|
|
Post by Preds on Oct 28, 2004 17:18:27 GMT -5
lol st.louis traded for eriksson, he musta put in a claim for him too when he was dropped to waivers... too bad NYR got him cause I put in a claim too and woulda beat you too it... DUnno why the GM who dropped him did... hes good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jackets Oilers on Oct 29, 2004 12:23:02 GMT -5
To St Louis - Loui Eriksson To NYR - Byron Bitz *pending approvel* This deal is an interesting one for the trade approver here Bitz sucks. and I bet half the league tried to get Eriksson.. lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2004 12:50:47 GMT -5
This deal is an interesting one for the trade approver here Bitz sucks. and I bet half the league tried to get Eriksson.. lol BITZ DOES NOT SUCK!!! You'll see!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Oct 31, 2004 12:36:48 GMT -5
This deal is an interesting one for the trade approver here It's interesting cause Rangers picked up Eriksson to deal to blues. Pretty much goin behind 28 other gms back and cheating on waivers. |
|
|
|
Post by buffalogm on Oct 31, 2004 14:30:55 GMT -5
It's interesting cause Rangers picked up Eriksson to deal to blues. Pretty much goin behind 28 other gms back and cheating on waivers. I don't really see a problem with that. If someone wants to pick up a waiver claim and deal it to make their team better, I have no qualms with that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Jackets Oilers on Oct 31, 2004 14:53:16 GMT -5
I agree with Wally. and if you are going to use conspiracies to get your waiver claims in, dont go tellin everybody ...duh  |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Oct 31, 2004 15:29:35 GMT -5
I think it's bad.
Loui should be on the preds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2004 15:48:28 GMT -5
It's interesting cause Rangers picked up Eriksson to deal to blues. Pretty much goin behind 28 other gms back and cheating on waivers. I like to use waivers but because of my record last season I have the 29th selection. It's alright cause im glad I did good last year but it's a drag when I miss out on a lot of players. I was complaining to Rags one day and he said if there is anyone I really wanted he'd pick them up for me and i'd have to deal something similar to get that player. I figured it's a fair deal since he had the worst record last year he should be able to profit a bit. I've been searching for some new pickups to solidify my future and Eriksson was definitely one who I didn't think was going to fall to the 29th spot. Anyway there are no rules against what Rangers and I did. Like I explained to Wally earlier today it is a loop hole in our current rules. We are allowed to trade waiver players right after claiming them. There are rules against that in the NHL but there are no rules against that here. Any GM could see someone on waivers who they don't necessarily want but they have value so they claim him with the intent of trading him. I know i've done it and I see Columbus trading waiver players a lot too. Clearly I don't have a problem with it because it uses the system to your advantage. If enough GMs have a problem with using the system we have to our own advantage we should implement new rules preventing incidents like the one that just happened. Rangers didn't know that Eriksson was available so I told him if he claimed him i'd trade him something for him and it ended up being Byron Bitz. Rangers gets Byron Bitz for nothing really. Call it cheating all you want but it's not since there are no actual rules stating it's not allowed. Implement them after the fact to prevent similar incidents but I can't see how you can just make up new rules now. It's not fair to either Rags and me. |
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Oct 31, 2004 16:06:30 GMT -5
I almost did this as well .. I see no problem with it. Maybe the solution is to put a time limit on how long you have to keep a player you pick up before you trade them. Then everyone could make offers, if they want him so bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by buffalogm on Oct 31, 2004 20:05:03 GMT -5
That's why I'm okay with the whole thing. It may not seem fair to everyone else, but IMO once you pick up a player from waivers, he should be yours to do whatever you like. That's why you have that high waiver position. If you want to profit off of the pickup through a trade, then so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Oct 31, 2004 20:46:26 GMT -5
That's why I'm okay with the whole thing. It may not seem fair to everyone else, but IMO once you pick up a player from waivers, he should be yours to do whatever you like. That's why you have that high waiver position. If you want to profit off of the pickup through a trade, then so be it. I don't have a problem with that either. But if teams ask Rangers to get players for him why are we even ranked 1-30? |
|
|
|
Post by Jackets Oilers on Oct 31, 2004 21:34:30 GMT -5
If you gotta go around saying "pretty please" to the lower GM's to get your waiver pickups, you are spending way to much of your energy on this.
If this is the new way, I dont see the point of even having a "claiming order"...we might as well have 1st come 1st serve and have waivers open all the time.
If we keep this system, I guess there are "social" implications lol..Rangers, if you keep doin this by helping the "big teams", you will be pissin off a lot of other GM's and im not sure if thats what you want to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Oct 31, 2004 22:01:00 GMT -5
If this is the new way, I dont see the point of even having a "claiming order"...we might as well have 1st come 1st serve and have waivers open all the time. Exactly. If you finished 2nd best last year you get stuck with 29th in the waivers. You can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Preds on Oct 31, 2004 22:18:46 GMT -5
Well, I havent read this thread until now, but I agree with Wally that Eriksson should be a Predator... ;D Im sorta pissed off but it was fair game, I think we need the rule in place though. Its been brought up countless times, I mentioned it last year when columbus was doing practically the same thing... picking up 3-4 waivers guys and packaging them for a Chris Drury or something. I dont know why the rule didnt come in place... Is it fair that I have to be the last to pay the price of that loophole? Its just as unfair for me to be the last to pay the price if the rule comes into place as it is for Eriksson to be passed by the Rangers Bitz to go to St.Louis and the next highest waiver claim on Eriksson gets Eriksson. So IMO its 50/50 what should happen here, and to be honest it should be more in my favour since you twos action here could be called cheating when mine was being an active GM.... Smooth you two, good way to keep yourselves in the good books of GMs. This rule needs to be in placed and this situation could possibly need a voting on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2004 0:50:37 GMT -5
Its just as unfair for me to be the last to pay the price if the rule comes into place as it is for Eriksson to be passed by the Rangers Bitz to go to St.Louis and the next highest waiver claim on Eriksson gets Eriksson. So IMO its 50/50 what should happen here, and to be honest it should be more in my favour since you twos action here could be called cheating when mine was being an active GM.... I used the system to my advantage. I still had to pay to get something though im not getting Eriksson for free here  It could be argued Rangers gets Bitz for free though. Anyway since there are no rules against it I don't consider it cheating. It might be frowned upon by a lot of GMs but that doesn't bother me especially with the current state of certain teams in this league. We have allowed too many lopsided trades if you look at Edmonton or Rangers and then look at Chicago. This isn't a perfect place and it never will be. I just can't see how we would reject a deal for "cheating" when no one ever said "don't do this." |
|
It could be argued Rangers gets Bitz for free though. Anyway since there are no rules against it I don't consider it cheating. It might be frowned upon by a lot of GMs but that doesn't bother me especially with the current state of certain teams in this league. We have allowed too many lopsided trades if you look at Edmonton or Rangers and then look at Chicago. This isn't a perfect place and it never will be. I just can't see how we would reject a deal for "cheating" when no one ever said "don't do this."