HFVan Hockey League 2018-19

[LaVar]

the only thing you can reply to**

and let’s just veto everything then

no trade league

Because half of the stuff you posted is a load of crap?

The only portions that should be relevant for the decision are:

a) past vetoes (precedent)
b) value

Werenski last season - 151 pool points

Meier - 154.5
Larsson - 64
Bear - Wasn't recalled in this league so no calculations on pickup, but had 4 (?) pts in short stint

------------------------------------------------

Murray last season - 301 pool points

Timmins - 0

Not to mention Murray was pretty bad (like you keep saying) so imagine how many he could potentially get if/when he gets back to form.​

 

[Tryamkin]

Because half of the stuff you posted is a load of crap?

The only portions that should be relevant for the decision are:

a) past vetoes (precedent)
b) value

Werenski last season - 151 pool points

Meier - 154.5
Larsson - 64
Bear - Wasn't recalled in this league so no calculations on pickup, but had 4 (?) pts in short stint

------------------------------------------------

Murray last season - 301 pool points

Timmins - 0

Not to mention Murray was pretty bad (like you keep saying) so imagine how many he could potentially get if/when he gets back to form.​

Right, all a load of crap except the parts you were wrong on lol

 

[LaVar]

Right, all a load of crap except the parts you were wrong on lol

was wrong on one thing -- wow werenski is less than a month younger than bear! you got me!

 

[Tryamkin]

was wrong on one thing -- wow werenski is less than a month younger than bear! you got me!

not going to bother any more here but you get the point

just veto all trades

 

[Canucks LB]

Right, all a load of crap except the parts you were wrong on lol

Why are you even remotely trying to pretend that this deal is in any way shape or form close.

You got a top 5 Fantasy goalie for a borderline top 4 D prospect, and a few draft picks.

There is no way in the world this is going to go through, that would be a massive blunder

This is a team who is completely rebuilding, trading a prospect who is not even HIS TOP 10 PROSPECT, for a Elite starting goalie on a stanley cup contending team.

Who gives a f*** if he has concussion history's, Even if he does not play another game all year, you still win just due to the fact it's the most lopsided trade in league history.

This trade is criminal, it's not fair, and should not even have a discussion of allowing it.

 

[LaVar]

not going to bother any more here but you get the point

just veto all trades

you know you're wrong when your only response is taking what i said to the extreme

and this is like the 3rd time you've said "not going to bother any more"

vEtO aLl TrAdEs

 

[Canucks LB]

He traded a prospect who is not even in his top 10 prospects for an elite top 5 goalie with a few injury concerns.
he said so in voice chat the other day he KNEW he badly won the deal

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

Winning a deal isn’t grounds for veto, no matter how badly, if it’s negotiated in good faith.

But I wasn’t aware of the Werenski deal veto.

I wouldn’t have vetoed it personally, but I can see why it would be a point of contention here...

 

[VanillaCoke]

Push through the Werenski deal now, problem solved

 

[Weylspin]

On a lighter note sign A. Burdasov to a 1 year 900K deal

 

[Tryamkin]

Winning a deal isn’t grounds for veto, no matter how badly, if it’s negotiated in good faith.

But I wasn’t aware of the Werenski deal veto.

I wouldn’t have vetoed it personally, but I can see why it would be a point of contention here...

This

I even said myself Werenski deal wasn’t that bad

We can’t veto every bad trade as a league

 

[Tryamkin]

you know you're wrong when your only response is taking what i said to the extreme

and this is like the 3rd time you've said "not going to bother any more"

vEtO aLl TrAdEs

how am I wrong? my trade isn’t vetoable. unlucky that yours did but that’s in the past.

 

[Intoewsables]

Winning a deal isn’t grounds for veto, no matter how badly, if it’s negotiated in good faith.

But I wasn’t aware of the Werenski deal veto.

I wouldn’t have vetoed it personally, but I can see why it would be a point of contention here...

Werenski deal was vetoed because EDM was new and didn't quite understand the scoring structure, not because I thought it was bad value. Barring something totally batshit crazy, this and collusion are the only reasons I'd want to veto a trade.

 

[Intoewsables]

And on that note, I've come to the conclusion that the Murray deal is going to be vetoed. Like with the Werenski trade, this was a situation where a new GM was thinking more in terms of NHL value than HFVHL value. Both teams are welcome to renegotiate a new deal if there's interest in doing so, but it wouldn't be fair to allow this deal to go through given the context. Again, this isn't so much about the value of the trade as it is ensuring that both teams fully understand the consequences of their moves.

A few of you have suggested that the first few moves for any new GM require approval from me first. IMO this is an interesting idea, but I'm really trying to be as hands off as possible here (maybe a weird thing to post after vetoing a trade, but it's true). Figured I'd throw it out there to see what other people think of the idea.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

Werenski deal was vetoed because EDM was new and didn't quite understand the scoring structure, not because I thought it was bad value. Barring something totally bat**** crazy, this and collusion are the only reasons I'd want to veto a trade.

My post about value wasn’t in regards to why the Werenski deal was vetoed. It was directed at another comment.

You’ve been a just and honest overlord during your reign as HFVL commissioner.

 

[Canucks LB]

And on that note, I've come to the conclusion that the Murray deal is going to be vetoed. Like with the Werenski trade, this was a situation where a new GM was thinking more in terms of NHL value than HFVHL value. Both teams are welcome to renegotiate a new deal if there's interest in doing so, but it wouldn't be fair to allow this deal to go through given the context. Again, this isn't so much about the value of the trade as it is ensuring that both teams fully understand the consequences of their moves.

A few of you have suggested that the first few moves for any new GM require approval from me first. IMO this is an interesting idea, but I'm really trying to be as hands off as possible here (maybe a weird thing to post after vetoing a trade, but it's true). Figured I'd throw it out there to see what other people think of the idea.

Good call

 

[Intoewsables]

My post about value wasn’t in regards to why the Werenski deal was vetoed. It was directed at another comment.

You’ve been a just and honest overlord during your reign as HFVL commissioner.

My bad, I think I misread your post.

 

[Tryamkin]

Honestly, it’s kinda a joke, what’s the point of trading if you can’t get big wins.

Whatever though, I won’t be sore about this, just wanted to fight for my right

 

[Havre]

Honestly, it’s kinda a joke, what’s the point of trading if you can’t get big wins.

Whatever though, I won’t be sore about this, just wanted to fight for my right

In general I agree (and I think we all do), but you do see the point with new GMs doing things not fully understanding the consequences?

If this trade was between you and an experienced GM I would have supported your case 100%.

 

[E D]

Call up Jakub Jerabek
Waive Tanner Fritz

Sorry for lots of moves for my team to start the season, just lots of guys being injured and my depth guys being waived a handful of games into the season so I'm trying to set my roster up to deal with my guys returning from injuries .

 

[Weylspin]

actually sign L. Sulak to a 1 year .925K ELC

 

[Black Noise]

place Nick Shore on waivers

 

[donut]

place Nick Shore on waivers

Are you shore about this?

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

place Nick Shore on waivers

So much for shoring up your forward depth with that signing...

 

[Paneerboy]

She sells seashells by the seashore