|
|
Post by fordprefect on Jan 11, 2021 23:32:30 GMT
To Wash.
-Frk
-Sea’s 2023 3rd pp
To Sea
Lafferty
Wash’s 2023 2nd pp
Rationale...Tiger and I both see some upside in Frk for this year since he’s likely to have either Byfield or Vilardi as his centre. At this point that’s just speculation but I felt the potential for Frk’s role with LA is worth at least a 3rd to 2nd upgrade. If Frk hits his potential finally in that role Tiger should win this deal. If Frk still fails to hit his potential I score a cheap 2nd pp in a draft year that I’m light on picks in.
Lafferty will be dropped so he doesn’t move the dial on this deal either way.
Note...An injury to Frk occurred as we were executing this deal. Tiger is aware...he brought it to light but still wanted to go ahead. I’ve given him the option to cancel this deal up until the time the deal clears if he wishes to back out tho.
|
|
|
|
Post by fordprefect on Jan 11, 2021 23:38:03 GMT
Pick tracker updated. Reverse if the trade cancels.
|
|
|
|
Post by fordprefect on Jan 12, 2021 15:18:32 GMT
I object to this trade. Both trade partners haven’t confirmed it and provided trade rationale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2021 16:55:38 GMT
I am aware of Frk Injury, he is a bench player to start with hopeful upside. I can sit on it, but not losing anything in the process waiting really.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyclone on Jan 12, 2021 17:25:15 GMT
What the Frk?!
|
|
dammage79
Junior
Posts: 339
Classic: Calgary
Dynasty: Devils
|
Post by dammage79 on Jan 12, 2021 17:55:56 GMT
So.......
Deal or No Deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by fordprefect on Jan 12, 2021 18:04:31 GMT
Deal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2021 18:59:36 GMT
and I missed the Kraken based pun in the title... I apologize for not appreciating it enough from the get go
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2021 19:00:17 GMT
So....... Deal or No Deal? ummm... sorry, but you open us up to lawsuits saying "Deal or No Deal" without the right trademarking |
|
|
|
Post by fordprefect on Jan 12, 2021 19:56:49 GMT
Deal™ ... No Deal™. Are we good now?
|
|
|
|
Post by cyclone on Jan 12, 2021 19:59:10 GMT
I believe it should be “ Deal Or No Deal™“. My wife’s cousin goes to synagogue with Howie Mandel. Did you need me to clear it with him? 😁
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2021 20:04:49 GMT
Someone objected to their own trade? 2021 delivers!
|
|
|
|
Post by fordprefect on Jan 12, 2021 21:15:40 GMT
I believe it should be “ Deal Or No Deal™“. My wife’s cousin goes to synagogue with Howie Mandel. Did you need me to clear it with him? 😁 I believe that Or, as a common conjunction, does need trade marking. As such, if one owns the trade mark on "Deal™" and "No Deal™" individually one is allowed to also use them conjunctively as they are being conjoined by a word that is in the public domain. Plus, if Howie Mandel is your substantiating source you are, ipso facto, wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclone on Jan 12, 2021 21:51:05 GMT
I believe it should be “ Deal Or No Deal™“. My wife’s cousin goes to synagogue with Howie Mandel. Did you need me to clear it with him? 😁 I believe that Or, as a common conjunction, does need trade marking. As such, if one owns the trade mark on "Deal™" and "No Deal™" individually one is allowed to also use them conjunctively as they are being conjoined by a word that is in the public domain. Plus, if Howie Mandel is your substantiating source you are, ipso facto, wrong. How about Justia legal trademarks as a source? trademarks.justia.com/790/36/deal-or-no-79036287.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2021 21:53:56 GMT
I am sorry for the joke
|
|
|
|
Post by fordprefect on Jan 12, 2021 21:57:33 GMT
I believe that Or, as a common conjunction, does need trade marking. As such, if one owns the trade mark on "Deal™" and "No Deal™" individually one is allowed to also use them conjunctively as they are being conjoined by a word that is in the public domain. Plus, if Howie Mandel is your substantiating source you are, ipso facto, wrong. How about Justia legal trademarks as a source? trademarks.justia.com/790/36/deal-or-no-79036287.htmlLegal schmeagle. You cited Howie Mandel. |
|
