RSHL

Hi All,

I'm posting this on behalf of Brett and the Trade Committee. Over the last few weeks, picking up exponentially during the draft, there has been a substantial amount of internal dialogue within the trade committee of what our role (if anything) should be within RSHL. Currently, the committee consists of 7 members (Kraken, Bruins, Hawks, Rangers, Jets, Lightening, and Wild) and Brett as a tiebreaker if necessary (as a member of the committee cannot vote on their own deal).

Numerous issues and deals have been raised over the past few months including, but not limited to:
- 1st round picks being special and deals involving them requiring extra scrutiny;
- Committee members feeling that the team could have received more from another team;
- Whether all draft pick trades should use a draft pick value chart to make the determination of whether it should or should not be approved;
- Trades between a GM and a GM that they brought into RSHL right away/for a set amount of time after the new GM starts;
- When the committee should take action after a string of bad deals from a specific team;
- Requesting justification on a deal that isn't unfair, but because a committee member does not understand a team's motivation and wants to understand it;
- Should deals made by and between experienced RSHL GMs be looked at and assessed in the same way as new GMs or should the committee default to giving them the benefit of the doubt, and having more freedom (as per Brett, there is no mechanism to have two separate processes based on experience, so this would solely be committee members using discretion depending on the GM involved);
- And countless others that I'm sure I'm forgetting.

This initial post isn't about my specific thoughts on the above, I will comment as this progresses, as I'm sure other committee members will. This is to lay out the issues and to spark a discussion to hopefully answer the question of what should the committee's role be?

One constant that I'm sure most, if not all, have noticed is that the trade reviews aren't exactly a positive and upbeat place. As a result, the trade review option in full will be removed - i.e. no winners/losers or comments as it's become far too negative. Brett may have already done this by the time you're reading this.

Beyond that change, what do you all want the committee to look at closely, what shouldn't we care about/prioritize when reviewing deals, do we even need to exist or should it be sink or swim for every GM? Comment with your thoughts, concerns, ideas, etc so that we can make it better.

Chicago supports either getting rid of the committee or only examining 1st round pick deals I think it’s important for GMs to make sure they are getting fair value not a committee I also think that at times GM’s get jealous because they don’t get their offer accepted and it leads to he should’ve got more value I don’t think we should be trying to determine if he could’ve gotten more value if he likes the offer he should be allowed to accept hence getting rid of the committee

Not sure how doable this would be from Brett’s end….

How about like a GM challenge for trades?

- every trade is posted for everyone to see before it’s processed by the league
- 24 hours and then it is processed
- each GM has a trade challenge they can use at any point in the season
- if someone uses it in that 24h window, they need to post an argument as to why they feel that deal should be rejected
- the committee will then look it over and discuss and decide if it should go through or not

If the committee agrees the deal should be vetoed then it is, and the GM that used his challenge gets to keep his challenge for a future deal

If the committee deems the deal to be ok, it goes through and the GM who challenged it loses the ability to challenge any other deals the rest of the season.


Just spitballing

This idea has been proposed previously, so I will ask you, where would the benefit of everyone seeing/voting?

I have had another suggestion, which seem promising, and the stark difference is the size. The ultimate problem that's rooted in the RSHL is a sense of apathy, where people simply "go through the motions"... is that beneficial to make decisions on trades?

Currently thinking about the other route which will see a small core that rotate through the roll on a semi regular basis, but the group include more passionate GM's who are looking deeper than just pushing YES/NO.

As someone who was on the committee many moons ago the Preds say keep the committee the way it is and also bring back the trade reviews. If people misbehave they get strikes. Thanks.

Hey All,

A few thoughts on this. This league exists on the sole efforts of two people Brett and Robbie and we need them to keep tons of things functioning for the rest of us to have all this free entertainment. The committee's main role is to manage trades so they don't have to invest a ton of time into this particular task. I take doing this small bit of work for them seriously as a member of the committee and try to apply my personal thoughts on deals consistently. First and foremost the members of the committee have a responsibility to do what is best for the league based on their understanding of the league. The second most important thing is to help protect new GM's from trades that might seem reasonable but without an understanding of the league, ratings, age, salary implications, pre-signing requirements and other things that are unique to the RSHL could quickly turn bad. Rejecting trades should never be about I would have paid one more 3rd round pick than he was offered. The basis of it is did the GM giving up the Assets fully understand the value he traded away and the value they are receiving as it applies to this league, it doesn't have to always be equal but it should be understood. Canucks overpaid to have goalies with the same first names as his kids, Sean and I fight over Flames prospects and I am sure some GM even likes the Oiler's. I have been in sim leagues for 20 years and seen a wide variety of rules around trading but the viability of the league typically trumps any sort of individual GM right to do whatever they want. If you have been in the league for a long time and want to trade the moon for your favorite NHL teams top prospect so be it, but the league should prevent newer GM's from making potential franchise crippling decisions. Each GM can rebuild, or go for it, or retool or remain how they are, but the league has a greater responsibility to its own health. I don't agree with disbanding the trade committee or even forcing some sort of guidelines on it, it should be GM's whose have been involved for a few seasons and we trust their judgement. It doesn't have to be me even, but I am happy to stay on and help where I can.

Should there be some sort of probation period where each deal needs to be explained in a touch more detail by newer GMs?
Should we also allow deals involving two GMs who have been around for X amount of time to just skip the voting process and give them the leeway to acquire goalies with their kids names at any price?

Vancity wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:35 pm Should there be some sort of probation period where each deal needs to be explained in a touch more detail by newer GMs?

Not that anyone outside the committe would be aware, any "New GM" is highlighed to the committe when a deal comes in, any committee member can request more information, which is when you are asked to submit your justification.

Vancity wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:35 pm Should we also allow deals involving two GMs who have been around for X amount of time to just skip the voting process and give them the leeway to acquire goalies with their kids names at any price?

No, I don't believe so, that would require 2 different "flows" for "veteran gm" vs everyone else. I have no intention to duplicate and make a change like that. I've never been a fan of the argument "do you know who I am?"

Vince GMWILD wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 8:50 pm Hey All,

A few thoughts on this. This league exists on the sole efforts of two people Brett and Robbie and we need them to keep tons of things functioning for the rest of us to have all this free entertainment. The committee's main role is to manage trades so they don't have to invest a ton of time into this particular task. I take doing this small bit of work for them seriously as a member of the committee and try to apply my personal thoughts on deals consistently. First and foremost the members of the committee have a responsibility to do what is best for the league based on their understanding of the league. The second most important thing is to help protect new GM's from trades that might seem reasonable but without an understanding of the league, ratings, age, salary implications, pre-signing requirements and other things that are unique to the RSHL could quickly turn bad. Rejecting trades should never be about I would have paid one more 3rd round pick than he was offered. The basis of it is did the GM giving up the Assets fully understand the value he traded away and the value they are receiving as it applies to this league, it doesn't have to always be equal but it should be understood. Canucks overpaid to have goalies with the same first names as his kids, Sean and I fight over Flames prospects and I am sure some GM even likes the Oiler's. I have been in sim leagues for 20 years and seen a wide variety of rules around trading but the viability of the league typically trumps any sort of individual GM right to do whatever they want. If you have been in the league for a long time and want to trade the moon for your favorite NHL teams top prospect so be it, but the league should prevent newer GM's from making potential franchise crippling decisions. Each GM can rebuild, or go for it, or retool or remain how they are, but the league has a greater responsibility to its own health. I don't agree with disbanding the trade committee or even forcing some sort of guidelines on it, it should be GM's whose have been involved for a few seasons and we trust their judgement. It doesn't have to be me even, but I am happy to stay on and help where I can.

Couldn't agree more.