|
Post by AvsGM on Sept 1, 2016 14:55:12 GMT -5
I vote that we vote to get rid of the vote.
New GMs (not the ones we have now) have their trades voted on for the first month in the league until they know contracts/UFA ages, other than that if two GMs agree to a trade then the trade goes through. I have full confidence in the group we currently have and don't think anyone needs to be monitored at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Sept 1, 2016 15:01:55 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 I can understand why you made the trade... my own team has a serious lack of depth and I can see myself having to trade a star for a bunch of depth maybe as soon as this season.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Sept 1, 2016 15:11:34 GMT -5
I vote that we vote to get rid of the vote. New GMs (not the ones we have now) have their trades voted on for the first month in the league until they know contracts/UFA ages, other than that if two GMs agree to a trade then the trade goes through. I have full confidence in the group we currently have and don't think anyone needs to be monitored at this point. You have my vote, Jon. It was probably a good feature when the league was new, but it's outgrown it's usefulness. I have full confidence that all current GMs are trying to do the best for their teams.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Sept 1, 2016 15:30:30 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. That actually was my thought!
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Sept 1, 2016 16:11:09 GMT -5
I still think we should keep it. It prevents the odd catastrophic trade, although those are rare now.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Sept 1, 2016 16:25:31 GMT -5
I still think we should keep it. It prevents the odd catastrophic trade, although those are rare now. I'm also for keeping it. Keeps us honest and prevents tanking a team cuz your leavin. Most trades are passed.
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Sept 1, 2016 16:43:28 GMT -5
I'd vote to keep it. Although I find I like having a second set of eyes on my deals.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Sept 1, 2016 17:04:49 GMT -5
I'd vote to keep.
We fail what, two trades a year? Good gutcheck imo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 17:56:34 GMT -5
There are some semi questionable trades passed usually anyway, it's just a safeguard against fleeces. I think if it's a questionable trade its worth talking about/debating between us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 18:30:35 GMT -5
I don't mind keeping it. I almost always pass a trade but it does keep things in check in that rare case a trade happens that would totally gut a team. Also makes for some interesting back and forth talk on the board. Although even Jon's idea of maybe only using it on newer gms for an 'x' amount of time might work too.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Sept 1, 2016 19:04:20 GMT -5
+1 for keeping it, you never know. Gotta protect against drunk n trading
|
|
|
Post by RedWings_Mike on Sept 1, 2016 20:07:44 GMT -5
My vote would be to keep it as well.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Sept 1, 2016 20:52:42 GMT -5
I'm obviously in the minority here. The one and only thing I dislike about this great league is the trade voting system. It's totally unnecessary and just causes harsh words, bad feelings and resentment. But maybe some guys like that, I don't know. Doesn't do anything for me.
Personally, I don't want any one making decisions for my team and I certainly don't want to be involved in any decisions any of you make. I don't want anyone protecting me from getting "fleeced". If I get fleeced at this point, it's on me. Any experienced GM who gets taken or makes a bad deal only has themselves to blame, in my opinion. That's why we all spend so much time doing research on players and prospects. I think a probationary period for new GM's is a good idea, though.
I also don't think we should be making rules for everyone because of a fear that someone might trade all of their players and quit. I suppose that could happen. But a GM could still do that under the current system. I'm not sure how the trade voting system prevents that anyway.
If we do have a trade that's obviously not in the best interest of the league, I think Jon and Gavin as Commissioners have the right, power and the responsibility to step in and discuss the deal with the teams involved. That's all the protection I need.
As I say, I understand some guys look at this differently, but I honestly think that getting rid of the trade voting system would make this an even better league.
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Sept 1, 2016 21:04:22 GMT -5
Joe does have a point about protecting from tear down and runs. I mean look at my team. The system is in place and he still tore it all down and screwed off when he got all butthurt. Again I still like having the vote system in place but there are positives and negatives to both options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 21:30:45 GMT -5
My only issue with it causing harsh words and bad feelings is that it really shouldn't. I don't think anyone is saying stop this deal because GM x is an idiot or taking personal shots at anyone. I really don't think that should be an issue with the trade vote at all. I would say the biggest reason to get rid of it is that we must be at like a 99% approval rate in terms of trades so the votes seem to be pretty unnecessary at this time.
I don't really care if we keep or get rid of the system. If I remember right we did have a team (Rangers?) that was stripped pretty bad but like Detroit says his team was bare and de still came in and made a go of it, so maybe that fear isn't as big as it was in the past, I don't know I don't deal with that aspect so tough for me to make that call.
I think I have voted no less than 5 times in my time here and that may be a stretch. I agree with Joe that I don't want to tell others how to run their teams or have them tell me to run mine. I would feel fine if we left it up to Jon and Gavin to monitor trades for ones that are askew. Maybe have them ask say 5-10 veteran GMs in PM's for their opinions on the deal and go from there. That way it takes away some of the harsh feelings with people not seeing the vote as I think in that case a specific reason based could be given. But that puts a lot of pressure on Jon and Gavin and potentially all the harsh feelings directed towards them.
For the 2nd time in the thread much too long to say I think we have developed a good group here with a super high % of trades passed so maybe time to get rid of the voting system.
|
|