March 2, 2023

[DetroitGM]

Homepage, Schedule & Results, League Save File

I think I entered everything correctly. If anyone has any complaints, please submit them via the "I'm volunteering to help sim" form.

Anyway, Dallas' Joel Armia got 5min for injuring LA's Derek Forbort for more than a month (I gave Armia 5 games), while Edmonton's Drew Stafford got 5min for spearing an unknown Nashville Predator (and therefore was not suspended).

Eric Staal was the only player unhappy with his trade :p
(okay, Ilya Ivantsov and David Backes didn't like theirs either, but it's not as funny if you consider that)

On the other hand, Connor Dewar appears to have really liked his trade, getting a con boost from 56 to 74.

[SharksGM]

Thank you for your noble sacrifice.

Eric Staal was the only player unhappy with his trade :p

Well, Tarasenko has been demanding a trade since I think the day he arrived in San Jose, so he can join the club.

On the other hand, Connor Dewar appears to have really liked his trade, getting a con boost from 56 to 74.

Sadly I don't think anything that interesting actually happened; the trade post just listed swapped CONs for Ilya Ivantsov (56) and Connor Dewar (74).

[PanthersGM]

Thank you for your noble sacrifice.

Eric Staal was the only player unhappy with his trade :p

Well, Tarasenko has been demanding a trade since I think the day he arrived in San Jose, so he can join the club.

On the other hand, Connor Dewar appears to have really liked his trade, getting a con boost from 56 to 74.

Sadly I don't think anything that interesting actually happened; the trade post just listed swapped CONs for Ilya Ivantsov (56) and Connor Dewar (74).

It was actually even less interesting. They both already had a CON of 74, and I guess while I was rushing to get the post up I must have mixed it up with a different number I read somewhere else.

Edit: It would appear as though the culprit was Luca Del Bel Belluz.

[DetroitGM]

Haha, well that's too bad. I don't know that I've ever knowingly simmed a con boost (even in my solo EHM efforts)

[SensGM]

Haha, well that's too bad. I don't know that I've ever knowingly simmed a con boost (even in my solo EHM efforts)

FYI players with CON < 50 only can boost.

[DetroitGM]

Haha, well that's too bad. I don't know that I've ever knowingly simmed a con boost (even in my solo EHM efforts)

FYI players with CON < 50 only can boost.

I thought that was the case, was rather surprised to see a boost from 56!

[NYRNYRNYR]

Hischer didn't boost

Keeping my 4th round pick

[SharksGM]

It was actually even less interesting. They both already had a CON of 74, and I guess while I was rushing to get the post up I must have mixed it up with a different number I read somewhere else.

No, Ivantsov had 56 CON. Kevin must have edited him up to 74 thinking he had a con drop.

[PanthersGM]

No, Ivantsov had 56 CON. Kevin must have edited him up to 74 thinking he had a con drop.

Fair enough, I defer to your knowledge!

Sorry about the mixup.

[AvalancheGM]

Yup, Ivantsov was 56.

Was there an actual news item with him not liking the trade or just thinking his con had changed?

[DetroitGM]

The three con "fixes" I made were based on the cons listed in the trades, but I cannot recall whether Ivantsov had actually dropped or not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯