Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:02:55 GMT -5
Frankly I'd put that #7 overall above all those guys. I've seen lots of HF players in the top 50 bust, I don't even like HF much as a research tool as I find they give nearly everyone great scouting reports and 90% of the players on the site at 7.0 C's. The #7 overall has a very good chance to play in the NHL this year as well, if not next year. The move seems very "lateral" to me. I haven't looked up these guys coming back in detail (no time to do so), but on the surface I didn't like it. I told you on your on the block post we'd likely be more strict here to some degree and you said you understood…the fact everything you've done so far has passed without problem pretty much gives you no right to complain. We have no idea what you're gonna do in 12 months, if you ditch us (as others have done in the past), then that team is a LOT harder to sell to a new replacement GM. 'Hey, wanna take over a team of 20 year olds that has no chance to win for 4 years?!"…the answer is usually no or we find someone to watch the team for a year and bail again. Also, "take my ball and go home" speeches aren't looked upon highly either. Well I don't use HF rankings either and didn't use them in that deal. A lateral deal, if correct, is no worse so why pan it? How could you put #7 above the other 3 outright when you don't even know who #7 will be yet? What is Hanifin, Provorov go #5 and #6. Detroit has a better chance of winning in 4 years now than the team I inherited a week ago. New GMs will be more inclined to walk if they keep being preached to about what the Islanders did last year. This is a SIM and meant to be fun, right?
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 14, 2015 13:04:26 GMT -5
Maybe this is a good time to reconsider the whole trade voting piece and replace it with a probationary period for new GMs (where deals have to be approved by the Commissioner) and the ultimate power of the Commissioner (or a committee appointed by the Commissioner) to reject deals that are OBVIOUSLY not in the best interest of the league.
This practice/tradition we have of second guessing GM's decisions and long-term planning is starting to get counter productive and only creates ill-will and resentment. Knowing what type of leagues Scot comes from, I know this has come as quite a shock to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:10:34 GMT -5
I am not sure how not having the trade voting process in place would have changed much. This deal looks like it will pass, I still would have commented on it with or without a vote.
I guess we could stop talking about deals if it is causing so much of an issue but that seems like a shame. I am not sure what the big deal is with people have different opinions on players/rebuilds/retools/prospects/picks are in this league. It is much better to have them than to have everyone with one same thought and therefore little to no movement because everyone values the same players.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 14, 2015 13:15:40 GMT -5
I am not sure how not having the trade voting process in place would have changed much. This deal looks like it will pass, I still would have commented on it with or without a vote. I guess we could stop talking about deals if it is causing so much of an issue but that seems like a shame. I am not sure what the big deal is with people have different opinions on players/rebuilds/retools/prospects/picks are in this league. It is much better to have them than to have everyone with one same thought and therefore little to no movement because everyone values the same players. Have you ever heard an NHL GM comment negatively (or positively) on another GM's trade? I haven't. It's a respect thing. They know the other guy is trying to do the best with for his team, and only he knows the big picture and his master plan. Don't see the purpose, even though I admit I've done it. I certainly don't think it's an important part of the process. The league wouldn't be any less fun without it. There's no enjoyment in feeling forced to defend your deals.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Jul 14, 2015 13:18:25 GMT -5
I am not sure how not having the trade voting process in place would have changed much. This deal looks like it will pass, I still would have commented on it with or without a vote. I guess we could stop talking about deals if it is causing so much of an issue but that seems like a shame. I am not sure what the big deal is with people have different opinions on players/rebuilds/retools/prospects/picks are in this league. It is much better to have them than to have everyone with one same thought and therefore little to no movement because everyone values the same players. Well said Scott, kinda a drag if we all agreed on everything. We must be doing something right with 15 gm's having 12 yrs in the league and 9 others with at least 5yrs +.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 14, 2015 13:19:52 GMT -5
I thought it was a great deal for both teams. Each get what they want and Detroit gets to "fast track" his development a little bit. Being an Islander fan I can tell you that Pulock is the real deal! If he doesn't make the team this year I'd be very, very shocked and it would only be a matter of time before he gets called up. Not to mention he clocked a 105mph shot in prospect camp. I'd easily put him ahead of someone like "Provorov" who is probably 3-years behind the development of Pulock who is an NHL caliber player, "Provorov" who the hell knows.That leaves Theodore/Milano Vs. 1st/2nd. Who knows where Det's 1st will actually end up and Theodore/Milano aren't exactly bums. If there was issue to be raised with any of Detroit's trades I don't see how this one has caused the most commotion honestly.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Jul 14, 2015 13:21:59 GMT -5
I feel like I'm a voice crying in the wilderness, but I think we should seriously re-evaluate the value of both trade voting and having a thread devoted to commenting on other GMs trades. Just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:24:04 GMT -5
I am not sure how not having the trade voting process in place would have changed much. This deal looks like it will pass, I still would have commented on it with or without a vote. I guess we could stop talking about deals if it is causing so much of an issue but that seems like a shame. I am not sure what the big deal is with people have different opinions on players/rebuilds/retools/prospects/picks are in this league. It is much better to have them than to have everyone with one same thought and therefore little to no movement because everyone values the same players. Have you ever heard an NHL GM comment negatively (or positively) on another GM's trade? I haven't. It's a respect thing. They know the other guy is trying to do the best with for his team, and only he knows the big picture and his master plan. Don't see the purpose, even though I admit I've done it. I certainly don't think it's an important part of the process. The league wouldn't be any less fun without it. There's no enjoyment in feeling forced to defend your deals. I have yes. Burke-Lowe from a few years ago comes to mind. I also think that this league is different in that respect since a. we are the owners as well as GM's so don't have to worry about potentially having to work with that organization/those guys in the future and b. this league is about fun so public disagreements are actually a bonus to the league not a potential black eye. I definitely think that GMs comment behind other GM's backs all the time to other GM's, staff, media and friends off the record and think that is much worse for this league if guys start doing it behind other GM's backs. I also think the negative aspect of this is getting way overblown. I asked if I missed something because I don't agree with the assessment of the prospects like Scot did (and apparently Jon and Eug). I didn't ever say it was an awful trade, didn't say it shouldn't be passed, didn't question Scot's motives or ask him to be removed from the league. I simply asked (and somewhat got) an explanation for the deal. I guess we have to disagree about talking about deals and getting differing opinions being less fun. I think it is an interesting topic to hear differing opinions on players and/or team building philosophies. If other people don't want it then I am sorry and will certainly stop from doing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:25:34 GMT -5
For the record, I would never vote against a trade regardless of who is involved. It's stupid. Don't feel the need to change it on my account. Commenting publicly on deals and measuring who won is a worthless exercise, however. Not all deals are made to be won outright and having such a practice only enforces the need among GMs to feel like they have to come out the clear winner. This, in effect, leads to fewer trades because GMs are scared to be seen as losing a deal.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jul 14, 2015 13:35:32 GMT -5
This, in effect, leads to fewer trades because GMs are scared to be seen as losing a deal. I think the longer you're here you'll start to realize that's not really the case. I honestly couldn't care less what others think of my deals. I feel I have enough knowledge and do enough research to feel confident with the moves I make. I don't think there has ever been a time that I second guessed myself because of the opinions on the board, I may have second guessed for other reasons, but not for other GMs opinions. I can imagine it would get annoying and frustrating if my deals were being rejected, but your deals are passing with flying colors so the few opposing opinions shouldn't really be taken to heart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:40:52 GMT -5
For the record, I would never vote against a trade regardless of who is involved. It's stupid. Don't feel the need to change it on my account. Commenting publicly on deals and measuring who won is a worthless exercise, however. Not all deals are made to be won outright and having such a practice only enforces the need among GMs to feel like they have to come out the clear winner. This, in effect, leads to fewer trades because GMs are scared to be seen as losing a deal. As mentioned I think you are taking this a little more negatively than it should be. In this scenario I said "what am I missing?" because I didn't understand the deal from your perspective. Now I hear from You, Jon and Eug and it appears I am missing that others rate Pulock much higher than I do so fair enough the deal makes sense. I don't see a lot of negativity brought on by that. I don't see why that should stop anyone from making deals. It just made it clear where the difference of opinions (and I think I rate the top 10 in this draft higher than others) came from and why the deal was made.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jul 14, 2015 13:46:28 GMT -5
I am not sure how not having the trade voting process in place would have changed much. This deal looks like it will pass, I still would have commented on it with or without a vote. I guess we could stop talking about deals if it is causing so much of an issue but that seems like a shame. I am not sure what the big deal is with people have different opinions on players/rebuilds/retools/prospects/picks are in this league. It is much better to have them than to have everyone with one same thought and therefore little to no movement because everyone values the same players. Have you ever heard an NHL GM comment negatively (or positively) on another GM's trade? I haven't. It's a respect thing. They know the other guy is trying to do the best with for his team, and only he knows the big picture and his master plan. Don't see the purpose, even though I admit I've done it. I certainly don't think it's an important part of the process. The league wouldn't be any less fun without it. There's no enjoyment in feeling forced to defend your deals. You aren't forced to defend anything, thats a choice. Could just as easily NOT comment and let time speak for itself. As far as NOT talking about it…really? People might get annoyed about people not liking their trade, but I get really annoyed when people grab and run wild with the "victim" complex the moment they get a reject vote. If you can't handle the scrutiny of 25 other guys, maybe a league like this isn't a good place for you. Stop being butt-hurt over nothing. We're not changing all the trade rules and the voting process and everything else because of two reject votes on a deal thats going to pass anyway. Everyone throwing a fit every time a couple reject votes pop up is a HUGE reason why things like the "Crosby deal" go through, people are afraid to hold true to their opinion because of the "fear" of pissing someone off. If anything changes, I'll make the Trade Opinion thread Anonymous. That would allow people to speak their mind without being attacked by the people involved in the trade. Frankly, I, and I think the majority here WANT people to speak up when they see a problem. This is actually fairly difficult to accomplish, so I hope I don't have to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 14, 2015 13:53:16 GMT -5
I think of this as similar to the deal Nashville used to bring in the #1 pick in 2015 from Winnipeg. Did Nashville know last year when he traded for it that it would end up being #1 overall? No, but I bet he knew there was a decent chance by looking at Winnipeg's roster.... and it payed off with Connor McDavid.
At best, Calgary will get Austin Mathews out of the deal. At worst, he will likely end up with pretty similar prospects as the ones he gave up. So that is why I don't get why Detroit made the move. I liked it at first for Detroit, but when I realized what giving up their 1st rounder in 2016 may mean, I completely changed my mind.
Fun fact though... Connor McDavid was unknowingly traded twice last year... from Vancouver to Montreal for Parise, and then from Montreal to Nashville for Pacioretty.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jul 14, 2015 13:56:28 GMT -5
Ya we shouldn't get rid of this thread. It generates participation in the league. I'd rather have arguments about the merits of a trade than just silence on the boards!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 14:02:31 GMT -5
At worst, he will likely end up with pretty similar prospects as the ones he gave up. So that is why I don't get why Detroit made the move. I made the move because I'm not interested in taking 5 years to rebuild a roster that is clearly past its prime with zero chance of winning next year if I can do it in 3 years. No one, including myself, knows who the best of the 6 prospects will be in the end but I'm comfortable that the 3 I received will be top end NHL players.
|
|