11-04-2021, 09:44 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote:

11-04-2021, 09:27 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: I mean I think you could definitely argue that it should be on both parties but per the rule book, it is not. There is no "bad faith trade negotiations" rule in the rulebook, and until there is, I don't think you can just throw a punishment out there because you don't like that somebody didn't stop someone else from doing something they got punishment for (with the obvious exception of HO, who in this case already are being punished for not stopping the illegal thing from happening).

I'm not sure which aspect of the rulebook you are referring to exactly, maybe you can quote it here. But if a trade is deemed "illegal" for breaking the retention rules, isn't it technically irrelevant which team was the one trading away the player and which one took him on. Aren't both to blame here both because the rulebook doesn't specify in which direction a punishment is to be levied, and because both teams did get an advantage out of the illegal trade (Team A gets to pay less salary, Team B got higher trade value for their player because of the lower cap hit)?

Well that's my point - it's not in the rulebook. There's nothing to quote because there is no rule about punishing the receiving party for an asset that was illegally traded. There are some punishments specified for other types of illegal trades, though, and I think that is where you reasonably have to start here (even though like you said, and as I have mentioned in another post, I don't think this is exactly the same thing as trading a pick one does not possess due to the seemingly irrevocable nature of the trade).

Extrapolating from the "no trading picks you don't have" rule and making a judgment here seems like the right call to me (although I think there would have been grounds for a harsher punishment here using that as a starting point). But I don't think you can just say "okay we're going to start issuing punishments to both sides of illegal trades now even though we've never done that for any other illegal trade in the past"