Buds Board Keepers League

I'll leave that up to CC to decide.

I'd say that's the reason you need to put in a claim regardless of who is in front of you. Sometimes things don't work out.

Matthew wroteCOLONI'd say that's the reason you need to put in a claim regardless of who is in front of you. Sometimes things don't work out.

I mean I did put in a claim, as at the time it wasn't in the CBA that you had to make a claim during a certain 24 HR period.

So if I didn't answer Mik this morning there is no fine and I keep Sustr, but now I'm losing a 3rd and player, on top of the pick downgrade with Jordan too?

Yet I was never illegal since no lock had passed. I would be very curious how many people actually knew and followed this and how many times a team has been over briefly whether by claim or trade and then made a consequent move to get back to 50 before lock.

And I have PM proof of an agreed upon deal before I ever put the claim in knowing I would have to cut a contract somewhere to be legal with the claim. I prevented 2 other teams from making the claim because they knew I was making the claim (and was ahead of them) and one of which agreed to a deal with me to send a contract to stay at 50. All of which occurred before the claim was ever put in. The delay in posting was literally because they were on vacation out of the country until this morning.

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLON

Malette18 wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLON

Malette18 wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONwhen I was fined it was stated that "at no time is a team allowed to go over 50 contracts" so as soon as his claim was valid, he exceeded 50 contracts...the same as me.

Ya but giving Sustr back to CHI is saying the claim was invalid, therefore SJS never exceeded 50. The claim can't be both valid and invalid at the same time.

He broke the rules. He gets a fine. That doesn't mean he gets to keep the player he broke the rule for.

If someone steals a car, and gets caught, do they not get jail time despite the car being returned to the owner?

I see it more of a credit card being declined at the register. You tried to pay and it didn't work. You don't get to walk out of the store with the product and then are charged for stealing. The transaction never occurred.

If we had an automatic transaction blocker sure, but we don't - we have to be on top of it ourselves. He made the add. It was processed. It put him over the roster limit. We are adults here - just as dave did there is a consequence for the action.

What determines "processed"? There was never a post that he became mine, hell even right now the waivers thread still says Sustr is on waivers. And on FT the trade of Thorburn to VGK was completed before the Sustr trade too.

foofnik wroteCOLONSo if I didn't answer Mik this morning there is no fine and I keep Sustr, but now I'm losing a 3rd and player, on top of the pick downgrade with Jordan too?

Yet I was never illegal since no lock had passed. I would be very curious how many people actually knew and followed this and how many times a team has been over briefly whether by claim or trade and then made a consequent move to get back to 50 before lock.

And I have PM proof of an agreed upon deal before I ever put the claim in knowing I would have to cut a contract somewhere to be legal with the claim. I prevented 2 other teams from making the claim because they knew I was making the claim (and was ahead of them) and one of which agreed to a deal with me to send a contract to stay at 50. All of which occurred before the claim was ever put in. The delay in posting was literally because they were on vacation out of the country until this morning.

same thing with me...when I went over...I called myself on it.

Based on precedent with Dave I don't think foof can have Sustr. I'd be fine voiding this trade too.

3rd is too harsh of a fine and Dave wasn't fined that so we might need to revisit the severity. Sustr going back to CHI since other GMs thought SJS won the claim and didn't bother making their own claim is a clusterfuck all on its own. Possibly he just gets re-waived rather than going to CHI's minors?

Bruyns wroteCOLONBased on precedent with Dave I don't think foof can have Sustr. I'd be fine voiding this trade too.

3rd is too harsh of a fine and Dave wasn't fined that so we might need to revisit the severity. Sustr going back to CHI since other GMs thought SJS won the claim and didn't bother making their own claim is a clusterfuck all on its own. Possibly he just gets re-waived rather than going to CHI's minors?

I mean, if we re-waive then SJ now has the room and waiver order #2? So he'd just claim him again?

He went through waivers. There was one claim. That claim was illegal. So it seems he should pass through. Not sure why hawkes should need his player to clear waivers twice.

Matthew wroteCOLONHe went through waivers. There was one claim. That claim was illegal. So it seems he should pass through. Not sure why hawkes should need his player to clear waivers twice.

When have you seen teams make a claim when a higher team has already made one? Going straight to the minors makes no sense at all to me.

foofnik wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONHe went through waivers. There was one claim. That claim was illegal. So it seems he should pass through. Not sure why hawkes should need his player to clear waivers twice.

When have you seen teams make a claim when a higher team has already made one? Going straight to the minors makes no sense at all to me.

Yeah I would have claimed but saw josh was higher than me so what would be the point

I would never have guessed that Andrej Sustr would have caused all of this commotion. I'll just go back in time and waive someone else. Problem solved?

koomzzz wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONBased on precedent with Dave I don't think foof can have Sustr. I'd be fine voiding this trade too.

3rd is too harsh of a fine and Dave wasn't fined that so we might need to revisit the severity. Sustr going back to CHI since other GMs thought SJS won the claim and didn't bother making their own claim is a clusterfuck all on its own. Possibly he just gets re-waived rather than going to CHI's minors?

I mean, if we re-waive then SJ now has the room and waiver order #2? So he'd just claim him again?

True so that wouldn't work.

It's being discussed by CC too for what to do and what the fine would be.

The issue is there's no easy fix, I agree teams might have put in a claim if they didn't see SJS had a claim and priority. We can't just ignore it though since Dave who is a CC member made the same mistake, called himself out and paid a fine. Thinking you had until roster lock seems reasonable too so we need to ensure GMs know the rules, maybe some sort of reminder in the waiver claim thread that you can't claim at 50 and drop someone later if successful.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLONI would never have guessed that Andrej Sustr would have caused all of this commotion. I'll just go back in time and waive someone else. Problem solved?

Then you will have people complaining about that lol

perhaps the thing to do going forward is have someone (or a few) in charge of waivers...

submit to them before putting on the board to make sure all rules have been adhered to.

How do they manage this in the NHL? Can they be over the contracts limit during the day, but have to be at or under before a specific time? Like a 24 hour window or something like that?

Da_Hawks wroteCOLONHow do they manage this in the NHL? Can they be over the contracts limit during the day, but have to be at or under before a specific time? Like a 24 hour window or something like that?

Apparently it's daily as of 5:00 PM EST.

foofnik wroteCOLON
If we had an automatic transaction blocker sure, but we don't - we have to be on top of it ourselves. He made the add. It was processed. It put him over the roster limit. We are adults here - just as dave did there is a consequence for the action.

What determines "processed"? There was never a post that he became mine, hell even right now the waivers thread still says Sustr is on waivers. And on FT the trade of Thorburn to VGK was completed before the Sustr trade too.[/quote]

Scott posted right below your claim. http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15156&start=120