Official Trades

NYRGM · Senior Member

RE: Official Trades

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Pittsburgh GM wrote:

We all try to get the better of a deal. I think it is our respoinsibility as GMs though to make the deals as fair as possible, for the good of the league.

No, it really isn't our responsibility as GMs to make the deals as fair as possible. It's my responsibility as a GM to make the best deal that I can for MY team. Just as it's every other GMs responsibility to make the best deal that they can for THEIR team. Am I going to say to someone that makes me an offer "you know what, that's just too much in my favour, that's just not right. I'll give you a first rounder to even things out"... clearly not, that would be just stupid.

Unless you're talking about "fair" from a collusion/cheating standpoint, then obviously that goes without saying.

Pittsburgh GM wrote:

Stop the crying and start making this league worth the price of admission. If you are a good GM this should not even be a factor.
P.S. ( I am not part of the board or the league friends wise,but someone who is tired of every league having a town crier.) Play the damn game, and walk the walk. Forget the Talk

My point was raised because I've seen it too many times when things get stupid because some GMs raise a stink saying "it wasn't fair", not because of cheating/collusion, but simply because one guy made a stupid deal for himself. Well boo hoo for him, if you make a bad trade, suck it up, learn from it and move on. Wanting clarification on what will happen isn't anybody crying about anything, it's wanting to ensure that for all intents and purposes, GMs are responsibile for their own team and shouldn't look to the league for protection in case they make a bad trade.

The commishes have said that the likelyhood is minimal of trades getting reversed simply for being bad, so unless something controversal arises, that's good enough for me.

CBJackets · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Pittsburgh GM wrote: We all try to get the better of a deal. I think it is our respoinsibility as GMs though to make the deals as fair as possible, for the good of the league. No, it really isn't our responsibility as GMs to make the deals as fair as possible. It's my responsibility as a GM to make the best deal that I can for MY team. Just as it's every other GMs responsibility to make the best deal that they can for THEIR team. Am I going to say to someone that makes me an offer "you know what, that's just too much in my favour, that's just not right. I'll give you a first rounder to even things out"... clearly not, that would be just stupid. Unless you're talking about "fair" from a collusion/cheating standpoint, then obviously that goes without saying. Pittsburgh GM wrote: Stop the crying and start making this league worth the price of admission. If you are a good GM this should not even be a factor. P.S. ( I am not part of the board or the league friends wise,but someone who is tired of every league having a town crier.) Play the damn game, and walk the walk. Forget the Talk My point was raised because I've seen it too many times when things get stupid because some GMs raise a stink saying "it wasn't fair", not because of cheating/collusion, but simply because one guy made a stupid deal for himself. Well boo hoo for him, if you make a bad trade, suck it up, learn from it and move on. Wanting clarification on what will happen isn't anybody crying about anything, it's wanting to ensure that for all intents and purposes, GMs are responsibile for their own team and shouldn't look to the league for protection in case they make a bad trade. The commishes have said that the likelyhood is minimal of trades getting reversed simply for being bad, so unless something controversal arises, that's good enough for me.

EXACTLY. Trades should only be vetoed if their is suspicion of cheating/collusion. You paid 50 bucks to get into the league, if you can't hack it and make bad trades that's your own fault. However, I doubt this will be a problem. If you actually paid to be in this league, you are hopefully not dumb enough to run your team into the ground.

Hawks_G · Guru

The people complaining about the trade committee are missing the point.

Let me put together a scenerio.

GM 1 is tired of the league, wants to quit after one year and it is the trade deadline. He has two good assets Zdeno Chara and Dany Heatley.

He figures, well, I am not in it anymore and I feel like quiting because I am not paying 50 bucks every year because it will take me years to turn this around.

He has made buds with GM 2 over the season, and GM 2 is in second place in the standings at the deadline. Generally both are good guys. Since he has nothing to lose, GM 1 trades Zdeno Chara and Dany Heatley to GM 2 for Alyn McCauley and Chris Chelios and a 3rd round pick.

You are GM 3 and you are in 1st place by 1 point over GM 2 at the deadline.

Still against the trade committee?

Hawks_G · Guru

But there is no way to prove collusion. You can't look at a deal for say futures, and know what a guy sees in a prospect.

Let's say it is Dany Heatley for David Fischer and Ondrej Pavelec. There is no way to know if that is collusion or the guy has seen Pavelec and Fischer and thinks they are the next Chara and Luongo.....

You have to have some check or balance to make sure that someone at least looks it over and it doesn't take the balance of power and put it squarely into one teams hands.

Personally, I like winning deals. You know what I like more.....making deals that make sense for both teams.

Because if you are the guy in first and the guy in second rips someone off to beat you for the title, then you will be the first to bitch.(Well most likely...

)

-- Edited by slats432 at 14:27, 2006-07-17

VancouverGM · Senior Member

slats432 wrote:

But there is no way to prove collusion. You can't look at a deal for say futures, and know what a guy sees in a prospect. Let's say it is Dany Heatley for David Fischer and Ondrej Pavelec. There is no way to know if that is collusion or the guy has seen Pavelec and Fischer and thinks they are the next Chara and Luongo..... You have to have some check or balance to make sure that someone at least looks it over and it doesn't take the balance of power and put it squarely into one teams hands. Personally, I like winning deals. You know what I like more.....making deals that make sense for both teams. Because if you are the guy in first and the guy in second rips someone off to beat you for the title, then you will be the first to bitch.(Well most likely...)-- Edited by slats432 at 14:27, 2006-07-17

I agree with slats here but also......you have to look at it with the same sense as if it was real. Would Ottawa trade Heatley for them 2 prospects. I highly doubt it, so the BOD would step in and reject it.

CBJackets · Guru

slats432 wrote:

The people complaining about the trade committee are missing the point. Let me put together a scenerio. GM 1 is tired of the league, wants to quit after one year and it is the trade deadline. He has two good assets Zdeno Chara and Dany Heatley. He figures, well, I am not in it anymore and I feel like quiting because I am not paying 50 bucks every year because it will take me years to turn this around. He has made buds with GM 2 over the season, and GM 2 is in second place in the standings at the deadline. Generally both are good guys. Since he has nothing to lose, GM 1 trades Zdeno Chara and Dany Heatley to GM 2 for Alyn McCauley and Chris Chelios and a 3rd round pick. You are GM 3 and you are in 1st place by 1 point over GM 2 at the deadline. Still against the trade committee?

Ya, only a giant a-hole would do that. Are you even in the league?

Your example is very far fetched and unrealistic. No one in their right mind would make that trade, or even be bold enough to send it in to the league. Yes, I am still against a strict trade committee.

What if the deal was Zdeno Chara for Ladislav Smid and Raffi Torres? Are you going to reject that, should that trade be called into question? Both are cheap, young, and have the potential to be top 2 line players. So, the deal sort of makes sense.

What I HATE, is when a deal like this does make sense, but someone steps in who knows nothing about either GM's thought process and immediately says "You could have gotten more for Zdeno Chara." Well, ya, that GM probably could of, but the deal isn't that horrible, so if he could have gotten more, well that's just too bad for him.

Also what is this scenario about being in 1st and then having the 2nd place guy make a good trade to best you. That seems like a far worse thing to cry about than getting a deal you worked hard on rejected.

I feel very strongly about this issue. The committee should not step in unless the deal is something like Dany Heatley for a mid first round pick. I'm not against a trade committee, I am just very against a strict one. As I've been told by Bryce the committee will not be very strict and it will be at the commishes' discretion if a trade is sent to the BOD.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

slats432 wrote:

The people complaining about the trade committee are missing the point.

Let me put together a scenerio.

GM 1 is tired of the league, wants to quit after one year and it is the trade deadline. He has two good assets Zdeno Chara and Dany Heatley.

He figures, well, I am not in it anymore and I feel like quiting because I am not paying 50 bucks every year because it will take me years to turn this around.

He has made buds with GM 2 over the season, and GM 2 is in second place in the standings at the deadline. Generally both are good guys. Since he has nothing to lose, GM 1 trades Zdeno Chara and Dany Heatley to GM 2 for Alyn McCauley and Chris Chelios and a 3rd round pick.

You are GM 3 and you are in 1st place by 1 point over GM 2 at the deadline.

Still against the trade committee?

No, clearly you are missing the point, not the people raising the issue (which sorry, isn't "complaining"). Absolutely nobody is going to have an issue with a trade being reversed when it's clearly collusion. That point has already been made, so all you're doing is pointing out something that nobody has a problem with.

The potential issue, is a trade being reversed simply because it's perceived as being a "rip-off". "Rip-off" simply being a bad trade by one GM, not collusion.

It's also not a matter of being against a "trade committee" period. It's a matter of being opposed to reversal of trades simply because one guy makes a bad deal. Unless there's a particular reason to suggest collusion or cheating is taking place, that should be the end of it.

Regardless, there IS a trade committee, and it seemingly will be used. But rest assured, the first time a trade gets reversed simply for being a "Bad deal" for someone (if that ever happens), that Gm that got the good deal is going to be, rightfully so, pretty ticked.

VanIslander · Guru

bad trades are bad trades

as long as they don't go through, it doesn't matter whether it's a committee or commish doing the vetoing

CBJackets · Guru

Of course it doesn't matter.

The point is that bad trades should be allowed. If you can't hack it and you make bad trades, too bad for you. It's when there is a suspicion of cheating that the commissioners and the BOD should step in.

VanIslander · Guru

how do we know if a bad trade is because of stupidity or cheating?

we don't until after the fact, at best, in most cases

either kind of bad trade undermines the league

trades should be at least ballpark fair (60/40, 70/30) especially in a money league

CBJackets · Guru

I guess that is a good point.

OilersBrent · Senior Member

Let's just let to BoD deal with trades as they come. There is no point arguing the what ifs. When a trade is rejected we will evaluate it then. We are all paying $50. We dont want teams to have unfair advantages because GM's throw away their talent because they have lost interest and dont plan on returning the next year.

Hawks_G · Guru

Yes, Chicago.

But the main point is what VanIslander said. You don't know if it is stupidity or cheating. And you can't prove collusion.

Another point is that in Bryce's other league, I don't think I have seen too many trade reversals, but in other leagues, GMs have been fired for just being not good GMs....and their trades have been way off base.

How do you deal with that? Anyways, a trade committee is there to just make sure that worst case scenerios don't occur. It isn't a gestapo or anything.

devils · Veteran Member

This will be my only reply and I hope it clearly states my position as a BOD member. I am NOT in the mindset of being the trade police. There generally will be a winner and loser in every deal and that is most often linked to opinion. Certain deals though obviously raise eyebrows when a general loser is viewed by the masses. I don't see the benefit of playing the what-if game so when this issue is raised, I will judge based upon the ability of both sides justify their intentions. I am not looking for an epic, just an intelligent insight. At that point I will hopefully have my concerns alleviated and see no qualm with supporting the trade. That's all...

Thanks,

J.L. Rakowski, NJ GM