According to the Archived Vegas Expansion Draft, it does not indicate that Antonie Vermette waived his NMC. In fact, it doesn't indicate that he had a NMC to waive. While Anaheim protected him from expansion, they were not forced to protect him. https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft

yeah idk how their expansion thing works im just telling you what was publicly released from the team out here. That's all. If we want a real answer then find the officially released rules somewhere. i don't think we can just make a determination based off whether cap friendly said he did or did not waive a NMC?

I am almost certain he was a forced protection.

He wasn't. He didn't have to be protected, but ANA chose to. Similarly, Thornton and Marleau, who possessed NMCs, did not require protection either.

Does it matter though? His NMC was up before the expansion draft.

I regret to inform the BOG and Commissioner that I am stepping down as GM of the New Jersey Devils. It was a tough decision as I love to do this. I feel that some people deserve it more than me and I don’t have the time to be a full blown GM at the moment with school and hockey about to start and other things going on in my life taking most of my time. I would like to handle a position of less responsibility as an AGM if anyone would take me as I love this game and the people in it and don’t fully want to walk away.

What's up with 3-way trades? Do they still just count as one trade for everyone involved?

Yes, that is how it works as the trade in it's entirty is considered to be one transaction.

I don't know what's going on lately. Now we have trades being approved by the BOE after a GM resigns?
Parting trades are bad enough, this is a step beyond.

That isn’t the case. The facts of the matter have been made clear to the BOEG. I didn’t think it wasn’t relevant to other GMs as it does not concern them

This was a deal officially agreed upon a month ago. However, it was only a 3rd of a 3 way deal between @HallforHart, @DontToewsMe19, and I. The only part left in the 3 way deal was between the other two parties.

Negotiations took much longer than expected. I checked in with NJD yesterday, and he said they were almost officially done. 8 hours later he resigns out of nowhere.

I contacted him today, and he said he felt really bad and confirmed we had officially agreed to the deal and I shouldn’t have it not go through due to his unexpected departure (screenshot proof was sent to the BOEG).

As a result, there’s no reason for there to be an issue. It wasn’t like he said screw it, I’m going to make this deal and leave. It was officially agreed to around a month ago.

Thanks for clarifying, there shouldn't be a problem here. Move on boys and girls

The biggest concern I have with this taking place is that the entire BOG were not consulted and allowed to give their thoughts on how to handle this particular situation.
My concern is, what exactly will these so called "future considerations" be and what happens if the new GM of NJD doesn't agree to give back the same pieces you may have had in mind.
We've already set the precedent in game that FC could very well be nothing, zero, nada, so DET may not have to take anything at all back.
Plus, this now totals nearly $17M in contracts that have been moved from DET to NJD with only $4M going back the other way (Palmieri)

Zetterberg 37yrs old $6.083M x 3yrs
Kronwall 37yrs old $4.75M x 1yr
Frk $1.05M x 1yr
Neilsen 34yrs old $5.25M x 4yrs
Ouellet 700K x 1yr

VS

Palmieri 27yrs old 4M (after retention) x 3yrs

However, it has been approved by someone on the BOG and has been posted so it will be allowed to stand.
I am just sharing my personal thoughts on the matter.

If I really have to re-word future Considerations to be “nothing”, then sure. I thought it was pretty clear to everyone what that term means...

I’m also not sure what other deals have to do with this one, especially considering the BOG voted against reversal on the Palmieri trade.

I appreciate your thoughts nonetheless.

A trade concerns every GM when there are questionable circumstances. It sounds like we are just doing away with process. What you had, was an ongoing negotiation.
It's easy for a GM that is no longer participating to agree to something. It doesn't impact him. If he was okay with it while he was still in position, it should have been finalized while he was GM.
I'm resigning, but I'll help you out by agreeing to this deal before I go? That's a big red flag. The BOE going along with it? That's a big flashing neon red flag.
Once a GM resigns, that's it. They don't get to agree to anything. It's no longer their team. The BOE should be protecting and preserving the integrity of the now vacant team for the next GM.

This trade is just wrong in a number of ways, and I don't feel the commissioner should permit it.

If 1/3 of this deal hinged on the other 2 parties reaching an agreement, then I fail to see how it can be allowed to stand, since the other 2/3 have yet to reach an agreement.
Further to that, there is no guarantee that the other 2 teams will wish to continue negotiations once a new GM is in place and if that doesn't happen, then this part of the deal would also not happen.

With that in mind, I would vote to cancelling this 1/3 of the deal and once a new NJD GM is in place, the negotiations between the 3 teams can continue.
BUT, I am only 1 of 5 voices who all need to agree for any of that to happen.

@TheCommissioner @Icegirl @krakowitz @BoltsPoint21

To sort of add onto Rico's post, allowing this trade would set up some precedents that we as a game have not recognized since inception back in March 2017. It's one thing to agree to a deal offline and post it; it's another to have the final framework laid out and then affirm the deal after the consenting GM relives himself of his duties. This practice has not been accepted, nor tolerated throughout the duration of the GM Game - allowing this trade would reverse that ideology and set up a new precedent. Whether GMs agree with this precedent is up to them: I am simply stating what has been practiced, and what this ruling would allow under similar circumstances.

It is also concerning that two BOEG members liked a post that implies that the BOEG should not have accepted this trade. As a result, it gives the indication that not all BOEG members were informed or given the opportunity to speak their mind on how they should handle a case like this. To clarify, the principle of how this was handled is to what I am referring. What was made up within the trade is not of major concern to me.

Wrong again. 2/3rds of the deal was complete, and the final part of it was extremely close to being done, per both Tyler and DontToewsMe. Once again, this was made clear to the Commissioner; he didn’t accept and approve this for no reason


He agreed to the deal a month ago so not sure what your point is


Not sure how many times I need to repeat it was officially agreed to.

I see the thought process behind your comment, but "liking" a post is sometimes simply to give notification to the poster that it's been read. Nothing more.

Did all 5 BOEG Members say yes?

Not yet. All members weren’t aware, and that’s only because I was given an early go ahead by The Commissioner and Icegirl.

All details were made aware to them, and they’ll inform the other members of the BOG who aren’t aware of everything yet. I’m sure once everything is made aware of, they’ll have the same opinion as the members who allowed this to be approved.

Until then, further discussion is useless without full details not being known.

I'm not debating with you. I'm letting the commissioner know that I feel this is a bad practice.
Posting a trade is the point where it is a done deal and made official. Either party is free to back out any time before that.
I believe resigning from your position qualifies as backing out of all pending or potential deals.
I also believe it is not the place of the BOE to complete or negotiate a deal on behalf of a vacant team.

Alright BOEG or whatever I say the deal should stand I know I’m defunct atm but it’s not fair to Booth to void the deal because I’m gone now. I agreed to the deal and think it should stand as it just wasn’t posted. The deal was about to go up but I resigned and it’s 100% feasible to let it stand. The BOG is a mess and there might not be a replacement for a little bit so Booth should not have to wait for a new GM the deal should stand

That's a tad mean.

It's not our fault you agreed to a poor deal for your club, then chose to quit in the middle of negotiations with other teams as part of that deal.
Pretty sure that's how we ended up at this point.

how can a deal be reconstructed by 1 GM, if that GM thinks the deal is fair? Will a BOE member talk with this member to fix the trade or what happens?

I don’t think it’s mean at all. You currently have one member resigning as a result of being fed up with the rest of you. There’s internal conflict within the BOG group. The Commissioner is nowhere to be seen. Many of the decisions and actions throughout the last little while have resulted in displeasure by GMs and some quality league members considering retirement. I think HallforHart has every reason to stand by his comment - shouldn’t you know best that just because an opinion is unpopular, it doesn’t make it mean?