Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2010 10:37:43 GMT -5
My favorite is when people get upset because a guy gets traded without being "on the block".
The whole league is always on the block. Just a PM away!
On the 12th, Vancouver posted that he's looking for players. There's your opening! Among his wants were a puck moving dman and a first or second line centre.
Two big trades followed.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 26, 2010 10:45:18 GMT -5
My favorite is when people get upset because a guy gets traded without being "on the block". The whole league is always on the block. Just a PM away! On the 12th, Vancouver posted that he's looking for players. There's your opening! Among his wants were a puck moving dman and a first or second line centre. Two big trades followed. Could have said any better Darren!
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Oct 26, 2010 10:54:04 GMT -5
My favorite is when people get upset because a guy gets traded without being "on the block". The whole league is always on the block. Just a PM away! On the 12th, Vancouver posted that he's looking for players. There's your opening! Among his wants were a puck moving dman and a first or second line centre. Two big trades followed. Agreed on all fronts. Whenever someone new takes over a team, its safe to assume they will want to put their stamp on it. That may include trading their best asset. This shouldn't shock anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2010 12:02:51 GMT -5
I completely disagree.
If we were talking about a lesser player, then I would understand, but it is terrible asset management to deal one of the most valuable players in the league without shopping him around.
I don't even see how that can be argued with.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 26, 2010 12:31:42 GMT -5
I think we all traded one time or another top players that were not posted. I mean nothing was said when I traded Duncan last year or got him back this year. he, you can say is pretty much a star - right! I hate posting guys, especially big names on here on market because alot of times the offers suck!
Some may have wanted Kopi but alot are not willing to move what I moved, period!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2010 12:51:06 GMT -5
I completely disagree. If we were talking about a lesser player, then I would understand, but it is terrible asset management to deal one of the most valuable players in the league without shopping him around. I don't even see how that can be argued with. I can see how you disagree with the approach, but to reject a vote simply because a GM does not make everyone aware that he's shopping him is downright nonsense. And to reiterate, i think it should be EMPHASIZED that GM's should not reject deals because of the thought process behind their deals, it should be based off of doing whats best for the integrity of the league. I think a deal should only be rejected in two cases: It's suspicious that there is a form of "tampering" going on or the integrity of the league is in jeopordy OR The deal is downright lobsided. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2010 13:14:29 GMT -5
If you read my earlier post, I did not reject it because he did not post him as on the block.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Oct 26, 2010 13:14:59 GMT -5
Wow Kev, perfectly said and you are absolutely right. Wayyy too many times people see a trade for a star player and say to themselves "damn really? He was out there to be had for a package? I didn't get the memo!" and click reject.
This is not right. Whether or not you think kopi could have garnered more is irrelevant. The deal is not lopsided. At worst its 55-45 for NJ, but even thats arguable.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2010 13:16:27 GMT -5
Some may have wanted Kopi but alot are not willing to move what I moved, period! That may or may not be true... since Kopitar was not shopped before he was dealt, we don't know that with any certainty.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2010 13:17:48 GMT -5
Wow Kev, perfectly said and you are absolutely right. Wayyy too many times people see a trade for a star player and say to themselves "damn really? He was out there to be had for a package? I didn't get the memo!" and click reject. This is not right. Whether or not you think kopi could have garnered more is irrelevant. The deal is not lopsided. At worst its 55-45 for NJ, but even thats arguable. I think you guys are jumping to some serious conclusions now. I said days ago that I didn't reject the trade because of that, I did because I didn't think it was a fair deal. In my opinion, NJ got the best two players in the deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2010 13:26:37 GMT -5
Wow Kev, perfectly said and you are absolutely right. Wayyy too many times people see a trade for a star player and say to themselves "damn really? He was out there to be had for a package? I didn't get the memo!" and click reject. This is not right. Whether or not you think kopi could have garnered more is irrelevant. The deal is not lopsided. At worst its 55-45 for NJ, but even thats arguable. I think you guys are jumping to some serious conclusions now. I said days ago that I didn't reject the trade because of that, I did because I didn't think it was a fair deal. In my opinion, NJ got the best two players in the deal. I guess then it becomes a question of what do you define as "lopsidedness" .. .i dont know.. i just looked at the deal as competitive for both sides. They both get what they want and i dont think anyone gets ripped off.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2010 14:04:43 GMT -5
I think the problem is that I disagree with Eug's perception of Oshies potential. He sees him as having the same potential as Kopitar did and I couldn't disagree more with that. Oshie is 23 years old with a career high of 48 points. On the other hand, Kopitar is also 23 and has put up consequtive seasons of 61, 77, 66 and 81 points. It baffles me that the two are even being compared.
My take:
Wolski and Brown roughly cancel out.
Kopitar and a 3rd >> Pitkanen, Oshie and a 1st
Maybe people are valueing the 1st more than I do, but the way I see it, it will probably be in the lower third of the first round, which means the chances are slim that player even makes the NHL within 3 years, and even smaller that he makes an impact.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 26, 2010 14:37:31 GMT -5
I think the problem is that I disagree with Eug's perception of Oshies potential. He sees him as having the same potential as Kopitar did and I couldn't disagree more with that. Oshie is 23 years old with a career high of 48 points. On the other hand, Kopitar is also 23 and has put up consequtive seasons of 61, 77, 66 and 81 points. It baffles me that the two are even being compared. My take: Wolski and Brown roughly cancel out. Kopitar and a 3rd >> Pitkanen, Oshie and a 1st Maybe people are valueing the 1st more than I do, but the way I see it, it will probably be in the lower third of the first round, which means the chances are slim that player even makes the NHL within 3 years, and even smaller that he makes an impact. I do understand what you are saying but with limited dmen that people are willing to move with Pitkanen numbers and salary, sometimes you have to make deals that work for you now. Oshie is not Kopitar but he could be a 60 plus guy, so he gets a dman who could do 40 to 45 pts and 2 forwards who could both get 65 points, I get a guys who average 75 pts or so and another who can deliever possibly 60 this year. He gets to fill 3 spots and in this league depth is important. Look at teams with superstars and you will not see championship unless there is depth there. i have depth to give up extra player while Vanny need more depth, plus 1st may not be top 1/2 but it is defeinitely an upgrade on the 3rd. But I do get what your saying but every GM needs to do what works for them and not what others think!
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2010 15:20:47 GMT -5
I'm not saying GMs should do what other people think. I'm just giving my opinion on a trade, which is the purpose of this thread.
I've explained my reasoning above for rejecting it. In my opinion, the deal was 60-40, and that is enough for me to reject it. That is based on value alone.
I did not reject the trade because he did not put Kopitar on the block, but I do think Vancouver could have gotten more for him if he did, and that it was very poor asset management not doing so. I do not see how Eug and Kevin went from me rejecting a trade, to assuming that I was doing it for my own purposes.... especially considering that I have zero need for another centre.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Oct 26, 2010 16:47:45 GMT -5
I never said anything about you rejecting it for your own purposes. All I said was that some people get very subjective when it comes to voting on big trades, whereas they should only be looking at the deal and nothing but the deal. You think its 60-40, I think its 55-45. For you its enough to reject, for me its fine. Nothing wrong with that.
But it seems that everytime a high caliber player gets dealt, the question of "why wasn't he out on the block?". And it plants a thought into others that the return was not nearly as high as it could have been if he was put up on the block. And then we get ppl rejecting because of it. That's not right.
|
|