Sam Reinhart

[Nos - Sharks]

If you're unaware of what's going on take a look over the Toronto Maple Leafs Farm Transactions thread and offer your honest assessment and vote. Thanks.

Link to the thread:

nafhl2.proboards.com/thread/319/toronto-maple-leafs-farm-transactions?page=9

[Daniel - Canucks]

Pretty straightforward, Reinhart was subject to Waivers therefore was eligible to be claimed by San Jose.  Fair game, I don't buy the "ignorance plea", we are all General Managers that should be upheld to the highest standard of governing your franchise.  The only thing that holds back a team is when GM's make costly errors, any time you make a transaction you should be triple checking all the details.  Reinhart is San Jose property.

[Tyler - Jets]

This is a tricky situation in my opinion. I would like to know if Nos made the waiver claim on March 6 or 7??
In the transaction thread Reinhart is sent down on the 5th of March and if I am not mistaken the waiver window is 48hrs. So if a claim was not made during that time frame and Reinhart did not play any big league games on the Toronto roster my feeling is yes Scott made an error but gets to keep Reinhart who subsequently would have cleared waivers and been eligible for the Marlies.
Yahoo has Reinhart as SJ property as of the 12th.
Please clarify some of the above before I cast my official vote.

[Robyn - Flames]

Leafs sent Reinhart down on March 5. As it was an illegal transaction (involving Horvat), Derrick reversed the transaction on Yahoo as per standard.

Leafs sent Reinhart down again on March 7th and Nos claimed him on yahoo waivers (which is 2 days, but not necessarily 48 hours exactly). If Nos had missed the deadline, he would have been a free agent pickup.

Reinhart is SJ property if everything I said above is accurate.

[Nos - Sharks]

Mar 15, 2017 18:12:59 GMT -5 Robyn - Flames said:

Leafs sent Reinhart down on March 5. As it was an illegal transaction (involving Horvat), Derrick reversed the transaction on Yahoo as per standard.

Leafs sent Reinhart down again on March 7th and Nos claimed him on yahoo waivers (which is 2 days, but not necessarily 48 hours exactly). If Nos had missed the deadline, he would have been a free agent pickup.

Reinhart is SJ property if everything I said above is accurate.

This is mostly correct, he actually sent Reinhart down again on March 9th rather than the 7th. Waiver period is 2 days not including the day he was dropped and the transaction was reflected in my lineup for March 13th. My #1 Waiver priority was used and the claim was done correctly. Scott did try to send him down earlier for Horvat, like stated, although he was still a Minor Leaguer during this time but it was reversed immediately by the Commish because Horvat was an illegal signing due to him being lost to Suspended Waivers.

[Nos - Sharks]

Bumping. Thanks for getting your votes in, in a timely manner too, I greatly appreciate it. I'm floored by the integrity displayed here.

[Derrick - Senators]

Thanks to all of those who have voted in a timely fashion. Still waiting on a couple more people but it doesn't really matter at this point because 8 votes have been reached. However, just because the 8 vote threshold was reached does not automatically mean Reinhart will be awarded to San Jose. So while we are waiting I wanted to take time to address the 'gray areas' of the matter and make sure that everyone who voted understands the implications of his vote, while hopefully promoting healthy conversation on the subject.

The hangup here is the rule book that we operate under currently reads:

11) The “Minor Leagues”
E) Any "minor leaguer" transaction may be nullified and subsequently reversed prior to and after an opposing manager has made a waiver claim if the original owner of the minor leaguer (prior to the waiver claim) unknowingly or accidentally sends the minor leaguer in question to the farm. Each "minor leaguer" will be returned to its owner's main roster and not to its respective farm team.

At which point the argument isn't about intent or which team should own Reinhart anymore it is an issue of policy and how that policy is changed. Retroactively changing rules on a whim renders the rule book virtually useless, with it no longer being the 'supreme law of the land.' For example, Team A has a roster full of prospects who have played 100 NHL games or more but less than 150 NHL games. Somebody in the league puts up a poll (post trade deadline) and the league approves an eligibility change whereas prospects are now defined as 100 NHL games played or less. Suddenly Team A is stuck with a team full of players that can't be sent to the farm or traded. Or additionally, how would you fifth and sixth place teams feel if the rest of the league put up a poll and decided that we were only going to have 4 teams in the playoffs after the playoffs started? To me, a rule is a rule and we should act consistently across the board when discussing and modifying them. I don't think a written rule in the rule book can retroactively be applied. It would be a detriment and the league would become a farce. What I mean by that is, instead of voting on who owns Reinhart, I think we should be voting to remove the above rule from the rule book so that it doesn't happen again in the future not attempt to supercede the rule book and address something in the past. Otherwise, I want to retroactively argue that I am the rightful owner of Steve Mason and he should be placed on my roster. (See: nafhl2.proboards.com/thread/524/steve-mason and nafhl2.proboards.com/thread/525/steve-mason) Of course I am being facetious, but it is an important illustration of just how confusing and muddled things could get.

Given there is a rule in place in the rule book specifically addressing such matters, it is now a matter of hearsay and hearsay only. The rule states "accidental or unknowingly." Scott said he sent Reinhart down unknowingly so we must take him for his word.

My personal (abriged) opinion on the matter is this. I hate the rule, I wasn't for it 7 years ago, I'm not for it now, nor will I ever be. However, I think the rule book must be the 'supreme law of the land' and enforced with the utmost consistency unless changes are made in a fair an just manner that specifically addresses future occurrences whereas not to be applied retroactively.

With that said, these are the only two solutions I see, keeping the interest of the league in mind placing chief importance on consistency and precedence.

1.) Toronto keeps Reinhart (big club) and we vote the rule in question out of the rulebook.
2.) San Jose keeps Reinhart, the rule in question is removed from the rule book, and a subsequent rule is added that says "Any rule in the rule book may be changed and retroactively applied..."

'Precedence' is the reason this mess even exists in the first place. I would heed warning against making the same mistake twice (Option 2).

[Nos - Sharks]

Mar 17, 2017 7:19:36 GMT -5 Derrick - Senators said:

Thanks to all of those who have voted in a timely fashion. Still waiting on a couple more people but it doesn't really matter at this point because 8 votes have been reached. However, just because the 8 vote threshold was reached does not automatically mean Reinhart will be awarded to San Jose. So while we are waiting I wanted to take time to address the 'gray areas' of the matter and make sure that everyone who voted understands the implications of his vote, while hopefully promoting healthy conversation on the subject.

The hangup here is the rule book that we operate under currently reads:

11) The “Minor Leagues”
E) Any "minor leaguer" transaction may be nullified and subsequently reversed prior to and after an opposing manager has made a waiver claim if the original owner of the minor leaguer (prior to the waiver claim) unknowingly or accidentally sends the minor leaguer in question to the farm. Each "minor leaguer" will be returned to its owner's main roster and not to its respective farm team.

At which point the argument isn't about intent or which team should own Reinhart anymore it is an issue of policy and how that policy is changed. Retroactively changing rules on a whim renders the rule book virtually useless, with it no longer being the 'supreme law of the land.' For example, Team A has a roster full of prospects who have played 100 NHL games or more but less than 150 NHL games. Somebody in the league puts up a poll (post trade deadline) and the league approves an eligibility change whereas prospects are now defined as 100 NHL games played or less. Suddenly Team A is stuck with a team full of players that can't be sent to the farm or traded. Or additionally, how would you fifth and sixth place teams feel if the rest of the league put up a poll and decided that we were only going to have 4 teams in the playoffs after the playoffs started? To me, a rule is a rule and we should act consistently across the board when discussing and modifying them. I don't think a written rule in the rule book can retroactively be applied. It would be a detriment and the league would become a farce. What I mean by that is, instead of voting on who owns Reinhart, I think we should be voting to remove the above rule from the rule book so that it doesn't happen again in the future not attempt to supercede the rule book and address something in the past. Otherwise, I want to retroactively argue that I am the rightful owner of Steve Mason and he should be placed on my roster. (See: nafhl2.proboards.com/thread/524/steve-mason and nafhl2.proboards.com/thread/525/steve-mason) Of course I am being facetious, but it is an important illustration of just how confusing and muddled things could get.

Given there is a rule in place in the rule book specifically addressing such matters, it is now a matter of hearsay and hearsay only. The rule states "accidental or unknowingly." Scott said he sent Reinhart down unknowingly so we must take him for his word.

My personal (abriged) opinion on the matter is this. I hate the rule, I wasn't for it 7 years ago, I'm not for it now, nor will I ever be. However, I think the rule book must be the 'supreme law of the land' and enforced with the utmost consistency unless changes are made in a fair an just manner that specifically addresses future occurrences whereas not to be applied retroactively.

With that said, these are the only two solutions I see, keeping the interest of the league in mind placing chief importance on consistency and precedence.

1.) Toronto keeps Reinhart (big club) and we vote the rule in question out of the rulebook.
2.) San Jose keeps Reinhart, the rule in question is removed from the rule book, and a subsequent rule is added that says "Any rule in the rule book may be changed and retroactively applied..."

'Precedence' is the reason this mess even exists in the first place. I would heed warning against making the same mistake twice (Option 2).

This is a whole lot of needlessly wordy nonsense, like I've already stated a thousand times before, I did not vote to implement this farce of a rule in the first place, nobody did, so why is it even there? You added it yourself, into the Mason poll, like any shady government body adding extra crap on top of something to either affect or influence an outcome. You had sour grapes that you were in the position to lose Steve Mason. You lost his rights for good reason, the wording for goaltender 'experience' was ambiguous and could reasonably be understood as such. Your all or nothing approach is short sighted, back then as well as to this day and makes no logical sense. Back then you 1. Didn't listen to, or ignored, additional feedback on the matter and 2. Generalized the field without taking into consideration variables. Today you do the same thing, if this were to go through in this one instance, this one rule, this one situation then ALL other instances will also go through regardless of uniquities. This is akin to a Judge letting off a defendant of murder due to self defense and then saying, 'Well, if he got away with murder, regardless of why, then ALL other murderers are free to go!' This is, of course, absurd.

Like I've said before, I feel like a broken record here, you can quote that rule and I can quote a rule...a fundamental rule.

3) Roster Requirements; J) Minor leaguers need to clear waivers before being sent to the farm.
11) The “Minor Leagues”; C) If you want to assign Minor Leaguer players from the active roster to the farm, they will test waivers for 2 days, where other GM’s may claim them based on waiver priority before being assigned to the farm.

I can quote another rule...

6) Voting Procedures; B) Any GM may start a poll in regards to any number of rule changes and/or league matters.
F) Any potential rule change requires 8/12 league members approval (including the acceptance of the Commissioner)

So what you're saying here, if I'm correct, is that despite overwhelming and unanimous GM input you're prepared to disrespect every manager's opinion here and veto this entire issue and poll? Finally, the rulebook is there to guide us, it isn't to be followed blindly and thoughtlessly, as impressive as it is there are several issues and if the majority of the league agrees we make adjustments for the betterment of the league. Issues that I brought up at the time, in the rulebook thread, hours of my time and thought put into making it better were shrugged off by you. You asked for input too, you didn't actually want input, you didn't change a thing. You didn't even change grammatically incorrect sentences like, 'B) Only Prospects with 10 or less NHL games played (not from the current year’s draft class) may be drafted.' littered throughout the rulebook that I pointed out. 'Less' should be replaced with 'Fewer' but I digress. My advice to you would be to start listening.

[Nos - Sharks]

Like, all of your examples of rules that could change, 4 teams instead of 6 in the playoffs AFTER the playoffs have started. Prospect eligibility changing from 150 games to 100 with no warning or opportunity to adjust. These issues would NEVER be voted in because they're utterly insane and would never garner majority approval. Bogus shit, hyperbole. This is a rule that never should have been in the first place. A rule that destroys another rule and a rule that cannot be used by everyone. Should rules be subjective or objective?

1. A rule that was never voted into the rulebook, which is illegal.
2. A rule that was added solo by the Commissioner, which is illegal.

In fact, I remember several rules added by you solo, all detailed in that thread. Right and wrong. Have some motherfucking guts, for real.

[Nos - Sharks]

'The poll should read', LOL! The Steve Mason poll 'should have read' just what the issue was, what the title said, a vote on the ownership of STEVE MOTHERFUCKING MASON! Not all this extra bullshit you added on top of it should the vote not go your way. What a joke.

[Nos - Sharks]

Hey Cuckquean Scott, listen closely bitch.

[Tyler - Jets]

I completely understand your perspective here and I have no problem with Toronto retaining Reinhart.
If this is the action the league is going to take I believe we already voted on the rule in question to be stricken down. Negligence or "unknowingly" should not be valid reasons to break league standards.

[Tyler - Jets]

Further complicating things is the fact that only 4 active GM's would have been around when that rule was voted on and implemented.
All of this argument between you is prolly justified but the majority of us are just lost between the lines here.
Let SJ keep Reinhart and still remove that shitty rule.
The poll says SJ should keep him in my opinion

[Nos - Sharks]

This is a league dispute, a league matter, this is not a thread for changing a rule, let's not muddy things up here. That's where we ran into problems in the first place. This is a dispute. A perfectly legit one, one that was settled. I DO NOT understand how one rule supersedes another, one that was here FIRST, one that is fundamental. We each cite a rule, there is a dispute, it is settled by league vote, the rule in question is thus questioned and put up for discussion and voted on itself.

[Nos - Sharks]

Oh, you wanna keep going? Let's have another look at that rule.

11) The “Minor Leagues”
E) Any "minor leaguer" transaction may be nullified and subsequently reversed prior to and after an opposing manager has made a waiver claim if the original owner of the minor leaguer (prior to the waiver claim) unknowingly or accidentally sends the minor leaguer in question to the farm. Each "minor leaguer" will be returned to its owner's main roster and not to its respective farm team.

'and after an opposing manager has made a waiver claim', a waiver claim, not a successful waiver add, think about the intent and wording. Does it intend for managers to cheat? To be able to see the outcome of their attempted Minor Leaguer send down? To supersede other rules in the book? That is the definition of a sham show.

[Chris - Capitals]

If we're going by the book then he goes back to Toronto and we need to have the rule of "I didn't mean to" taken out. I wasn't at all for it when it went in. We know the rules. Can I claim ignorance with letting Zucker slip past the games played threshold? Cause it was an accident? No I fucked up and own that the same should be applied in our rule book no more of this oops didn't mean to let's reverse that crap that we've been doing lately

[Derrick - Senators]

You are a hypocrite who back-pedals and changes his argument on a regular basis to serve his own selfish needs with little regard for the betterment of the league. I find it too ironic to believe that every single time something benefits you, you argue one particular way, and when the exact same rule doesn't benefit you and/or benefits someone else you argue a different way.

Contradiction #1

Mar 17, 2017 8:10:19 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

This is a whole lot of needlessly wordy nonsense, like I've already stated a thousand times before, I did not vote to implement this farce of a rule in the first place, nobody did, so why is it even there?

Mar 14, 2017 21:19:25 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Like I said back then, I didn't approve of this rule change, how could I? It was never voted on.

Contradiction #1 (contd.) and Contradiction #2

Feb 9, 2010 2:51:11 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

I'm voting Calgary. I don't find these added stipulations to each side to be important to this vote. I don't agree wholly with either. I don't think there should be leniency in every instance, but since this had to do with goalies and the ambiguity in the rules behind 'experience' I felt it could be given the benefit of the doubt. The rules should be amended. Robyn's intentions were made clear. We're protecting the league's franchises, precedent in the past had been set, and it only helps the league and its competitiveness if the Calgary franchise keeps Mason. This is the reasoning behind my vote.

Mar 14, 2017 7:41:20 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

You act like the information was hidden from you, it's one of the first things any GM learns and I don't buy you not knowing what you were doing. If true that's even more embarrassing. Was your fault. Learn, don't bitch and pass blame, at least act like a man.

Mar 14, 2017 18:22:04 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Why should the ignorant, the stupid, the lazy, the careless, the thieves, the undignified cheats of the league get an advantage? You think you've earned that advantage with all of those attributes? Do people learn from harsh lessons and loss or from coddling? So in the end my flow is unjustly interrupted and a fool is saved, what have we learned from this? You will never be as impressive as I am.

Contradiction #3

Mar 13, 2017 15:30:37 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

When you disparage our hard working Commish and great league I take offense and will say something every single time. Especially when you're the one at fault and nobody else. This is the best league in the world, that is the most impressive and clear fantasy rulebook of all time.

Mar 17, 2017 8:10:19 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Finally, the rulebook is there to guide us, it isn't to be followed blindly and thoughtlessly, as impressive as it is there are several issues and if the majority of the league agrees we make adjustments for the betterment of the league. Issues that I brought up at the time, in the rulebook thread, hours of my time and thought put into making it better were shrugged off by you. You asked for input too, you didn't actually want input, you didn't change a thing. You didn't even change grammatically incorrect sentences like, 'B) Only Prospects with 10 or less NHL games played (not from the current year’s draft class) may be drafted.' littered throughout the rulebook that I pointed out. 'Less' should be replaced with 'Fewer' but I digress. My advice to you would be to start listening.

Mar 17, 2017 8:10:19 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Your all or nothing approach is short sighted, back then as well as to this day and makes no logical sense.

Mar 17, 2017 8:10:19 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Back then you 1. Didn't listen to, or ignored, additional feedback on the matter and 2. Generalized the field without taking into consideration variables. Today you do the same thing,

It is called consistency. I suggest you try it some time.

[Nos - Sharks]

What the fuck are you talking about? Right in that message I deny the extra stipulations you added to the poll unnecessarily to suit your own agenda in an effort to influence the poll. Directly tied to my vote. I didn't waiver once. I was against it always and never placed a vote for it. The rulebook WAS clear until you muddied it up, it still is impressive but it isn't flawless. I'm not sure what all these quotes are meant to display? You have absolutely nothing of value to come back with so you quote a superior person to illustrate what? That you have nothing? No ideas? No comebacks? I've come at this from all angles with plenty to think about and plenty to go off of. You have one retarded rule you forced in and you cling to it like a desperate fool ready to bow down. The Robyn issue was justifiable, the wording was ambiguous, as I mention, for goalies there are two sets of game totals and 'experience' is an ambiguous term. There is no ambiguity for skaters.

[Derrick - Senators]

if this were to go through in this one instance, this one rule, this one situation then ALL other instances will also go through regardless of uniquities. This is akin to a Judge letting off a defendant of murder due to self defense and then saying, 'Well, if he got away with murder, regardless of why, then ALL other murderers are free to go!' This is, of course, absurd.

You make this argument supposing that the criminal justice system is a perfect science and that I share your same opinions, which it is not and I do not. The system is so flawed because it allows exceptions, equivalent exceptions I am trying to rid this league of by taking a more black and white approach.

Like I've said before, I feel like a broken record here, you can quote that rule and I can quote a rule...a fundamental rule.

6) Voting Procedures; B) Any GM may start a poll in regards to any number of rule changes and/or league matters.
F) Any potential rule change requires 8/12 league members approval (including the acceptance of the Commissioner)

So what you're saying here, if I'm correct, is that despite overwhelming and unanimous GM input you're prepared to disrespect every manager's opinion here and veto this entire issue and poll?

Yes. You correctly cited a rule from the rule book. Notice how it does not say “and retroactively apply newly implemented changes should they be voted into the rule book. Also you seem to conveniently be overlooking “including the acceptance of the commissioner.”

And no, what I am saying is that you are talking about one thing, and I am talking about another. All the while things get muddled and those voting getting confused and/or haven’t taken the time to fully understand the complexities of the issues before voting.

Like, all of your examples of rules that could change, 4 teams instead of 6 in the playoffs AFTER the playoffs have started. Prospect eligibility changing from 150 games to 100 with no warning or opportunity to adjust. These issues would NEVER be voted in because they're utterly insane and would never garner majority approval. Bogus shit, hyperbole. This is a rule that never should have been in the first place. A rule that destroys another rule and a rule that cannot be used by everyone. Should rules be subjective or objective?

Again, YOU might find those ideas to be absurd, but not everybody might. You can’t assume everyone shares the same opinion as you. For example, I think the current rule you are trying to amend and retroactively apply is ‘absurd.’

In fact, I remember several rules added by you solo, all detailed in that thread. Right and wrong. Have some motherfucking guts, for real.

Out of all the hypocrisy and all the flat out lies you have been spreading you FINALLY managed to come up with something that was true. You are right. I did add rules on my own, but allowed the league to do a full audit before the rule book was implemented. And do you know the results of those changes? A steady increase in parity every single year culminating in the league standings you see today.

'and after an opposing manager has made a waiver claim', a waiver claim, not a successful waiver add, think about the intent and wording. Does it intend for managers to cheat? To be able to see the outcome of their attempted Minor Leaguer send down? To supersede other rules in the book? That is the definition of a sham show.

The thing is, the rule book wasn’t authored by a third party so there is very little need to discuss “intent.” I wrote the rule, I know what the intent was. I hated the rule then and I hate it now. I predicted this would happen. However, the difference between you and I is that I am consistent in my opinion (even at my own detriment) and don’t constantly change my argument to serve my own selfish needs. I will say it then as I say it now. The current rule is poison to the league, and retroactive amendments to rules should be avoided at all costs.

[Derrick - Senators]

Mar 18, 2017 5:26:59 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

The rulebook WAS clear until you muddied it up.

This is a joke and entirely false. "My" rule book did not allow for this nonsense we are dealing with today. The league voted Calgary owned the rights to Steve Mason and allowed Robyn to reverse a minor league transaction setting precedence. In order to maintain consistency with that precedence the current rule you see in the book was added. And according to that precedence, Toronto should maintain the rights to Reinhart. If the league would like to change the rule, IT should be voted on in it's entirety, not as a single incident attempting to retroactively apply it.