Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 16:33:32 GMT -5
I'm late to the party. What'd I miss? Was my standing yes vote counted in the tally?
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 7, 2014 17:36:32 GMT -5
I am thinking the trade should have played out and either been rejected or passed and only be pulled if both GM's agreed. That was indeed the case, we agreed to pull it before it played out. Yeah - I agreed to pull it too - too much respect for ole Ray not to! We all make decisions on the fly that we regret. C'est la vie. As you were, lads.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 7, 2014 22:06:48 GMT -5
I thought the deal was a significant overpayment as well, largely due to Semins decline and CARs gm getting fired after resigning him......
Looks like it doesnt matter now, but still thought id chime in.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 7, 2014 22:31:46 GMT -5
I thought the deal was a significant overpayment as well, largely due to Semins decline and CARs gm getting fired after resigning him...... Looks like it doesn't matter now, but still thought id chime in. Have to correct ya there, Monty, with all due respect... Semin: He's a year removed from being a PPG player and still just 30 yo - to say he's on the decline is a stretch. I know he is what he is, of course, but he had an injury-plagued this yr (offseason wrist surgery, but will be ready for camp) - enigmatic, undoubtedly - supremely talented with one of the best releases in the league though. THN sums him up nicely, the good and the bad. "Assets: Owns one of the best shots in the NHL. Has the creativity, offensive wizardry, explosiveness and soft hands of a supreme goal-scorer. Is lethal one-on-one and can break a game open at any time. Flaws: Could use more muscle on his 6-2 frame, since he can struggle in physical contests. An unpredictable sort, he needs to better utilize his linemates and work on his defense. Is somewhat injury-prone and moody." Anyway, to say Canes GM got fired for signing Semin is totally misrepresenting the situation. Rutherford stepped down in April from Canes GM position, making way for Ron Francis. He was still in advisory role with Canes when Pens signed him away from the Canes to be there GM. Wouldn't have been my choice for Pens GM, but there it is...
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Aug 7, 2014 22:36:55 GMT -5
I am thinking the trade should have played out and either been rejected or passed and only be pulled if both GM's agreed, one or two comments against has not always ruin the trade........there should be a silent time when a trade is put up and let the democratic process take shape good or bad.......opinions should be saved for after trade is voted on and either passed or rejected. Maybe have Jon and Gavin look at a trade and post a commissioners thought if trade is way to crazy or a newby is involved....Just a thought! Either way, I could care less, I will go back and make the trade happen! I'm now ok with this deal not going through. But it does bring up a point that has been raised several times in the past. If we are going to have a trade voting process as is, like Ron I think there should be a period of silence such that GMs decide themselves whether or not they vote yay or nay. Like Ron said, Jon and Gavin can step in if they think something amiss or a new GM involved.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 7, 2014 23:18:09 GMT -5
I disagree that there should be a period of silence. So many people just blindly vote or don't look at the trade.
Like, I've seen opinions on trades when people gave reject votes and totally disagreed. The isles deal comes to mind. I don't see an issue with people expressing their opinions.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 8, 2014 6:14:08 GMT -5
I disagree with some GM's perspective on trade voting. To me we shouldn't be in the business of telling people how to run their organizations or preventing them from making mistakes. We all make mistakes. Just look back on your trade history and if there's an experienced GM here who can honestly say there are no deals where your first reaction is "I wish I had that one back", then the first round is on me when Jon holds our long awaited JGHL meet and greet.
If there is a purpose to trade voting (and that's a big if in my mind), it should be to stop deals that 1) indicate colussion 2) are obvious examples of one GM being taken advantage of by another or 3) unfairly affect the competitive balance of the league.
The fact that it's not a deal you'd do or you think one GM didn't do as well as he should have, isn't sufficient reason, in my mind, to reject a deal. Everyone manages there own way and unless you know the GMs long term plan, it's impossible in 99.9%% of cases to determine if it's a good deal or not. Everyone evaluates and values players, picks and prospects differently.
Personally I think as a 12-year old league with mostly veteran GMs, we've outgrown the need for trade voting. Since I've joined all it's caused are hurt feelings, bickering and resentment. Of the few deals that have been rejected, none would have led to the destruction of the league and most were re-worked by throwing in an extra second-round pick and approved later.
All I think we need is a probationary period for new GMs of say a year, where Jon and Gavin or a trade committee of some kind review trades before finalizing them. Once the probationary period has passed, or the new GM demonstrates he knows what he's doing, his trades would go through automatically like everyone elses.
LIke in reall-life, Jon, as Commissioner, or a trade committee if Jon didn't feel he wanted the extra responsibilty, would retain the right to veto trades that were OBVIOUSLY not in the best interest of the league. That would be in very, very, very extreme cases, where the integrity of the league was in jeopardy.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view, but I'd be interested in hearing other peoples views.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Aug 8, 2014 8:56:49 GMT -5
I disagree that there should be a period of silence. So many people just blindly vote or don't look at the trade. Like, I've seen opinions on trades when people gave reject votes and totally disagreed. The isles deal comes to mind. I don't see an issue with people expressing their opinions. Curious if the NHL organizations put out trades so that other organizations can discuss it. Heck I forgot, they don't need a vote! My bad! LOL
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Aug 8, 2014 9:00:27 GMT -5
I thought the deal was a significant overpayment as well, largely due to Semins decline and CARs gm getting fired after resigning him...... Looks like it doesnt matter now, but still thought id chime in. Rutherford got fired because he did nothing for year on making team better, recycled coaches and most of all only one playoff ( a cup win though in strike shorten season) and no playoffs in 5 seasons....... he just was not good at evaluating players....But Semin is one of those but he had a lot of bad signings........watch what he does to Pitt. if bosses let him. he will be run out of there a lot quicker then here in NC.....
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Aug 8, 2014 9:14:42 GMT -5
In a perfect world I would agree with you Joe, but a very skewed trade could affect the parity of the league, which speaks to your point about keeping the competitive balance. Every trade sets a precedent. How many times have you talked trade with someone and heard "Well player X went for ____ the other week, so I'm asking for ____". Trades set precedents, and the market for future trades. Which is why we have to be careful on what we let go by and where we should intervene.
Not to make everything about Semin, but if that trade passed, what do you think others would start asking for higher end players on their last deals? 5 late 1sts? That's why we should maintain some sanity when it comes to price tags, and returns. I think the system is fine the way it is.
As for silent period, I also think there should be none. I understand how it affects the vote process, but I would still encourage everyone to form their own opinions and not let a few comments to make their decision for them. If you disagree with a comment and think the trade should pass, offer your opinion in the thread. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. That's the entire point of that thread. We should encourage an open forum, not censor people's opinions, regardless of how it affects the trade parties.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Aug 8, 2014 9:37:36 GMT -5
But then again, the opinions are usually opinions of 5 to 8 GMs as most do not post opinions......I myself could care less about most opinions as they are just that. I will do what I think is best for my team whether someone likes it or not, because the most important opinion is MINE! If it gets voted down I will go back with other GM in deal, and add a bowl of crap or remove a bowl of crap just to get it passed, because if you look back at deal, most voted down were adjusted just a small bit and GMs voted it through because in the grand scheme of it all, most could care less if an other GM screws himself. but really it is about the better teams getting better on back of others and that is not liked by those who are also top team.
OK, enough for me as this damn horse is dead!
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Aug 8, 2014 9:44:15 GMT -5
Ron I love you buddy, but don't ever run for public office. LOL
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Aug 8, 2014 10:10:00 GMT -5
Ron I love you buddy, but don't ever run for public office. LOL LOL, Yeah I was asked why I would not and I said because I would not last long. Probably would not play their BS political games...... Plus a hell of a lot of Skeletons in my many closets!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 11:29:41 GMT -5
I have made my opinion of trade votes known in the past so I won't go over the whole thing, but I think there definitely should be talk about a trade during the voting as it may raise issues that others haven't considered and as I have said before I think it should be an absolute requirement to justify your no vote or it gets removed.
I think trades are so rarely voted down (hard to believe Chris has had double digit rejected since I can't remember 10 trades being rejected in my whole time here but trust that Chris isn't lying) that when something happens it tends to get way overblown.
I missed it but wasn't this deal being passed at the time it was pulled?
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 8, 2014 12:36:26 GMT -5
I have made my opinion of trade votes known in the past so I won't go over the whole thing, but I think there definitely should be talk about a trade during the voting as it may raise issues that others haven't considered and as I have said before I think it should be an absolute requirement to justify your no vote or it gets removed. I think trades are so rarely voted down (hard to believe Chris has had double digit rejected since I can't remember 10 trades being rejected in my whole time here but trust that Chris isn't lying) that when something happens it tends to get way overblown. I missed it but wasn't this deal being passed at the time it was pulled? I second scotts opinions here
|
|