|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Sept 6, 2017 17:59:22 GMT -5
Not sure why you say he's a bad 1yr ufa. and A player I don't need. Last I checked miller had a 78 OV and Crow can only make 65 starts. I don't see anyone offering a cheap back-up, and I plan on another Cup run. I'm not paying 5 mil plus for a back-up from the UFA list. That was my thinking, so I made the best offer I could without hurting my team. My prob is I really don't have much to trade this season without hurting my team. Cheap backups are a dime a dozen. You only need 17 games and maybe a couple playoffs games if you are unlucky. Just because nobody is "offering one" doesn't mean you can't find one if you use a little patience. Why do you need your backup goalie NOW?! I'd wait until FA if I were you. Where is this factory featuring dime-a-dozen cheap backups you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Sept 6, 2017 18:33:37 GMT -5
You see this is where I have serious issues with the trade voting system. Ray's reputation as a GM is unquestioned. He consistently does what he thinks is in the best interest of his team. He is, definition, the most "experienced" GM here (sorry Ray couldn't resist ). So if Ray thinks he needs a back-up goalie and is willing to sacrifice a 1st round pick in the next millennium that may or may not be valuable, I have no issue with it. And I don't understand why anyone else does. We have an experienced and proven manager doing what he thinks is best for his team. No one is being taken advantage of. There is no collusion. And the deal in no way upsets the competitive balance of the league. The trade voting system shouldn't be to decide if you would make that trade. I see trades everyday that I wouldn't make. And I'm sure I've made some that others wouldn't make. But as long as I'm acting in the best interest of my team, it shouldn't be anyone else's business. As GM, that's my only job.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Sept 7, 2017 8:56:38 GMT -5
It seems only a few cared about this trade being off, that is OK! They have right to an opinion and in this league the right to express it live or not. It passed, so I see no problem. The real problem is if a trade is way off and it is considered bad but the majority, then it can be pulled and reworked but again but only if way off (70-30 range) but I think if it gives one or other team a 60-40, it should be passed always. We do not need to change what has worked for 14 seasons because one or two trades get beat up on here. That has always been the deal. I made many trades that I wish I did not a few seasons down the road but at the time I made them and I saw that they fit my team at the time and it was a need I had at the time. I made many bad trades that many agreed were great at the time and I made many bad that many thought was bad but turned out great a few seasons away. ( Probably got beat on a lot more than not LOL)
But I too think it was an overpayment and great deal for Wings future even if it turns into a later 1st. I did not think the deal for little was great at first look until I researched and changed my mind.
It is what it is and it is what it always has been except for a season or two of experimental stuff that did not work.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Sept 7, 2017 9:27:13 GMT -5
You see this is where I have serious issues with the trade voting system. Ray's reputation as a GM is unquestioned. He consistently does what he thinks is in the best interest of his team. He is, definition, the most "experienced" GM here (sorry Ray couldn't resist ). So if Ray thinks he needs a back-up goalie and is willing to sacrifice a 1st round pick in the next millennium that may or may not be valuable, I have no issue with it. And I don't understand why anyone else does. We have an experienced and proven manager doing what he thinks is best for his team. No one is being taken advantage of. There is no collusion. And the deal in no way upsets the competitive balance of the league. The trade voting system shouldn't be to decide if you would make that trade. I see trades everyday that I wouldn't make. And I'm sure I've made some that others wouldn't make. But as long as I'm acting in the best interest of my team, it shouldn't be anyone else's business. As GM, that's my only job. But it wasn't rejected, it passed. We just discussed it, which isn't a problem at all. Sure it got some rejection votes, which is also, not a big deal. Personally, I liked that it was brought up for discussion, as it was approaching boardline, which should prompt discussion. I thank Monty for starting it up. Its not always about 1 trade and 1 team, its also about precedent. We could allow a 5th to be traded for Sidney Crosby, but what message does that send to the league? Anyway, discussion is good, there is no reason to "have issues" simply because people talked about a deal that ultimately passed.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Sept 7, 2017 9:47:09 GMT -5
I agree with Gavin, nothing wrong with a little discussion, all was polite as it should be. Just cause you didn't like it doesn't mean you rejected it. I didn't take it personal. If we find out 7yrs from now I made a big mistake so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Sept 7, 2017 12:48:30 GMT -5
Does this trade have a significant impact on competitive balance? Not even close.
Are both GMs vets and have shown competency? Most definitely.
No reason to reject this deal IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 9:21:20 GMT -5
Does this trade have a significant impact on competitive balance? Not even close. Are both GMs vets and have shown competency? Most definitely. No reason to reject this deal IMO. I agree with this whole heartedly in terms of the "smell test" the voting should be based on. I definitely don't like the deal for Philly.. but he knows what he's doing so it doesnt warrant a rejected vote.
|
|
|
Post by RedWings_Mike on Sept 9, 2017 20:48:21 GMT -5
Great trade between Sharks/Wild. I think they both received pieces that can help each other fill in what they needed!
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Sept 10, 2017 21:32:05 GMT -5
Opinion on trades of the future:
Eug just wrote the best "player ad" in JGHL history, or at least what this aging brain can recall. Whatever he gets for the Danish Fonz is well deserved!
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Sept 10, 2017 22:11:50 GMT -5
Hey guys, if a 24 and Under or RFA is involved in a trade then please let me know in the trade submission PM so I can adjust the FA page on the website.
|
|
|
Post by WHALERS_GM_AL on Sept 10, 2017 22:25:59 GMT -5
My bad Jon, forgot to mention it in my reply
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Sept 11, 2017 8:39:05 GMT -5
Just a heads up. Radulov is UFA with a 1yr contract.
|
|
|
Post by Stars GM on Sept 11, 2017 8:48:46 GMT -5
Just a heads up. Radulov is UFA with a 1yr contract. I think it's a fair deal based on salary to ratings.
|
|
|
Post by RedWings_Mike on Sept 11, 2017 8:49:46 GMT -5
I'm aware of that!
Cheap contract, weak draft class this year, and not to mention my team can be somewhat competitive this year, that's why I offered it.
The East is wide open this year in my eyes. I don't think it's necessarily veto worthy, but maybe a slight over-payment. If you guys still want to veto it I'm ok with that because I trust your judgement, but I wanted to at least explain where I was coming from!
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Sept 11, 2017 8:53:26 GMT -5
I agree it's a fair deal, but only for the reason I mentioned, otherwise I would reject it, as underpayment for Radalov
|
|