|
Post by Hawks on Mar 28, 2017 9:11:49 GMT -5
Silverberg is NOT the kinda player you trade away to rebuild, he's the kinda player you HOLD to rebuild.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 9:22:18 GMT -5
Maybe 50 points as a 25 year old who has played 5 seasons is not impressive whatsoever but if that's the criteria for who you hold to rebuild, I also have Bjugstad, Duchene, Hall, Eberle, Nyquist, Hayes, Strome, Vesey. Losing 1 isn't going to ruin my team but you clearly know the future of how all these players will pan out and also of me as a person so I guess I lose the trade.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 28, 2017 9:27:59 GMT -5
Maybe 50 points as a 25 year old who has played 5 seasons is not impressive whatsoever but if that's the criteria for who you hold to rebuild, I also have Bjugstad, Duchene, Hall, Eberle, Nyquist, Hayes, Strome, Vesey. Losing 1 isn't going to ruin my team but you clearly know the future of how all these players will pan out and also of me as a person so I guess I lose the trade. Right, so because you have a bunch of good players that could improve you should definitely throw one away one some NCAA kid that will probably turn out JUST LIKE Silfverberg...( www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=117132) who had 54 points in 49 GP in SEL his last year, which is stronger competition than NCAA by a LOT...and you are already giving up on him. If a PPG SEL player comes into the NHL and takes 5 years to develop into a player you think is bad....what makes you think Greenway is gonna light it up? By all means, trade him away for what amounts to pennies because you have a surplus, best reason I've heard for wasting a really good player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 9:50:19 GMT -5
Comparing the two of them side by side is almost impossible, they play entirely different styles. It is virtually impossible for them to be the same player. Compare Daniel Alfredsson and Todd Bertuzzi and you'll get different answers from everyone and no one will ever say that they are the same. I think Greenway will be better because the NCAA plays more of a NHL style game and Greenway will be much more prepared. Show me a player who played 4 seasons in the SEL at less than a PPG then took 5 years in the NHL to come even close to 50 points that ever had a more successful career than an NCAA player.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Mar 28, 2017 10:02:10 GMT -5
There is another element here, I'd like to see high prices for stacked teams. There is a Cup War going on here, hell some of my closet competitors, won't trade with me, if it improves my team. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 28, 2017 10:06:14 GMT -5
Comparing the two of them side by side is almost impossible, they play entirely different styles. It is virtually impossible for them to be the same player. Compare Daniel Alfredsson and Todd Bertuzzi and you'll get different answers from everyone and no one will ever say that they are the same. I think Greenway will be better because the NCAA plays more of a NHL style game and Greenway will be much more prepared. Show me a player who played 4 seasons in the SEL at less than a PPG then took 5 years in the NHL to come even close to 50 points that ever had a more successful career than an NCAA player. "Style" is not particularly relevant in a simulation league, all that matters is their numbers at the end of a season. If Todd was able to score 35 goals a year, he'd be rated with a high SC rating, regardless of anything else about him. However Danial and Todd did NOT achieve the same point totals. Simply PLAYING in the NHL with semi-decent numbers is worth 3 "Greenways" since players like him are a dime a dozen, in fact, PPG at NCAA isn't even that great, the REALLY great players at that level are closer to 2 PPG in 30 games played, not 1 PPG. We've been doing this for awhile, I've seen "Greenway' style players come and go and come and go, about 30% of the time they work out into something decent, ON PAR with who you are ALREADY TRADING away. You could also frame your trade like this: 2nd 2009 FOR 2nd 2018 2nd 2015 All I see if you setting yourself back around 6-9 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 10:08:59 GMT -5
I don't think the trade is terrible at all. That seems to be blowing it out of proportion a bit.
I passed it because (as I have mentioned multiple times before I think 90% of deals should be passed) I can't see how this makes the team a lot worse or unattractive. I can't see a potential GM coming in and saying "What Silvferberg isn't there, no thanks to that team." And the 2nd and Greenway do have a lot of potential.
I am not a big fan of Greenway but I know a lot of people are so I will give Buffalo the benefit of the doubt there. That said I am not a big fan of Silvferberg either, but I think the fact that he is buttery soft is mitigated in the sim a lot more than it is in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 28, 2017 10:10:10 GMT -5
There is another element here, I'd like to see high prices for stacked teams. There is a Cup War going on here, hell some of my closet competitors, won't trade with me, if it improves my team. LOL Yes, drastically altering the dynamic of the playoffs with a questionable trade, in my oh so humble opinion (ha), is damaging to the integrity of the league. It certainly ruins the fun when 1 guy gets a ridiculous trade in his favor (here it happens to be Jake) that nobody else would ever be able to get near. I'd say at least 80% of the GMs in the league would NEVER make that deal if it was offered to them...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 10:22:55 GMT -5
We dp we have a voting system if we get to review the voting afterwards? This trade passed!!! Agree or disagree on its fairness but enough members voted to pass it there should be no more discussion There 100% should be a discussion. I think there should be a discussion anytime someone votes no but realize that will never be the case. The discussion of a trade does a lot of good and there should be more of it. 1. If there is no discussion the anger that some feel will still be there but instead of expressed and discussed it will be held in and possible resentment built up from some sides. Now this still is possible with the discussion but I think having people express their reasons for liking/disliking/making a trade allows for more understanding on why a deal was made. 2. There have been many trades that have been close where I was unsure which sides the no votes were for. Now I am far from a trading genius but I have been here from the start so I think I have a decent understanding of the league so I those deals I would love to see the reasoning from the No votes to see what I am missing (or more likely how closeless everyone else is). There have also been cases I am pretty sure where it has come out that there were no votes on both sides of the deal! Again more explanations around the deals help people understand the reasons for the trades which I see as a positive. 3. It helps people understand why the trade failed and perhaps how they can rework the deal or rework future deals.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Mar 28, 2017 10:25:41 GMT -5
My hat goes off to Chris and Jake. They both should sell used cars. LOL They could retire here in FLA with me. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 10:26:23 GMT -5
Yes, drastically altering the dynamic of the playoffs with a questionable trade, in my oh so humble opinion (ha), is damaging to the integrity of the league. It certainly ruins the fun when 1 guy gets a ridiculous trade in his favor (here it happens to be Jake) that nobody else would ever be able to get near. I'd say at least 80% of the GMs in the league would NEVER make that deal if it was offered to them... I think your point might have a little more weight behind it if it weren't for the over the top hyberbole. Hard to support your view when I have to read things like "trade him away for pennies", "ridiculous trade", "waste Silveferberg", "drastically altering the play-offs" None of those things are true. You are obvisouly very pissed at the deal but that doesn't mean we need to overstate things.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Mar 28, 2017 10:28:34 GMT -5
We dp we have a voting system if we get to review the voting afterwards? This trade passed!!! Agree or disagree on its fairness but enough members voted to pass it there should be no more discussion There 100% should be a discussion. I think there should be a discussion anytime someone votes no but realize that will never be the case. The discussion of a trade does a lot of good and there should be more of it. 1. If there is no discussion the anger that some feel will still be there but instead of expressed and discussed it will be held in and possible resentment built up from some sides. Now this still is possible with the discussion but I think having people express their reasons for liking/disliking/making a trade allows for more understanding on why a deal was made. 2. There have been many trades that have been close where I was unsure which sides the no votes were for. Now I am far from a trading genius but I have been here from the start so I think I have a decent understanding of the league so I those deals I would love to see the reasoning from the No votes to see what I am missing (or more likely how closeless everyone else is). There have also been cases I am pretty sure where it has come out that there were no votes on both sides of the deal! Again more explanations around the deals help people understand the reasons for the trades which I see as a positive. 3. It helps people understand why the trade failed and perhaps how they can rework the deal or rework future deals. Well said Scott!! Diplomacy also is a good practice, so as not to bruise any ego's.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 28, 2017 10:36:02 GMT -5
Yes, drastically altering the dynamic of the playoffs with a questionable trade, in my oh so humble opinion (ha), is damaging to the integrity of the league. It certainly ruins the fun when 1 guy gets a ridiculous trade in his favor (here it happens to be Jake) that nobody else would ever be able to get near. I'd say at least 80% of the GMs in the league would NEVER make that deal if it was offered to them... I think your point might have a little more weight behind it if it weren't for the over the top hyberbole. Hard to support your view when I have to read things like "trade him away for pennies", "ridiculous trade", "waste Silveferberg", "drastically altering the play-offs" None of those things are true. You are obvisouly very pissed at the deal but that doesn't mean we need to overstate things. Yes, all those things are true. I do get upset at really bad deals going through without anyone giving a shit about the leagues balance or integrity though. Why should anyone put forth any effort when obviously 1-sided deals are passed through? Its certainly kills my interest. And lets be clear, I don't care WHO is getting the crazy end of the deal (although influencing the playoffs in a major way is obviously a bigger deal), I hate the deals themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 10:54:05 GMT -5
Gavin I appreciate the passion and certainly prefer that to people just clicking Yes on deal without thinking or even looking at it. I just wanted to dial back the anger towards it because while I do agree it is a deal to look at it wasn't quite as severe as being presented.
Keep posting those opinions and speaking out against deals you don't like as I do believe it only helps the league for us to evaluate things, moreso if done in a bit of a less worked up state!!
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 28, 2017 10:57:13 GMT -5
Gavin I appreciate the passion and certainly prefer that to people just clicking Yes on deal without thinking or even looking at it. I just wanted to dial back the anger towards it because while I do agree it is a deal to look at it wasn't quite as severe as being presented. Keep posting those opinions and speaking out against deals you don't like as I do believe it only helps the league for us to evaluate things, moreso if done in a bit of a less worked up state!! I'm really not THAT angry. I thought my first post bringing it up was very calm and diplomatic. Once the debate begins, I get more heated.
|
|