wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I noticed right away, but waited until there was less then 5 minutes to apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 And I would also say that prior to the Chicago incident, editing posts was clearly defined as not being allowed on transactions yet the rule was changed temporarily to give Chicago a chance. I can accept giving a GM who made a dumb mistake a chance for sure, so that same principle should apply to da.moose here. The rule is there, but if you look at the examples of CHI and LA (signing a draft eligible player) the rules were also there previously and clearly not adhered to yet both of those teams received a HUGE mulligan. One got to claim his own player back off waivers and the other got a top 5 prospect in return for cancelling the signing. Come on guys. Much bigger chances have been given to others very recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da.moose Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 And I would also say that prior to the Chicago incident, editing posts was clearly defined as not being allowed on transactions yet the rule was changed temporarily to give Chicago a chance. I can accept giving a GM who made a dumb mistake a chance for sure, so that same principle should apply to da.moose here. The rule is there, but if you look at the examples of CHI and LA (signing a draft eligible player) the rules were also there previously and clearly not adhered to yet both of those teams received a HUGE mulligan. One got to claim his own player back off waivers and the other got a top 5 prospect in return for cancelling the signing. Come on guys. Much bigger chances have been given to others very recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 My question would be why didn't you check his games played considering this has happened to you already once? Having said that, I would definitely vote for mercy here as Chicago was allowed to keep a young player due to a mistake and I was not given the opportunity to wait until the last minute to claim him as I planned to do (like Squeak just did). For a guy to lose a top prospect player over 1 game played when you let Chicago claim his own player back off of waivers would be against the spirit of this game, imo. Give him a chance. Like my complaint about how the Ennis situation was handled (which was not even addressed by the league) I don't expect anyone will even respond to my comments here either. But do we really want to pounce like Squeak just did when you did not allow me to do the same to Chicago? Slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal and Gary's Phlegms Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I will not be able to comment on this due to biased reasons. But I will say - there was no vulture mentality about it. I SOLELY waited until the last minute, because I am not last in the league, so if I had applied earlier, the teams below me (such as yourself) would be able to place a claim and acquire him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I will not be able to comment on this due to biased reasons. But I will say - there was no vulture mentality about it. I SOLELY waited until the last minute, because I am not last in the league, so if I had applied earlier, the teams below me (such as yourself) would be able to place a claim and acquire him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 And it is not a question of Squeak doing anything wrong at all in my opinion. It is a question of why it is right in one situation to wait to make a claim but wrong in another. My comments have nothing to do with Squeak or what he did or didn't do. Just so people are clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Ok, guys... This is where we take it off the thread and send it to the exec for discussion, which will not include Squeak to protect from any bias. If you have any serious concerns or thoughts on the issue, please forward them to me directly via PM. I will present them to the exec for input during the aforementioned Thank you for your understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Ok, guys... This is where we take it off the thread and send it to the exec for discussion, which will not include Squeak to protect from any bias. If you have any serious concerns or thoughts on the issue, please forward them to me directly via PM. I will present them to the exec for input during the aforementioned Thank you for your understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Judging by the Ennis situation, I already know how this is going to end up anyway. It is the principle that irritates me though. You should not give out ANY chances, imo. But now that you have with CHI and LA, it is only fair that you apply that consistently. In my humble opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Curt should consider completely getting rid of the column on the team sheets that lists eligibility if it is not going to be updated. In a way, the league is sort of responsible for providing misleading info there. Just scrap the entire column and force GM's to have to manually check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 As I said, this is not an issue for the thread. It involves two GM`s, neither you or I. If you would like to discuss it with me, I am on MSN and have offered to take your (or anyone`s) case to the executive, on any issue for that matter. I will post nothing more on this as a courtesy to other GM`s who wish to enjoy the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Why is there even a discussion or argument for Washington to keep Tedenby? The rule was made that there would be a 5 minute grace period after sending guys down... do we need an asterisk beside every rule now saying which GM's apply to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Why is there even a discussion or argument for Washington to keep Tedenby? The rule was made that there would be a 5 minute grace period after sending guys down... do we need an asterisk beside every rule now saying which GM's apply to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The real question is why is a 5 minute grace period necessary anyway.....I mean if you are going to find some new info in 5 minutes you probably should have found it before posting...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby18_ Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I will refrain from making comment here in the thread, but I have joined the Executive Committee in talks regarding this issue. Discussions are currently ongoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venom52 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 PLLEEEASE actually what can I do??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y0shi Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This is not completely accurate, though it seemed to be what was landed on while I was away. I forgot about addressing this one so thanks for the reminder. Onus must remain on the GM making roster moves to do their due diligence and ensure the status of their players. The chart indication is a guideline but I simply cannot keep every single one 100% up to date. Taking 30 seconds to check the players status saves you a world of trouble. With that said, everybody is human. This is why we are instituting a 5 minute grace period. We'll call it that window that a GM has when he makes a move, but quickly corrects a potential mistake before his lame assistant actually gets down to the fax machine to send it off to the league. If you make a mistake on a roster move and can correct it within this window, then we'll let it slide. However, if the player is claimed before you make the correction, even inside the 5 minute window, then the player is considered claimed. As for the Ennis situation itself, it occurred before this rule was handed down so the Executive Committee's decision on that one will stand, with the site note that I must say the other execs were much nicer to Chicago than I likely would have been. I'm sure I'm not explaining this clearly, so if anyone has any questions, feel free. And yes, Dana Tyrell is on waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Contract Extension: The Boston Bruins have signed Drew Stafford to a 4 year deal. Drew Stafford: 4 years, $ 18 million dollar contract ( $ 4,500,000.00 per season ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Drew Stafford remains a Bruin... no surprises there. Drew has been off the market for years, and will continue to be. Boston has long been dedicated to Drew`s development, and continues to be. We, and our fans, look forward to a bright future with this rising star. Consistency and commitment is what we`re all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.