Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
The conditions of the season weren't met, man! All 31 teams expected this year to go 82 games. It didn't. Therefore, you have to make adjustments to conditions and bonuses that hinge on a certain degree of performance over what was presumably a set amount of time.
|
I agree with your conclusion that because 82 games weren't played adjustments needed to be made, but I disagree with how you got there.
Conditions are exactly what they are. If the conditions are not satisfied, the results arising from those conditions should not follow. I think there's a distinction between trade conditions and performance bonuses because I would not be surprised at all if a performance bonus clause explicitly stated "prorated to an 82 game schedule". I doubt a trade condition would have a similar provision.
My argument for the Flames would have been, instead of focusing on pro rating to an 82 game schedule, whether Neal may or may not have reached 21 goals, etc., instead use an intent of the parties and unforeseen circumstances argument. The intent of the condition was probably that EDM and CGY figured that Neal will likely bounce back and get around 20 goals, and that Lucic is what he is, and based on that, the trade included a 3rd coming our way. However, if Neal did not actually bounce back and continued to suck, then it would be a 1 for 1. What actually happened was Neal did bounce back a little bit and so the intent of the condition was met. In addition due to unforeseen circumstances, the teams weren't able to play a full 82 game season, which is not the Flames fault. Therefore award the pick. Gets us to the same place.
The issue with pro rating goals is that it's a slippery slope and sets a poor precedent with a lot of uncertainty. Should Ovi get prorated to 50 goals this season, etc.