|
Post by Sharky on Nov 22, 2013 12:32:52 GMT -5
Really didn't like the Anaheim-Vancouver trade that just passed. Brassard seems like an inconsistent 40-50 point player to me, while Stastny is a consistent 50-60 point guy currently on pace for 70 points in the NHL. I think the difference there is a lot bigger than Dalpe, who is verging on "bust" territory at the age of 24 and was recently traded for peanuts form the Canes, and a 2nd two years away... especially when Vancouver got a 2014 3rd going back to them. Basically comes down to Stastny for Brassard to me... not a fan at all. So your saying that you would pass a trade for Dalpe and a 2nd 015 for a 3rd in 014 in return. No reason imo to reject the Anh - Van trade. I didn't say that at all. Where did you get that from? Read my post again... I actually disagree Eug... I think the league has gotten to a point where all but extremely lopsided deals are passed. I think it is bad for the league. I don't expect all trades to be even, but when trades just don't make sense we should question them.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Nov 22, 2013 13:02:54 GMT -5
So your saying that you would pass a trade for Dalpe and a 2nd 015 for a 3rd in 014 in return. No reason imo to reject the Anh - Van trade. I didn't say that at all. Where did you get that from? Read my post again... Not in those words, you said the deal boiled down to Brassard for Statsny, that to me means the other part of the trade was a wash. you said Dalpe was a bust and the 3rd in 014 was a better pick then the 2nd in 015, cause sooner was better then later regardless of the Rd. Like I said it's not a direct Quote, but this is the way I interpret what you said.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Nov 22, 2013 13:16:48 GMT -5
It's all too subjective. If Al thinks Brassard can be a top line guy, who's to say he's wrong. Everything is a matter of opinions, and we've all been right and wrong over the years.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Nov 22, 2013 13:57:05 GMT -5
So your saying that you would pass a trade for Dalpe and a 2nd 015 for a 3rd in 014 in return. No reason imo to reject the Anh - Van trade. I didn't say that at all. Where did you get that from? Read my post again... I actually disagree Eug... I think the league has gotten to a point where all but extremely lopsided deals are passed. I think it is bad for the league. I don't expect all trades to be even, but when trades just don't make sense we should question them. Pretty sure taht the trade vote system was designed specifically to allow all but the most obvious fleecings to pass. IMO you have to be 70-30 to have a trade rejected, and id say the voting shows the same. If we are supposed to reject every deal that we ourselves wouldnt do, there wouldnt be much point in having a 26 team league with 26 GMs. Instead we might as well have 26 teams with 1 GM deciding who should or shouldnt be traded. If everyone saw the same value in the same players we wouldnt ever have a trade. Brassard has looked pretty good at times, and hes still at .5ppg for the year. The sharp deal was massively panned and sharpie is top 10 in scoring now....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 14:08:38 GMT -5
It's all too subjective. If Al thinks Brassard can be a top line guy, who's to say he's wrong. Everything is a matter of opinions, and we've all been right and wrong over the years. This squared.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Nov 22, 2013 14:25:51 GMT -5
It's all too subjective. If Al thinks Brassard can be a top line guy, who's to say he's wrong. Everything is a matter of opinions, and we've all been right and wrong over the years. This squared. Funny - I recall when I traded Stastny to Al many thought he was washed up and stagnant. Who knows where Brassard and Stastny will be a yr or 2 from now. The trade is too close to reject. Trade's are supposed to be rejected when it's too lop-sided; not because you wouldn't make the trade in question.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Nov 22, 2013 14:41:58 GMT -5
Daaamn didn't even notice Sharp climbed to top 10 in scoring now Bu bu but i thought he's worthless! How can it be! Hey Mike, trade back?
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Nov 22, 2013 14:46:15 GMT -5
Daaamn didn't even notice Sharp climbed to top 10 in scoring now Bu bu but i thought he's worthless! How can it be! Hey Mike, trade back? LOL LMAO
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Nov 22, 2013 14:55:12 GMT -5
1) Looking at this trade individually, at best I think it is marginally passable under our current attitudes towards trading (which I am hoping to change). It is certainly passable given Shawn's extremely low criteria for what constitutes a passable trade (70/30). However, Anaheim has been on the losing end of multiple trades this season. That is my main concern and I think it should be taken into consideration. It's all too subjective. If Al thinks Brassard can be a top line guy, who's to say he's wrong. Everything is a matter of opinions, and we've all been right and wrong over the years. 2) I think we should take out as much subjectivity as we can by looking at the numbers. Stastny produces more offensively, is more consistent, and plays more in defensive situations (=better DF). If you argue, "well Brassard could become a #1 C"... fine, but please justify it beyond his status as a high draft pick 8 years ago (at some point that slack has to run out). Take into consideration the likelihood of this happening based on the information in front of you. Dalpe is 24, can't stick on an NHL roster, but has a history of AHL production. Is this any different than Ben Street? A guy I picked up for free off of the unassigned list this year (and late at that... nobody seemed to want him). The only difference is that Dalpe is a former 2nd round pick, but he looks far more likely to bust than turn into something at this point. Again, this is based on the information we have, not on "feelings". I didn't say that at all. Where did you get that from? Read my post again... I actually disagree Eug... I think the league has gotten to a point where all but extremely lopsided deals are passed. I think it is bad for the league. I don't expect all trades to be even, but when trades just don't make sense we should question them. Pretty sure taht the trade vote system was designed specifically to allow all but the most obvious fleecings to pass. IMO you have to be 70-30 to have a trade rejected, and id say the voting shows the same. If we are supposed to reject every deal that we ourselves wouldnt do, there wouldnt be much point in having a 26 team league with 26 GMs. Instead we might as well have 26 teams with 1 GM deciding who should or shouldnt be traded. If everyone saw the same value in the same players we wouldnt ever have a trade. Brassard has looked pretty good at times, and hes still at .5ppg for the year. The sharp deal was massively panned and sharpie is top 10 in scoring now.... 3) The 70-30 logic is absurd. You would pass a trade in which over one side is receiving over twice the value of the other? Would you pass a trade like this: "one 2nd for two 2nds"? (with the 2nds being all at the same part of the round). Because that would technically come in at 66-33. I'm assuming you didn't actually think about what those numbers meant. I would hope that trade would be rejected. My last point is the most important one. Given the decision making process among GMs here varies so much, I would argue that if you would not make the trade you should vote no. Why? Because we have seen that even the worst trades in our league have received about 50/50 pass/reject votes. These are trades that must be rejected for the good of the league, yet they are still receiving about 50% pass votes. The reason for this is because some GMs interpretation of what a bad trade is is very different than anothers. If everyone votes simply based on "would I make this trade?", I do not think we would see a big increase in the trades rejected, but I do think we would not have to worry about brutal trades passing anymore and some other trades that probably shouldn't pass at the very least would be close.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Nov 22, 2013 15:01:02 GMT -5
Daaamn didn't even notice Sharp climbed to top 10 in scoring now Bu bu but i thought he's worthless! How can it be! Hey Mike, trade back? Ya you were right and I was wrong about that one, but I still stand by my rejection of that deal... would you trade 2 years of Pavelski for Zucker and a 2nd? I wouldn't, especially given that in the years that Pavelski and Sharp "cancel out" one side has a lot more cap space than the other. Based on how I vote for trades now (above), that would mean I would reject it.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Nov 22, 2013 15:06:43 GMT -5
Hard to believe a Stastny for Brassard trade has caused this much discussion. Everyone has different opinions of players. I've had four or five team enquire about Brassard, so i think he has value. He was on a list of players that Al was interested in on my roster, as was Dalpe. When I owned Stastny previously, several GMs told me he wasn't that valuable and was on a steady decline. Now, all of sudden, he's Mark Messier.
I don't think the purpose of the trade voting system is to manage other GM's teams or help them make the same decisions we'd make. It's too avoid someone being taken advantage of or to stop coliusion among GMS, something that should almost be in the past in this league considering the experience of a vast majority of the GMs.
I obviously think it's a fair deal for both.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Nov 22, 2013 15:09:25 GMT -5
Trade's are supposed to be rejected when it's too lop-sided; not because you wouldn't make the trade in question. In theory that works, but I think we have seen in our league it doesn't work in practice. Even terrible trades end up being either narrowly passed or rejected. I think we should change the way we vote to "would you make the trade?". If people are not comfortable with that, I think we could make two-stage system where if a trade is rejected by voting it goes to review by a 3-6 GM committee, who make the final verdict.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Nov 22, 2013 15:14:39 GMT -5
Lets try to focus on the bigger picture discussion here, rather than on the specifics of a trade. It has already passed, I commented on the trade after it was passed on purpose because I want to talk about:
1- Voting system. I think it doesn't work well, as demonstrated by the fact that even the worst trades in our league are narrowly rejected.
2- I disagree with the purpose of the voting system as outlined by Vancouver. I think it is to maintain parity. Does it stop collusion? It makes it more difficult, but I think this is kind of like worrying about a few fake votes in Florida... it hasn't happened that I know of in 10 seasons, it isn't something I'm concerned about and I don't think it is the systems main purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 15:23:10 GMT -5
I don't think the purpose of the trade voting system is to manage other GM's teams or help them make the same decisions we'd make. It's too avoid someone being taken advantage of or to stop coliusion among GMS, something that should almost be in the past in this league considering the experience of a vast majority of the GMs. This cubed
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Nov 22, 2013 15:29:13 GMT -5
Your the only one bitchin Jake and we are not going to change the league or the way we think just to please you. Your a good guy and you give alot to the league, but at this point you are gettin carried away. Time to cool off buddy.
|
|