|
|
Post by fisk33n on Dec 4, 2020 22:42:39 GMT -8
 C Ryan Johansen PLY 87 (28) 8M UFA 2025 LW Brandon Saad TWF 84 (27) 5M UFA 2021 LW/RW Dominik Kubalik SNP 85 (25) 3.7M UFA 2022 LD Vince Dunn TWD 82 (23) 2.7M RFA 2022  RD Sean Walker TWD 81 (25) 2,65 UFA 2024 LD Calvin de Haan OFD 82 (29) 4,55 UFA 2022 LW/RW Josh Bailey PLY 86 (30) 5 UFA 2024 - Ret ANA 1,5M 2023&2024 (If that is okay by admins)C Vincent Trochek TWF 86 (27) 4,75 UFA 2023 RW/LW Emil Bemström SNP 80 (21) 0,925 RFA 2022 C Artyom Galimov PLY 72 (21) 0,875 RFA 2023 thehockeyist |
|
|
|
Post by thehockeyist on Dec 4, 2020 22:43:17 GMT -8
Accept.
|
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Dec 4, 2020 23:15:36 GMT -8
Johansen = Trocheck
Bailey, Walker = Saad, Dunn
Kubalik is worth more than De Haan and Bemstrom
That’s a no from me
|
|
|
|
Post by fisk33n on Dec 4, 2020 23:23:04 GMT -8
Johansen = Trocheck Bailey, Walker = Saad, Dunn Kubalik is worth more than De Haan and Bemstrom That’s a no from me Well that is how you calculate that one. Our calculations for this was: Johanssen = Trocheck Kubalik = Bailey+ Dunn = De Haan+ Saad = Bemström+ +=Walker and Galimov He get's rid of his highest contract at without downgrading that much at all. Since cap seems to be a problem that comes back for EDM every now and then I thougt that getting rid of that contract would help him in the long run |
|
|
|
Post by Montreal Canadiens GM on Dec 4, 2020 23:43:21 GMT -8
Johansen = Trocheck Bailey, Walker = Saad, Dunn Kubalik is worth more than De Haan and Bemstrom That’s a no from me Well that is how you calculate that one. Our calculations for this was: Johanssen = Trocheck Kubalik = Bailey+ Dunn = De Haan+ Saad = Bemström+ +=Walker and Galimov He get's rid of his highest contract at without downgrading that much at all. Since cap seems to be a problem that comes back for EDM every now and then I thougt that getting rid of that contract would help him in the long run If cap is a problem for him why would he trade Kubalik for Bailey? |
|
|
|
Post by fisk33n on Dec 4, 2020 23:49:40 GMT -8
Well that is how you calculate that one. Our calculations for this was: Johanssen = Trocheck Kubalik = Bailey+ Dunn = De Haan+ Saad = Bemström+ +=Walker and Galimov He get's rid of his highest contract at without downgrading that much at all. Since cap seems to be a problem that comes back for EDM every now and then I thougt that getting rid of that contract would help him in the long run If cap is a problem for him why would he trade Kubalik for Bailey? It is not a problem for now, but when he is making trades there has become a problem before, and since he has a small cap space left, with this trade he gets double his capspace. |
|
|
|
Post by Montreal Canadiens GM on Dec 5, 2020 0:14:21 GMT -8
If cap is a problem for him why would he trade Kubalik for Bailey? It is not a problem for now, but when he is making trades there has become a problem before, and since he has a small cap space left, with this trade he gets double his capspace. It just makes no sense to me why a cap strapped team would trade one of their best value contracts |
|
|
|
Post by fisk33n on Dec 5, 2020 0:19:43 GMT -8
It is not a problem for now, but when he is making trades there has become a problem before, and since he has a small cap space left, with this trade he gets double his capspace. It just makes no sense to me why a cap strapped team would trade one of their best value contracts Kubalik is One of the players i wanted to make this trade happen. Not due to His contract,but due to him Beeing a 85 SNP and i only have low rated SNP right now |
|
|
|
Post by Montreal Canadiens GM on Dec 5, 2020 0:23:13 GMT -8
It just makes no sense to me why a cap strapped team would trade one of their best value contracts Kubalik is One of the players i wanted to make this trade happen. Not due to His contract,but due to him Beeing a 85 SNP and i only have low rated SNP right now Then retain money on Bailey or something, I don’t know. If Edmonton’s concern is cap Kubalik should be one of the players he trades last. |
|
|
|
Post by fisk33n on Dec 5, 2020 0:47:20 GMT -8
Kubalik is One of the players i wanted to make this trade happen. Not due to His contract,but due to him Beeing a 85 SNP and i only have low rated SNP right now Then retain money on Bailey or something, I don’t know. If Edmonton’s concern is cap Kubalik should be one of the players he trades last. I have maximum retentions. (Or have i Read wrong about max 3 retentions?) |
|
|
|
Post by fisk33n on Dec 5, 2020 1:41:44 GMT -8
So I added a future retention, this way I will only have 3 active retentions at a time. And when Bailey's last two years on contract wont be as big for the owner of that contract.
As I said I would retention it from now if I where allowed to. (Don't even know if that is allowed, if not then I will take away that future retention aswell and we are back to the original deal where it looks the same just without the retention part)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Dec 5, 2020 5:43:09 GMT -8
Another one where like if you squint and suspend your disbelief you could see that its at least close on paper to being fair, but at the same time, why the fuck would thehockeyist want to do this deal? |
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Dec 5, 2020 5:53:39 GMT -8
Johansen = Trocheck Bailey, Walker = Saad, Dunn Kubalik is worth more than De Haan and Bemstrom That’s a no from me Well that is how you calculate that one. Our calculations for this was: Johanssen = Trocheck Kubalik = Bailey+ Dunn = De Haan+ Saad = Bemström+ +=Walker and Galimov He get's rid of his highest contract at without downgrading that much at all. Since cap seems to be a problem that comes back for EDM every now and then I thougt that getting rid of that contract would help him in the long run Kubalik has much more value than Bailey, De Haan has complete negative value, his stats are horrendous for an OFD, and his contract is probably one of the worst in the league, Walker, who would be a 6th or 7th D for him, which doesn’t help him, and a low grade prospect doesn’t make it any better or equal what he’s losing. Quit taking advantage of him. Not one deal you’ve made with him has benefited his team in anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Flyers GM on Dec 5, 2020 6:27:53 GMT -8
Reject
|
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 7:06:24 GMT -8
Other than the Joubie jargon of "negative value", I've got to agree with Blues here. Every single deal posted by these 2 has been Ducks taking advantage of of the Oilers... I also don't understand the retainment here at all, other than to make it seem like he's giving Oilers a bit of a break by taking on the extra cap when he's already taking on the bulk of it already, and there's less than $1M difference without it.
Rejected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 7:09:42 GMT -8
So I added a future retention, this way I will only have 3 active retentions at a time. And when Bailey's last two years on contract wont be as big for the owner of that contract. As I said I would retention it from now if I where allowed to. (Don't even know if that is allowed, if not then I will take away that future retention aswell and we are back to the original deal where it looks the same just without the retention part) Yeah, you definitely have that wrong... You can only have 3 at a time, period, not have an additional 1 or 2 after current ones have lapsed. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Golden Knights GM on Dec 5, 2020 7:17:51 GMT -8
Other than the Joubie jargon of "negative value", I've got to agree with Blues here. Every single deal posted by these 2 has been Ducks taking advantage of of the Oilers... I also don't understand the retainment here at all, other than to make it seem like he's giving Oilers a bit of a break by taking on the extra cap when he's already taking on the bulk of it already, and there's less than $1M difference without it. Rejected. If you don’t believe that some players have negative value you’re crazy |
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Dec 5, 2020 7:25:51 GMT -8
So I added a future retention, this way I will only have 3 active retentions at a time. And when Bailey's last two years on contract wont be as big for the owner of that contract. As I said I would retention it from now if I where allowed to. (Don't even know if that is allowed, if not then I will take away that future retention aswell and we are back to the original deal where it looks the same just without the retention part) Yeah, you definitely have that wrong... You can only have 3 at a time, period, not have an additional 1 or 2 after current ones have lapsed. No he's right, its 3 active retentions. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 7:55:04 GMT -8
Yeah, you definitely have that wrong... You can only have 3 at a time, period, not have an additional 1 or 2 after current ones have lapsed. No he's right, its 3 active retentions. Since when? It's always been 3 total at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:02:09 GMT -8
No he's right, its 3 active retentions. Since when? It's always been 3 total at a time. "at a time" as in each season. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:03:25 GMT -8
Other than the Joubie jargon of "negative value", I've got to agree with Blues here. Every single deal posted by these 2 has been Ducks taking advantage of of the Oilers... I also don't understand the retainment here at all, other than to make it seem like he's giving Oilers a bit of a break by taking on the extra cap when he's already taking on the bulk of it already, and there's less than $1M difference without it. Rejected. If you don’t believe that some players have negative value you’re crazy I am crazy, but you're even crazier with your goofy little buzzwords just so you can get a trades through. Their value is their value... there is no positive or negative when your only assessment really is the fact that a player like DeHaan is 29 & not 23. He could be a buyout candidate, yes... unless you're actually going to play him to his pay grade in the top 4 + PP, and not his overall, which is perfectly fine to play an 82 in that position, and sets them up to be upgraded still because he's under 35. |
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Dec 5, 2020 8:04:07 GMT -8
No he's right, its 3 active retentions. Since when? It's always been 3 total at a time. Grey area, technically. Theoretically, he is only retaining 3 at a time, this doesn’t kick in until he’s able to retain another. You really just haven’t ever seen a retention that doesn’t start right away |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:08:01 GMT -8
Since when? It's always been 3 total at a time. Grey area, technically. Theoretically, he is only retaining 3 at a time, this doesn’t kick in until he’s able to retain another. You really just haven’t ever seen a retention that doesn’t start right away It's no grey area. You can only have 3 listed on your roster at a time. It doesn't matter when they kick in. |
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:13:22 GMT -8
Grey area, technically. Theoretically, he is only retaining 3 at a time, this doesn’t kick in until he’s able to retain another. You really just haven’t ever seen a retention that doesn’t start right away It's no grey area. You can only have 3 listed on your roster at a time. It doesn't matter when they kick in. No, it is three active per season. It does matter when they kick in. That has always been the case. You're just incorrect here. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:20:58 GMT -8
It's no grey area. You can only have 3 listed on your roster at a time. It doesn't matter when they kick in. No, it is three active per season. It does matter when they kick in. That has always been the case. You're just incorrect here. Dude, you wouldn't call it a "grey area" if I was actually incorrect. I'm sick and tired of jokers trying to circumvent the rules like that, not to mention also taking advantage of newer GMs like this in the process. You should be too as an admin, yet here you are defending this shit. 🤨🤷 |
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:30:30 GMT -8
No, it is three active per season. It does matter when they kick in. That has always been the case. You're just incorrect here. Dude, you wouldn't call it a "grey area" if I was actually incorrect. I'm sick and tired of jokers trying to circumvent the rules like that, not to mention also taking advantage of newer GMs like this in the process. You should be too as an admin, yet here you are defending this shit. 🤨🤷 I didn't call it a grey area, wynne did. I was very clear that fisk33n was correct about the retention rule. Him correctly using the rule for retentions is not taking advantage of new GMs. Also, I didn't accept this trade and I've rejected most of the deals Oilers has been making. I'm not defending anything, I'm just clarifying what the rule is, since you clearly don't understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:33:16 GMT -8
Dude, you wouldn't call it a "grey area" if I was actually incorrect. I'm sick and tired of jokers trying to circumvent the rules like that, not to mention also taking advantage of newer GMs like this in the process. You should be too as an admin, yet here you are defending this shit. 🤨🤷 I didn't call it a grey area, wynne did. I was very clear that fisk33n was correct about the retention rule. Him correctly using the rule for retentions is not taking advantage of new GMs. Also, I didn't accept this trade and I've rejected most of the deals Oilers has been making. I'm not defending anything, I'm just clarifying what the rule is, since you clearly don't understand it. It's never been like that, ever... I don't know where you figure it has. Ever since the retention limit was instituted, it's been 3, and only 3... Period. We've never had anyone have more than 3 total at a time. It's the reason the limit was put in place, cuz it was being abused. |
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Dec 5, 2020 8:53:46 GMT -8
I didn't call it a grey area, wynne did. I was very clear that fisk33n was correct about the retention rule. Him correctly using the rule for retentions is not taking advantage of new GMs. Also, I didn't accept this trade and I've rejected most of the deals Oilers has been making. I'm not defending anything, I'm just clarifying what the rule is, since you clearly don't understand it. It's never been like that, ever... I don't know where you figure it has. Ever since the retention limit was instituted, it's been 3, and only 3... Period. We've never had anyone have more than 3 total at a time. It's the reason the limit was put in place, cuz it was being abused. At a time means in one season. I don't know how else to tell you that. A retention for the 20-21 season is not at the same time as a retention for a 21-22 season. If you want to keep being wrong go ahead, but its not all that complicated, and I'm not going to argue it anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets GM on Dec 5, 2020 9:02:46 GMT -8
It's never been like that, ever... I don't know where you figure it has. Ever since the retention limit was instituted, it's been 3, and only 3... Period. We've never had anyone have more than 3 total at a time. It's the reason the limit was put in place, cuz it was being abused. At a time means in one season. I don't know how else to tell you that. A retention for the 20-21 season is not at the same time as a retention for a 21-22 season. If you want to keep being wrong go ahead, but its not all that complicated, and I'm not going to argue it anymore. No... It doesn't. You only have 3 slots for retention at a time. Period. It's never been per season or anything else. It's never been like that, ever. I dunno where you ever picked up that it was. Once you use up all 3 slots of retention, you have to wait for 1 to expire before you can add another one. It's always been that way. Now, if you'd said that it's something new that was put in for this league, then fine... 🤷 But you didn't do that because you didn't understand the original rule yourself. "At a time" means total, not per season... It always has. Ottawa Senators GM, you seem to forget I was part of the crew that helped implemented this particular rule cuz retentions were getting out of hand. So, I know exactly how it was designed & intended to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks GM on Dec 5, 2020 10:08:19 GMT -8
Imagine having Mcjesus and Draisaitl to start your team off and then clicking on the coilers roster page now lol like wtf
|
|
vs 
Live , Detroit looks to end things and take their 2nd Cup in 3 seasons 
Live now 
vs 
Live now 
vs