Jun 21, 2017
Oct 5, 1994
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MrBooth</b></div><div>I understand your frustration Kayla, tell me about it. It should be a rule without saying that <strong>once you’ve agreed to a trade, you can’t pull out/discuss another deal using involved assets. </strong>
Jonathan, I’m not sure what caused you to move Sami Niku to Tampa Bay. Whether it was forgetting about your Minnesota deal or simply “liking” your Tampa deal more, you and I have already talked about why it’s not a good move to do as such.
However, I think it’s safe to say Bolts had no bad intentions whatsoever. He didn’t even know Niku was reserved in another deal; that’s the Florida GM’s fault for not alerting Bolts of that, not Bolts’ fault. He shouldn’t be required to “be nice” as a result of another GM screwing up; while it would be a friendly gesture to the other GM getting screwed over, he is under zero obligation to do so. Leave him alone, give GMs a reminder to stop pulling out of deals whenever you can, and hopefully try to tweak the FLA/MIN deal now that it doesn’t involve Niku.
I’ve severed ties with GMs in the past. This doesn’t warrant that.
Much love, your friend,
<a href="/users/Icegirl" target="_blank">@Icegirl</a> <a href="/users/wmjoncar" target="_blank">@wmjoncar</a> <a href="/users/BoltsPoint21" target="_blank">@BoltsPoint21</a></div></div>
Once you've agreed to do a trade NOW, you shouldn't be able to back out, by rule.
If one or more parties are either unwilling or unable to make the trade immediately, it cannot be classified as an official trade and cannot be bound by rule.
Normally, you are keeping a trade off the books to get around the trade limit. I don't see why we would consider a rule to protect people using a loophole to get around a rule.
Sure. You can try to set up deals in advance. You can also choose not to deal with GMs who don't follow through with those tentative arrangements.
What you can also do, is follow the trade limit and make 4 deals per month, finalizing and making them official as you go.
If you don't like a deal enough to do it now, or are trying to save a trade in case a better deal comes along, that's basically the same thing as agreeing to hold onto certain assets but changing your mind because something better comes along.
If you're simply out of trades. You had your chances to improve your team this month, now you have to wait until the other GMs have had a chance to do the same.
One GM with 4 trades a month, should not be able to tie up 20 assets for the next 4 or 5 months. That's not fair to other GMs or good for the health of the game.
Didn't want to break any rules about using the BOE thread, so I'll drop this here:
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>
I'm not sure I follow the 2-4 , 4-2 swap meaning/significance? Is that the trade rating you mean? if that's the case then how is this trade so bad its not even up for revision like the others?
Also have to look past current circumstances only too, philly. Its too much the "Flavour of the week" around here. Its the reason us fans trade the entire team away after 10 games because their team won only one game. Reality is those players are still good and will rebound, sure they took a hit in value but smart GM's don't move those players at that time. They wait till they've rebounded because they usually do. Arizona is one of the worst teams in the league this year and on pace to even beat last years Colorado. Is Mackinnon's value so low? Players still hold value when the team around is sucking.
Duclair was a top prospect only a few years ago. Scored 20 goals as a rookie essentially and is going @ roughly 0.5 ppg at the moment so his value while is still low, is not as bad as it was last year. He's playing in a significantly worse team overall then most of the teams in the league these past 3 years. Eventually a player just needs a new start (or more accurately a better team) but still has all the talent he had previously. That doesn't just go away. Especially with a 22 year old...... Saying his value won't gain over time is totally presumptuous. You don't know that. He could be traded IRL to a playoff team where his confidence could rebound easily, and what then? Similar to saying Steel is a slam dunk guaranteed superstar stud...... remember Ryan Strome. Michael Dal Colle. Sam Bennett. etc. What if ten years down the line, Steel doesn't pan out as a super stud everyone thinks he does (but still is a decent NHL'er at least) and Duclair is traded to MTL IRL for example where he is given better minutes next to Drouin and Lehkonen for a full season and produces a moderate 20+20? All of a sudden I'm looking pretty bad. Can i get a trade reverted then? Oh no, that's true, you risk taking a prospect with no NHL experience at face value when he doesn't pan out but right now you have to overpay for him? Prospects are still prospects at the end of the day. Only a select few (Matthews, Laine, etc) get that automatic level of value.
I get it, I like Steel too obviously and hope he can translate those numbers in junior to the NHL but realistically what are the odds he becomes a pt/g player in the NHL or even close to it? You'd be quick to check that most picks DON'T reach their potential. Scoring in juniors means nothing. He is a 19 year old dangling against 15-16-17-18 year old youngsters still looking to get laid for the 1st time........ Im sorry but at that age and against that competition, a player can easily attain silly numbers. There are plenty of examples that can be made (Sam Gagner comes to mind). If you're telling me to look at his point totals and say "look at how many points he scored last year 131!" then don't tell me not to point to Duclair's 44 points in his rookie season in the NHL only 2 years ago or OEL's 21 Gs - 55 pts two years ago or his 39 points last year which is widely considered as a really down season for him. Which funny enough is the same output Fowler had last year and everyone is raving about the superstar he is now...... The same guy that is considered the #1 in Anaheim ahead of Lindholm.
As for OEL vs Lindholm, this debate will definitely be split down the middle. Its quite apparent its an analytics vs everyone else type mentality. I personally think some ppl exaggerate Lindholms defensive game then by that same token they downplay OEL's offensive game. I don't think that's fair especially when attempting to remain unbiased in the situation. Both are close in age yet one has accomplished a lot more in notoriety with a much worse team over the years. Its really unfortunate playing in Arizona is taking away from a player's value in fans eyes when people within the NHL themselves state OEL is one of the best dmen in the game...... Oh and in his prime to boot........... "Oh he'll get a huge raise in free agency so his value is less as a result" ??? So if he gets 10M because he is a stud top pairing dman on any team that's a negative but if he gets 6.5-7M, "See he's only as good as Yandle or Shattenkirk"........... This logic is flawed.......
The value of the 1st round pick is a little muggy for me also. We honestly have no way of knowing where that pick will end up. At least IRL we can get a somewhat grasp of where teams will finish and then the lottery might move a couple teams as it did this past year but your proposal seems to make me think it could be all over the place within the lottery picks. Also what happens if the GM of that pick then goes on to make two absolutely great deals afterwards that move him up the power rankings? Now that pick doesn't seem so low after all.....
I think first of all, not being able to explain why this move is valid is unfair (Or at the very least revise-worthy). Frankly I opened a debate for this in the NHL thread and have yet to be given ample evidence that OEL is not a more valuable player than Lindholm straight up. Secondly, you are looking at much of the Anaheim pieces in the best possible light. Guess what, Duchene with two years left on his contract at 6M before becoming UFA, after having his worst season of his career, after having a decent but not very good start to this year, was traded for:
Shane Bowers (1st round pick)
Andrew Hammond (Cheapish cap dump)
Samuel Girard (2nd round pick)
Vladislav Kamenev (2nd round pick)
2018 1st round pick (OTT)
2018 2nd round pick (NSH)
2019 3rd round pick (OTT)
Let that sink in for a bit and tell me how my offer is so unbelievably way off ......... wjncar and I can revise the deal if needed but the frame work for the deal is there and is valid.</div></div>
Just want to say, that was an entertaining read Marco. I think you make a decent case for the deal to be slightly revised, not laughed off the face of the earth. You are right to say that no one made a convincing argument in the discussion thread that OEL is < Lindholm. The biggest issue for me (just an innocent bystander with no power here) is the add-ons - even though you contend that Duclair and Steel have very unknown futures, I think the best approach would be to remove the picks from the deal. Just my $0.02, but I would hate for the 2018 1st overall (a strong possibility, given ANA track record, no offense) to be awarded in a controversial trade...