Member Since
May 29, 2015
Favourite Team
Montreal Canadiens
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: Armchair-GM14 hours ago
Forum: Armchair-GMTue at 6:43 pm
Forum: General Fantasy TalkMon at 11:47 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MisstheWhalers</b></div><div>10th overall+ for a rental?</div></div>

Lol I mean, did you even read my comment?

<em>"IMHO it really depends on if Danault is willing to negotiate an extension with the Jets now ahead of the trade. Assuming Habs let them hash out a verbal extension, Habs are asking for the 10th pick.</em>

Also why does everyone assume automatically that every player on an expiring deal is a rental? A player is only a "rental" if both parties are aware the other isn't willing to negotiate during the time they have them. Also since when is 1 full year of a player a rental? This term was only used for TDL deals when a player couldn't be traded a second time. If WPG trades for Danault now and they can't come to terms during the year, they can trade him at the TDL to recoup some value. That's not a rental.

A player is only a rental when you are guaranteed to get nothing but his services back for the current contract. WPG would have a ton of options like resigning him and if not trading him at the TDL. The team trading for him from WPG at the TDL would be trading for a rental. (I mean they could technically trade his rights but that's peanuts obviously)

Once again, most trades for big name players like this have the agent and GM negotiate the terms AHEAD of agreeing to the trade. Its in all parties best interests.

WPG wouldn't trade the 10th for Danault with out any assurances of him resigning. I meant 2021 1st WITHOUT any assurances:
"Without that extension in place, its certainly the 202<strong>1</strong> 1st+ (the rest of the + will depend on the protection of the pick)."</em>
Forum: Armchair-GMMon at 10:27 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Windjammer</b></div><div>I agree, but that's what everyone on this site hates to hear. If you say that the offer doesn't have enough quality or isn't a fit fit your team, you're unreasonable because you're getting "such value". If you explain that value doesn't mean much if it doesn't fill team needs, then it just means you're a homer.

Most people here seem to want to **** and moan about their lowball offers being rejected rather than try and see what reasonable options are out there that help both teams.</div></div>

Just a general observation:

Some posters on this site feel they need to try and convince other particular people's minds in order to validate their own thoughts...... You don't always have to. Not every GM would have done the Kapanen+ for a 2020 1st+ trade. Obviously some did. You'll never get a perfect consensus, especially on here on whether a trade is fair or not. Sometimes you got to just believe in your analysis (Assuming you've done an acceptable amount of research) and just agree to disagree. Maybe you are both right. Maybe Laine is worth the above trade and maybe Winnipeg still doesn't accept. That is also an option. Just because you offer fair value, doesn't mean someone HAS to accept it. Factors like negotiation, ownership pressure, timing, budgets, etc are all things you can't simulate on here which all play are part in making a trade truly "fair".

On the flip side, some posters feel the need to be overly conservative on their analysis's of trades for their teams players to ensure they never look like they "lose" a trade on here. I get it, I do it too sometimes but I think its important to give two perspectives. Your own because that's why your here, right?...but also what you think the real GM would do. They are from time to time not perfectly aligned. Actually they often aren't and admitting an offer is something the real GM might at the very least consider, while you'd totally be against doing is nice way to move the conversation forward without it turning into troll show.
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 7:29 pm