An open letter to BRHL2

GarrettLeafs · Senior Member

An open letter to BRHL2

Sens · Guru

Not sure why this was made public, and asking GM's if you should quit the league or not. I mean really if you want to quit quit, if you don't try to fix the trade or move on, whats the big deal?

As for the players really did you give up anything that great? I guess its quantity over quality, and ya I know Turris WAS a top 3 pick, so what would anyone move a top 15 pick for him at this point, I sure as hell wouldn't, in fact I would be hard pressed to move a late first and even then I would have to think about it. Could that change sure, but right now his value is low, just like if I trade to move Hodgson, right now his value is low, could that change sure, but that doesn't change the fact he doesnt hold the same value he did when he was drafted.

GarrettLeafs · Senior Member

The reason this was made public is because you and the rest of the BOD didn't even have the decency to mention the deal was even under review. Your evaluation of players is completely off. Are you telling me that no team in the top 15 last year or this year would trade that pick for Turris? Are you high? And you're on the Board? Give me a break.

Anaheim GM · Guru

I am not sure why this deal was rejected. On the face of things it seems pretty fair to me. Is Keith not a UFA after his current 3-year deal is up?

I can clearly understand how the Malkin deal was rejected. In fact, I argued strongly that it should have been overturned. For this one though, I am scratching my head...

Rob
Ducks GM

Sens · Guru

GarrettLeafs wrote:

The reason this was made public is because you and the rest of the BOD didn't even have the decency to mention the deal was even under review. Your evaluation of players is completely off. Are you telling me that no team in the top 15 last year or this year would trade that pick for Turris? Are you high? And you're on the Board? Give me a break.

Very mature Garrett, for one you have no idea what was said between me and Bryce, I said I didn't think it was a good trade, but to talk to Colorado and it would depend on his reasons. I get asked my opinion thats all, what Bryce decides and who he talks to isn't up to me, why you couldn't of dealt with him directly and why you feel the need to attack me on ICQ is beyond me.

HOTLANTA · Guru

... for a few years and having had 4-5 deals rejected like this i know how frustrating it is gareth but i would suggest you not go to harsh terms and quit the league..

do i think something needs changed sure.. right now the current system is if any g.m has a "issue" with a trade they can email the commish a complaint and it gets reviewed.. i think this is a insane practice personally as people hold grudge's and email complaints to league based off personal reasons or not being able to offer on a player themself before he was dealt... i think its a top top league with top g.m's in it.. if you miss out on a played its your own fault.. would 28 other teams loved to try to trade for joe thornton NHL sure.. did they get the chance? no.. so should other teams in NHL have sent betman a email stating reasons why marco sturm and brad stuart wouldnt be fair value? no its kinda comical to meeeee in my opinion (which i am aloud to have) that this is what can happen brhl2..

if your good enough to be in the league and put your money on the line, you shouldnt get trades nixed by people who value certain players differently than you.. does anyone think Doughty for E.Karlsson, T.Ennis, A.Gustaffson would pass through a trade board? no its a deal made based of each g.m's value of draft picks..

so in short i dont think any deal agreed upon by g.m's should be reviewed were all big boys..

Sabres_Luke · Guru

Anaheim GM wrote:

I am not sure why this deal was rejected. On the face of things it seems pretty fair to me. Is Keith not a UFA after his current 3-year deal is up?

I can clearly understand how the Malkin deal was rejected. In fact, I argued strongly that it should have been overturned. For this one though, I am scratching my head...

Rob
Ducks GM

Diddo. I hate to devalue a player that is now back on John's roster, but Keith is a 3 year and out player who is coming off the best year of his life. If this deal was made last offseason it would have been vetoed the other way around. Keith was no doubt one of the best dmen in the league last year but when you take into consideration the fact that 1) he's only done it once 2) He will be a ufa in 3 years 3) Keith has outstanding ratings for an offensive dmen, but he doesn't have the pronger/chara dominating ratings that can push a team over the top 4) Garrett gave up a PPG AHLer who was a top 5 NHL pick, and 4 other good parts who will be a on a roster for many years, I can't see how this was rejected.

Garrett may have won by a small to medium margin depending on your opinion on him, but in a pay league I think the main trades that need to be reviewed are the ones that jeopordize a franchises' longevity- I don't think this is the case here.

Would I have gone about it the same way, probably not, but I can understand a GM putting in hundreds of hours into something only to have an important trade rejected in the way it was, being very frustrated.

I believe both Hansfords are an integral part of the league- even if they are shrew'd negotiators. :)

Luke
Buffalo GM.

Calgary GM · Senior Member

I guess I may as well chime in here too. In my opinion, I don't think this trade should have been vetoed. I wouldn't say it's a great deal for Colorado but it all depends on how he values prospects like Turris, Summers, Della Rovere and who he gets with the late 2nd. Morrisonn is a capable defenseman but he'll be nothing more than a defensive dman who'll put up about 15 points a year. Personally, I think Turris still has quite a bit of value and can still be considered a top prospect. I still think he could have gotten a little more quality (rather than quantity) when it comes to Summers, Della Rovere and a late 2nd but, perhaps, he prefers to take a chance and gather some assets instead of going with more of a sure thing (and a better quality prospect or pick or combo of each). And, again, it's my opinion but I'm not particularly high on Summers and Della Rovere and it depends who is picked with the 2nd rounder. I think John is a quality drafter so he'll probably end up with a good prospect with the 2nd.

Sorry, seems a bit long winded but, all in all, I don't think this trade is veto worthy. But, I'm a nobody here so my opinion isn't important smile

BluesGM · Guru

HOTLANTA wrote:

... for a few years and having had 4-5 deals rejected like this i know how frustrating it is gareth but i would suggest you not go to harsh terms and quit the league..

too late, i already did biggrin

As an unbiased observer, I can see both sides of the argument... on first glance, you see the pieces like Turris and all and think there is some quality there.... but on further inspection, you do think it becomes a quantity for quality trade...

Morrisonn is a shutdown defenseman, he has almost no offensive upside, this guy has 12 points on the most offensive team in the NHL, so he's not going to develop into a two-way dman.... And a guy like Morrisonn is easy to find than a puckmoving dman....

Della Rovere is a solid prospect, but his role is pretty much determined... if he develops some scoring potential, he might be a 3rd liner but a 4th line energy player is pretty much his ceiling with Hockeys Future declaring "Della Rovere will score goals, but he's best known for his chippy, bordering on dirty, play. At the NHL level, he'd likely be a fourth-liner."

Chris Summers was selected in 2006 and only posted 16 points in 40 games as a senior with Michigan, not really dominating there.... he may be a first round pick, but he hasn't showed why so I would disagree with you that Summers is a "quality D prospect who will be a top 3 defender in future".... especially since he most likely will result into another stay-at-home defender...

Kyle Turris has to be the centerpiece of this deal, but even he hasn't been living up to his 3rd overall selection hype.... However, I think he can definitely recover, I just think he needs a bit more time developing his defensive game before he can make an impact in the NHL.... I think that Turris can be a top 6 forward, but he's still a few more years away....

When you compare that to Duncan Keith, probably the best defenseman in the league when taking into account stats, ratings and contract situation... It just feels like a quantity for quality deal.... do I think there is value here? yes, do I think it's enough? not really.... do i think it was veto-worthy? coin-flip

-- Edited by BluesGM on Sunday 8th of August 2010 01:41:23 PM

Rumpy · Senior Member

I agree with everything Luke said!

Kirk your Malkin deal was a load of crap and every GM in this league has listened to your trade offers and you brag up your 980 ****ty prospects and somehow turn them into gold....which is why you are the defending champ. But in a pay league where we haven't paid 5 or 10 yrs in advance deals like the Malkin one are not in the best interest for the league to let go through. You'll end up with another NYI or EDM team with nothing left and the best players on ATL BUF or CHI because you have the assets to give up 100 pennies for a loonie.

This Toronto deal isn't even close to being in the same category and I'm suprised it was rejected.

John actually asked me my opinion of a couple trade offers he had on the table and I confidently told him that I liked the Toronto offer the best!

Keith albiet a good player isn't sim dominant. I know lots of teams had out offers myself included and I wasn't willing to pay the price Garrett did to get Keith.

After reading Gareth's post i do agree that it is quantity for quality and there are no sure things going back Colorado's way which is something you'd prefer to see in a franchise player deal.

On a side note if Colorado even thought about trading it's first round pick for the season 6 draft after making these deals there should be a serious look into what he really plans on doing with these trades and team.....Sorry John

-- Edited by Rumpy on Sunday 8th of August 2010 01:55:47 PM

-- Edited by Rumpy on Sunday 8th of August 2010 01:57:30 PM

HOTLANTA · Guru

the thing that sucks is now that its finished, and other major deals have just had similar "overturned" by the league,,, its over and finished with will have to up your offer or go in another route to find a dman..

and rumpy on the malkin deal do i feel i win? yeh obviously for my team i think i win.. do i think its a deal that needed to be reviewed in anyway no.. okposo is a kid with unlimited potential and has alot of the same quality's jarome iginla did at same age.. Byfuglien just dominated in the playoffs and will finally be given a full chance to become a top end PF. players like bertuzzi-franzen etc POWERFORWARDS take longer to develop.. Stepan is a WJC MVP and top top prospect as rated by thn.. geoffrion is kid who had great ncaa season and also was moving 2nd ov in the 3rd round which is a quality draft pick with good drafting..

again were big boys who are paying cash i dont think their is a need for other g.ms to email complaints and have trades reviewed..

IMO bryce is a smart commish (pains me to say) and if he deems a deal to be unfair he'd turn it down.. if its a judgement call on what players potential is going to be then i think its between the two teams trading

jdevils3 · Veteran Member

Rumpy wrote:

On a side note if Colorado even thought about trading it's first round pick for the season 6 draft after making these deals there should be a serious look into what he really plans on doing with these trades and team.....Sorry John

-- Edited by Rumpy on Sunday 8th of August 2010 01:55:47 PM

-- Edited by Rumpy on Sunday 8th of August 2010 01:57:30 PM

Wait a second... I'm confused, who am I dealing my 1st round pick to?!!!

Oh, ok. After re-reading that post I think you meant in the future... as in, if I was stupid enough to do so, got it.

Do I get compensated if Turris becomes a number 1 center for the next decade?? :)

It does seem a bit odd that the league is willing to give up on a 20 year old who was a consensus top 5 pick just a few short years ago, but C'est la vie...

OK, Keith saga over. Sorry Garrett. Message received, think shorter term.

-- Edited by jdevils3 on Sunday 8th of August 2010 03:05:40 PM

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

OK not overly thrilled with alot of things on this.

1. The notification of GMs
- Ive not been around, and I was the one to initiate a review on this (though several GMs asked me about it). The reason no email was sent is I have not been at home on my cpu. I hit decline on the trade board through my phone so that GMs would know that there was an issue.

2. The purpose of a review commitee in a cash league is to ensure the longterm viability of all franchises. Do I hate review commitees? Yes, has it been necessary? The argument can be made. Do we have an alternate way? Short of me being the defacto decision maker, probably not, if you'd rather that I be the judge & jury, then I'm open to that, though it would just result in a GM being pissed off first time it happens.

3. The deal, rather than go through every asset, because my personal evaluation of players differs very much so from others. If the team can rework it to maybe give a futures where if Turris doesnt score 60 points by 2012 Toronto sends an additional 2nd round pick to Colorado, or something along those lines.

4. Let me clarify this does not necessarily pertain to this deal, BUT I do not appreciate the if this happens I will leave ultimatum. If you really believe that I (or Eric) are out to get you or are screwing you over, then leave, fine. The I have spent hours on my team argument really holds no weight, as we have put in hours on this LEAGUE, which is our concern, people who are consulted on trades are others that I know take the same mindset when reviewing a deal.

5. One thing other thing I want very clear, is personal attacks on others who may or may not be involved are ridiculous, and unacceptable.

Bottom line is, the decision is upheld, I will not cave on something that was diplomaticly discussed, and overturn it. Please rework slightly and resubmit. If that is unacceptable and parties decide to leave, let me know I will have replacement GMs in shortly.

Rumpy · Senior Member

BryceBruins wrote:

5. One thing other thing I want very clear, is personal attacks on others who may or may not be involved are ridiculous, and unacceptable.

So Kirk's players are good ?

GarrettLeafs · Senior Member

I've sent a new proposal to COL, perhaps we can resolve this and end this thread.