WPG - CHI

[Winnipeg Jets]

Chicago trades:



Zack Smith (CHI-C) $3.25/UFA
Matt Calvert (COL-LW) $3.25/UFA

Michael Frolik (MTL-LW) $3.00/UFA

Winnipeg trades:



Nicholas Paul (OTT-C) $1.35/$1.35/$2.03/$2.03/$2.03/UFA

Mason Appleton (WPG-RW) $0.90/$0.90/RFA
Oscar Klefbom (EDM-F) $4.17/$4.17/$4.17/UFA
Jeremy Lauzon (BOS-D) $0.85/$0.85/RFA
Sami Niku (WPG-D) $0.73/$0.73/RFA
Carsen Richels (NA-RW) $0.00


This is the best way I can see to protect my roster and keep it mostly intact. Hawks will protect Paul, Appleton, Klefbom and Lauzon in the expansion draft and trade them back to me in September. He gets to keep Niku and Richels and an additional piece in September. We've discussed the parameters of the trade in September, but I haven't included it in the above deal because it won't happen until September.

[Blackhawks GM (Nick)]

I accept. As mentioned in Discord chat I think Sami Niku is going to be a great player one day. My team roster is full of ELC’s or players not worth keeping.

[Sharks GM (mcbitter)]

I honestly do applaud the attempted roster Voodoo here but to me you guys are colluding against the Seattle expansion! I don't think it's malicious but I don't agree with selling protection spots for the purpose of trading them back to the Jets, leaving Seattle with an absolute garbage team with no chance to compete for many years! A couple upside prospects to protect the Jets roster to me is not right or fair and if he want to make a side deal he should reach out to the Kraken GM for that!

Veto

[Deleted]

It’s alright if you guys want to work out handshake agreements since the commissioner said that’s alright, but I’m not going to judge a trade based on a potential future move 4 months down the road. There’s no scenario in which I’m going to approve a trade that sends 3 expired contracts for several picks and prospects, none of which have terrible contracts.

Veto 0-2

[Predators GM (Sam)]

Vetoing extremely hard.

[Canucks GM & Co-Commish (Tony)]

While there is no rule against this (something I didn’t think would be an issue) I don’t love this concept. It’s a clear attempt to circumvent the expansion process.

With that being said, I am not vetoing this because of that. It’s not your fault it’s not in the rules and by the rules, nothing is illegal here.

My veto is that the value of the deal is unfair. If there’s an issue with players being exposed, forcing a trade like this, it should be worked out with Seattle.

I would suggest you two work out something that’s more even for both sides should you want to try this out again.

Trade is vetoed 4-0