Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 0:32:06 GMT -5
Not sure why the Glendening trade is getting so much controversy. He is one of the best rated defensive forwards but is not a top 6 player. He'll be a 3rd or 4th line center because of his limited offense and play top PK time. Balcers is no slouch of a prospect (2nd round pick and just has a great season) plus every time the draft happens teams scramble for those late round picks and I gave up a lot of them in this trade.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Sept 1, 2016 7:39:03 GMT -5
I don't reject or pass trades to prevent a strong team from getting stronger, only on the fairness of the deal. To get a good piece you should give a good piece. I passed it but didn't care for it. It is not going to affect the balance of the league, to improve Nashvilles PK.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Sept 1, 2016 8:10:41 GMT -5
I never thought that voting for trades had anything to do with balance! We had many teams build monsters in past, with Canucks being the last. I Nashville can build anyway he can even if he is building an unbeatable team. He got young studs who are cheap now and this allows him to pick up stud vets to put him over the top. The formula has been there for all of us, but like me most are inpatient with young guys and not let them develop. Nash has a team that can go on a two to three year run.
I say that is a fantastic job! He also traded away talent and top picks to put him in position to dominate. Great job, but there are a team or two that will compete I think! Not to mention that Maroon hardly plays all season as this season is most games he played in NHL so who knows what future holds.
Not much different than Silfverberg deal, but I do not throw shade on trades, you win some and lose some, I loss many big in long term but no one knows what future holds
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 9:27:05 GMT -5
Not sure why the Glendening trade is getting so much controversy. He is one of the best rated defensive forwards but is not a top 6 player. He'll be a 3rd or 4th line center because of his limited offense and play top PK time. Balcers is no slouch of a prospect (2nd round pick and just has a great season) plus every time the draft happens teams scramble for those late round picks and I gave up a lot of them in this trade. He is a 5th round pick isn't he? or is there a different Rudolf Balcers?
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Sept 1, 2016 9:47:40 GMT -5
I deleted my last post, because it's not worth arguing about. If the majority of the league really thinks this is a bad deal, I will withdraw it.
I originally acquired Glendening for Brett Ritchie, who was a middle 2nd round pick and so far has six career NHL goals. Is a package of 5 draft picks and a prospect really that much less?
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Sept 1, 2016 10:11:32 GMT -5
I think the GMs experience comes into play here. I passed the deal. Plus, as a draft geek, maybe like Joe, I feel I can always find gold in them there hills...at least, gimme enough pick axes and I'll find some sort of gem...
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Sept 1, 2016 10:21:04 GMT -5
I think the GMs experience comes into play here. I passed the deal. Plus, as a draft geek, maybe like Joe, I feel I can always find gold in them there hills...at least, gimme enough pick axes and I'll find some sort of gem... LOL Chris always with a good sense of humor. I'll give you all my 4ths and 5ths I have left, for a 2nd in 016. Deal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 10:48:40 GMT -5
Not sure why the Glendening trade is getting so much controversy. He is one of the best rated defensive forwards but is not a top 6 player. He'll be a 3rd or 4th line center because of his limited offense and play top PK time. Balcers is no slouch of a prospect (2nd round pick and just has a great season) plus every time the draft happens teams scramble for those late round picks and I gave up a lot of them in this trade. He is a 5th round pick isn't he? or is there a different Rudolf Balcers? Ha, yeah for some reason I remembered him as a 2nd round pick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 10:50:44 GMT -5
He is a 5th round pick isn't he? or is there a different Rudolf Balcers? Ha, yeah for some reason I remembered him as a 2nd round pick It wasn't a big deal just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same guy. Although I doubt there are multiple quality hockey players named Rudolfs Balcers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 11:01:16 GMT -5
I deleted my last post, because it's not worth arguing about. If the majority of the league really thinks this is a bad deal, I will withdraw it. I would say it is never worth it to argue a deal that is getting no votes from anything other than a "this is why I did it" perspective. We have seen in numerous discussions (arguments) involving the trade voting system that people wildly disagree about the purpose of it and what should or shouldn't get approved. For me I think it should only be used to stop a team from being stripped of assets so that they would not be attractive to a new GM coming in. In that regard I do give more leeway to experienced GM's (whether they have won or not to me that is irrelevant and was a bit of an off putting remark to be honest). That is not because I think they are smarter than new GM's but moreso that they have shown a committment to the league that I trust they will stick it out in the down times and not strip a team down and get bored that the good times aren't here fast enough. I will say, and have said, I think a no vote should come with a reason. I know some don't like that as maybe they feel pressure from the GM's involved if they are known to have said no, but at least then the GM's can see what the issue is and deal with it from a hockey perspective rather than just feeling a personal attack at their deal being rejected. Even as an outsider there have been trades between other teams where I have been unsure which side the no votes were for. Maybe the personal feelings would still be there but a quick comment like "not sure 4th's and 5ths have much value and Glendennings FO rating is excellent" at least gives something to go on and maybe takes some of the hard feelings out of rejected deals that we have seen in the past. tl;dr (did I use that right?)- Tampa Rules! I obviously think it is much less but I may be a bit biased.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Sept 1, 2016 12:08:13 GMT -5
This comment has nothing to do with the Glendelling deal. My only comment there is to accept the voting as it is instead of complaining. We rarely get trades rejected, and if we do there is usually good reason.
More of a general comment on this off season now...
There have been a lot of quantity over quality deals made this summer that I wouldn't make in a million years. IMO if you are trading truly elite players you have to make sure you are getting more than one "blue chip" prospect back (as even blue chippers can flop). I'm not sure NJ got one back for Schneider... but he did get a lot of depth back at least. The same could be said for trading an elite goaltender in Quick for a 2nd line centre (Rask) and some picks years away.
Anyways that ought to stir the pot haha.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Sept 1, 2016 12:24:16 GMT -5
I think the GMs experience comes into play here. I passed the deal. Plus, as a draft geek, maybe like Joe, I feel I can always find gold in them there hills...at least, gimme enough pick axes and I'll find some sort of gem... LOL Chris always with a good sense of humor. I'll give you all my 4ths and 5ths I have left, for a 2nd in 016. Deal? Right? I'll GLADLY give up all my 4th and 5th every season till the end of time for a 2nd rounder at any spot.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Sept 1, 2016 13:22:08 GMT -5
This comment has nothing to do with the Glendelling deal. My only comment there is to accept the voting as it is instead of complaining. We rarely get trades rejected, and if we do there is usually good reason. More of a general comment on this off season now... There have been a lot of quantity over quality deals made this summer that I wouldn't make in a million years. IMO if you are trading truly elite players you have to make sure you are getting more than one "blue chip" prospect back (as even blue chippers can flop). I'm not sure NJ got one back for Schneider... but he did get a lot of depth back at least. The same could be said for trading an elite goaltender in Quick for a 2nd line centre (Rask) and some picks years away. Anyways that ought to stir the pot haha. I agree I believe I should have gotten a little more Jake, but no one would give up hat I was looking for, so went with best deal available and I need depth and hoping maybe a few make a step forward to their abilities. it is a chance, tried for few weeks to get what I wanted but could not so decided to go with the best I can get in this market.......I am happy but wished I got the guy I wanted and wanted from Chris forever....LOL....plus Schneider's next contract is going to what 1.75 million more so over 7 million, so I decided to move him now.....he was a favorite of mine but I do hold onto to favs because I love them so......LO
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Sept 1, 2016 13:45:09 GMT -5
I agree with you wholeheartedly Jake. If I'm offered a bunch of old clothes over 1 brand new piece that I will surely wear, I will take the 1 piece any day of the week. I try to have the same mentality with deals. End of the day just because you're giving me more old clothes, doesn't make it any more attractive.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Sept 1, 2016 14:38:30 GMT -5
The hilarious thing is, I thought maybe the deal would be questioned because Nashville was giving up too much...lol. Little did I know Glendening's perceived value was so high.
|
|