, and the claim should now be won by Montreal since they were the highest valid claim posted. As for the trade, let the GM's decide if they want it to stand or reverse it.

[Da_Hawks]

So Matthew made a claim putting him at 51 contracts since you can’t trade something for nothing.....am I understanding this correctly?

Basically. Was already at max contracts. Makes an invalid trade at 1150am and then makes a waiver claim at 1159am which he wins. Then fixes the original trade at 1253pm So as of noon he was at 51 contracts when he won Ruhwedel.

The question is if the trade was is ruled invalid does that mean his waiver claim is invalidated as well? Or does he retain Ruhwedel and receives a sanction for 51 contracts?

I was fined a year or two ago for what was deemed an invalid claim. I won a player and minutes later posted a trade to get me back to 50 contracts again that was agreed upon before I won the waiver claim. I was fined picks and the player was deemed to have cleared waivers since no one else had posted a claim on him, so it should be the same in this case. Pick fine, claim deemed illegal, and the claim should now be won by Montreal since they were the highest valid claim posted. As for the trade, let the GM's decide if they want it to stand or reverse it.

"CC has decided that because of San Jose Sharks GM foofnik waiver claim of Andrej Sustr that put him over 50 contracts, he will be fined his 5th and 6th picks in the upcoming 2019 entry draft (the same penalty that was issued to Columbus GM Dave back in October of 2017).

Sustr will remain the property of the Chicago Blackhawks and will go to the minors, as no other team made a claim for him.

Also, going forward, CC has decided that when a GM puts a claim on a player on waivers, he MUST also show his total number of contracts in the post for the waived player. If he does not do this, the waiver claim will be null and void.