|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 24, 2016 21:43:03 GMT -5
///
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Aug 1, 2016 15:14:42 GMT -5
Damn feeling kind of left out right now!
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 1, 2016 16:07:20 GMT -5
Damn feeling kind of left out right now! You'll probably feel better, Jake, when you're parading the Cup around the Bay area.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Aug 1, 2016 18:18:53 GMT -5
Damn feeling kind of left out right now! You'll probably feel better, Jake, when you're parading the Cup around the Bay area. Speaking of which, have to thank you for dealing Bishop to Nashville.... I am already expecting him to be lights out again when in matters! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 31, 2016 19:43:25 GMT -5
I'm actually kinda confused why the Glendening deal has so many reject votes. Is Nashville giving up too many 4ths and 5ths or not enough? Looking at the 2 trades on the board I would have to say the Getzlaf deal is definitely more slanted. Not that I feel either deal is unfair, but if one had a greater lean on one side of the scale it wouldn't be the Glendening deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 19:49:29 GMT -5
I don't really understand the Glendenning deal from Vancouvers point of view. I passed it because Joe (in my mind) deserves the benefit of the doubt and it isn't a deal that makes his team unappealing or is so bad it potentially affects the league but it is an odd deal to me. Maybe I am missing something on Rudolfs Balcers (sp?).
The Getzlaf deal seems like the typical move for a top line guy for a team looking to go younger.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Aug 31, 2016 19:57:45 GMT -5
I'm actually kinda confused why the Glendening deal has so many reject votes. Is Nashville giving up too many 4ths and 5ths or not enough? Looking at the 2 trades on the board I would have to say the Getzlaf deal is definitely more slanted. Not that I feel either deal is unfair, but if one had a greater lean on one side of the scale it wouldn't be the Glendening deal. I voted to pass both, and agree 100% with your critique.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 31, 2016 20:29:44 GMT -5
I'm surprised the Glendening deal has so many no votes, too. Not sure what's the issue. If it's that I'm not getting enough, I haven't seen any better offers. If it's that Nashville is giving up too much, I don't see that argument either. Basically I'm getting six assets, who the law of average says, will never play in the NHL.
My logic was this, I'm in a rebuild mode and I thought I'd accept an offer I received that is a little low on quality, but high on volume. I'm just hoping I can catch lightning in a bottle. I actually think Balcers has a chance to be an NHLer from what I've learned about him. He's shown good offensive skills in Norway's top league playing against men and he's moving to the WHL this year. Plus I have 5 extra chances to find a late round gem.
Glendening is a reasonably valuable asset for a contender, but doesn't do a lot for me this year. In a year or two when I'm looking to contend again, players like him are getable, so why not roll the dice this year.
I don't mind guys expressing their opinion, but of all the deals that have passed this year, this one is so terrible that it's the one that should be rejected? It doesn't even involve one impactful player. I wish guys would just worry about their own teams. In case you're not following along at home, James and I have won three of the last four JGHL Cups. I think we've demonstrated we at least have a little bit of a clue about what we're doing.
|
|
|
Post by RedWings_Mike on Aug 31, 2016 21:09:52 GMT -5
I actually voted to reject the trade because I didn't feel like you were getting enough for Glendening, his ratings make him one of the best defensive forwards out there in my mind and I kind of felt like you just gave him up. I haven't drafted yet so I don't know for sure, but I don't feel as if the 4th and 5th round picks have the highest of value. I could also see the argument that owners might have that you are essentially giving up 6 players for Luke Glendening, which in the end could have people question the trade.
I just wanted to comment because I don't think you should discourage people from voting in the trades by telling them to worry about their own teams. As a new owner I feel like the trade voting is there for a reason, and if there is a trade that an owner feels unfair then they absolutely should have the power to vote against it. Even if you guys have won 3 of the last 4 cups (Congrats, hope I can say that one day!) the option for us to vote is still there and I'm going to evaluate every trade on both sides and vote to if I feel if it is fair or not.
If I am wrong about the market for a good rated defensive forward then I am, but I don't think we should discourage owners from voting on trades by telling them to worry about their own teams. Maybe we could have some of the people who voted against the trade chime in and say why we voted against to gain a better understanding as to why they voted the way they did!
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Aug 31, 2016 22:41:37 GMT -5
One of the best defensive forwards already going to a team thats now highly stacked for the coming season, so much so its honestly sapped a bit of my enthusiasm for the year coming up. Right now its easily the best team on paper, and having 1 super team kinda ruins the fun...no offense to James or anything, slick dealing, especially with Bishop, wish I got him, I could have built a fucking amazing team trading Luongo and freeing up all that cash too, but this is just fuel on the fire. I'm voting no because I don't think its nearly enough given the position Nashville's team is now in, and not allowing 1 team to become overbearingly strong is part of the reason we vote.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 31, 2016 22:51:44 GMT -5
One of the best defensive forwards already going to a team thats now highly stacked for the coming season, so much so its honestly sapped a bit of my enthusiasm for the year coming up. Right now its easily the best team on paper, and having 1 super team kinda ruins the fun...no offense to James or anything, slick dealing, especially with Bishop, wish I got him, I could have built a fucking amazing team trading Luongo and freeing up all that cash too, but this is just fuel on the fire. I'm voting no because I don't think its nearly enough given the position Nashville's team is now in, and not allowing 1 team to become overbearingly strong is part of the reason we vote. I completely disagree that's why we have the voting system. Personally I evaluate each trade on it's own merit, regardless of other players already on each team or how good a team might already look. Your philosophy seems to make it somewhat personal (because it lowers your enthusiasm) and intentional (because you don't want to see a strong team get stronger), which it shouldn't be at all.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Aug 31, 2016 22:54:36 GMT -5
If we aren't going to try to keep things even slightly competitive around here, whats the point?
Its still an awful trade, a bunch of low shit picks for a super high value player (at least ratings wise, but he's a good NHLer too).
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 31, 2016 23:05:45 GMT -5
If we aren't going to try to keep things even slightly competitive around here, whats the point? Every team is working within the same parameters. I just never saw the purpose of the trade voting system as a way to intentionally stifle someone because I thought it would be bad for the league for their team to improve even further.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Aug 31, 2016 23:08:13 GMT -5
If we aren't going to try to keep things even slightly competitive around here, whats the point? Every team is working within the same parameters. I just never saw the purpose of the trade voting system as a way to intentionally stifle someone because I thought it would be bad for the league for their team to improve even further. Its not normally a major factor, I don't want to stifle people either, but it becomes a bigger factor the worse the trade is, and this is a pretty bad one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 23:31:21 GMT -5
Are you rejecting the trade because Nashville is involved or because of the value?
i.e. If it we me trading the same package for Glendenning then are you still voting no?
As I mentioned I don't see how this changes anything in terms of the balance of the league.
|
|