Hawks looking to add a bit of salary/roster players!

Hawks_G · Guru

Hawks looking to add a bit of salary/roster players!

CBJackets · Guru

I have some interest, hit me up on icq or msn.

VanIslander · Guru

Columbus just informed me that the only players they are looking at moving for prospects are 68-69 OV guys like May and Hordichuk.

I shoulda known better than to try and bite at the Bluejackets post above: they are geared to win now, so Chicago good luck getting 70+ OV players outta CLB in exchange for prospects!

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

I'm not really sure why anybody would trade 70+ OV players for prospects, unless they're really good top end prospects... OV can be misleading about a player, but still, typically speaking a 70+ OV player can play a role on a team, why would anybody trade one for an average prospect that in all likelyhood never amount to anything?

Hawks_G · Guru

I am trying to figure out why people need to post and debate on other people's trade blocks. If you aren't interested, then move on. If you are interested, then contact the GM.

It seems like half the blocks have someone commenting on the value or what the guys trading style is.

It is poor etiquette, and insulting to the GM.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Hawks_G wrote:

I am trying to figure out why people need to post and debate on other people's trade blocks. If you aren't interested, then move on. If you are interested, then contact the GM.

It seems like half the blocks have someone commenting on the value or what the guys trading style is.

It is poor etiquette, and insulting to the GM.

I wasn't commenting on your original post, but rather the VanIslander response about another team not offering up 70+ players for prospects as if it were something shocking or unreasonable...

Hawks GM 2 · Senior Member

Florida Panthers wrote:

Hawks_G wrote:

I am trying to figure out why people need to post and debate on other people's trade blocks. If you aren't interested, then move on. If you are interested, then contact the GM.

It seems like half the blocks have someone commenting on the value or what the guys trading style is.

It is poor etiquette, and insulting to the GM.

I wasn't commenting on your original post, but rather the VanIslander response about another team not offering up 70+ players for prospects as if it were something shocking or unreasonable...

I'll field this one...

By your response I gather that you're a rookie GM; this isn't uncommon at all. It depends on a couple of factors:

a) what direction you're taking your team in: long-term vs. short-term
b) whether or not you think you're in a position to compete now
c) your overall philosophy as a GM; some GMs prefer prospects and younger players vs vets
d) waiver draft - better to gain an asset or two rather than lose one for nothing

If you have mainly have mid-to-low rated youth on your roster and don't really have a shot at going far or even making the playoffs, why would you want to hold onto the 70+ rated 30+ year old guy when you can turn it into a couple of decent guys that might be 50+ point getters in a season or two? Conversely, why wouldn't you give a couple of mid-to-high prospects or even a younger poorly rated now player that you know will be rated well next season for a guy like a Mike Modano and his ratings if he you're in the top 5 of the league and he's the guy that can put you over the top?

To counter the point you made, why would I trade even a mid level prospect for a sub 70 OVer that's old, has little to no prospect of ever getting better ratings, and due to their ratings now, has absolutely no use to my roster other than farm filler?

Obviously every deal has a great number of factors involved - who's involved, long-term vs. short-term benefits, personal value estimations, etc. Just because it's not the type of trade that you wouldn't do doesn't mean that it isn't done on a regular basis.

CBJackets · Guru

Hawks GM 2 wrote:

Florida Panthers wrote:

Hawks_G wrote:

I am trying to figure out why people need to post and debate on other people's trade blocks. If you aren't interested, then move on. If you are interested, then contact the GM.

It seems like half the blocks have someone commenting on the value or what the guys trading style is.

It is poor etiquette, and insulting to the GM.

I wasn't commenting on your original post, but rather the VanIslander response about another team not offering up 70+ players for prospects as if it were something shocking or unreasonable...

I'll field this one...

By your response I gather that you're a rookie GM; this isn't uncommon at all. It depends on a couple of factors:

a) what direction you're taking your team in: long-term vs. short-term
b) whether or not you think you're in a position to compete now
c) your overall philosophy as a GM; some GMs prefer prospects and younger players vs vets
d) waiver draft - better to gain an asset or two rather than lose one for nothing

If you have mainly have mid-to-low rated youth on your roster and don't really have a shot at going far or even making the playoffs, why would you want to hold onto the 70+ rated 30+ year old guy when you can turn it into a couple of decent guys that might be 50+ point getters in a season or two? Conversely, why wouldn't you give a couple of mid-to-high prospects or even a younger poorly rated now player that you know will be rated well next season for a guy like a Mike Modano and his ratings if he you're in the top 5 of the league and he's the guy that can put you over the top?

To counter the point you made, why would I trade even a mid level prospect for a sub 70 OVer that's old, has little to no prospect of ever getting better ratings, and due to their ratings now, has absolutely no use to my roster other than farm filler?

Obviously every deal has a great number of factors involved - who's involved, long-term vs. short-term benefits, personal value estimations, etc. Just because it's not the type of trade that you wouldn't do doesn't mean that it isn't done on a regular basis.

I nominate this post for the most arrogant and useless post yet. You and George are a match made in heaven.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Hawks GM 2 wrote:

I'll field this one...

By your response I gather that you're a rookie GM;

That's for trying to enlighten me. You can make the assumption that I'm a rookie GM if you like, however you'd be quite incorrect.

this isn't uncommon at all. It depends on a couple of factors:

a) what direction you're taking your team in: long-term vs. short-term
b) whether or not you think you're in a position to compete now
c) your overall philosophy as a GM; some GMs prefer prospects and younger players vs vets
d) waiver draft - better to gain an asset or two rather than lose one for nothing

If you have mainly have mid-to-low rated youth on your roster and don't really have a shot at going far or even making the playoffs, why would you want to hold onto the 70+ rated 30+ year old guy when you can turn it into a couple of decent guys that might be 50+ point getters in a season or two? Conversely, why wouldn't you give a couple of mid-to-high prospects or even a younger poorly rated now player that you know will be rated well next season for a guy like a Mike Modano and his ratings if he you're in the top 5 of the league and he's the guy that can put you over the top?

To counter the point you made, why would I trade even a mid level prospect for a sub 70 OVer that's old, has little to no prospect of ever getting better ratings, and due to their ratings now, has absolutely no use to my roster other than farm filler?

Obviously every deal has a great number of factors involved - who's involved, long-term vs. short-term benefits, personal value estimations, etc. Just because it's not the type of trade that you wouldn't do doesn't mean that it isn't done on a regular basis.

That's all fantastic stuff! And in 99% likelyhood is entirely irrelivant the deals that guys are looking to make here right now, and yes, that makes me guilty of some assumptions myself. In the many years of experience as a GM in several FHL leagues as well as other non FHL leagues with players and prospects, when someone says "I'll give you prospects for your players", especially when they say they have a tonne of prospects, they look to give quantity over quality, and get back something decent in return. "I'll give you these 5 no-name scrub prospects that nobody's ever heard of for you guy!". So what??? 5 guys that in all likelyhood will never amount to anything for a guy that can play. And for all the talk about drafting ability, and all the great prospects out there... both here... and in the real NHL... the VAST majority of players that get drafted, never play in the NHL and are a total crapshoot.

The reality is that there are only 2 teams with 21 players (no teams with more) that are 70+ OV. OV of course is only a general indication and should no way be solely looked at given how OV can easily be skewed high certain high ratings.

And as my original comment mentioned, it was made based on the fact we're talking about non top end prospects, who certainly DO have value.

Yes, every situation is unique and there are indeed many factors that play into things. However as pointed out previously, my response was directed towards the VanIslander sarcastic comment about Columbus' unwilling to trade "good players" for lack of a better term, for prospects. And it still stands, that it's in no way unreasonable to want to give up decent players for prospects that will likely never play. And frankly, a large part of why I made it is because there's no need to try and take a shot at a GM simply because you don't like the offer they were making. Especially when all they did was not fall for a bad deal.

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 13:12, 2006-09-04

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 13:13, 2006-09-04

Hawks_G · Guru

CBJackets wrote:

Hawks GM 2 wrote:

Florida Panthers wrote:

Hawks_G wrote:

I am trying to figure out why people need to post and debate on other people's trade blocks. If you aren't interested, then move on. If you are interested, then contact the GM.

It seems like half the blocks have someone commenting on the value or what the guys trading style is.

It is poor etiquette, and insulting to the GM.

I wasn't commenting on your original post, but rather the VanIslander response about another team not offering up 70+ players for prospects as if it were something shocking or unreasonable...

I'll field this one...

By your response I gather that you're a rookie GM; this isn't uncommon at all. It depends on a couple of factors:

a) what direction you're taking your team in: long-term vs. short-term
b) whether or not you think you're in a position to compete now
c) your overall philosophy as a GM; some GMs prefer prospects and younger players vs vets
d) waiver draft - better to gain an asset or two rather than lose one for nothing

If you have mainly have mid-to-low rated youth on your roster and don't really have a shot at going far or even making the playoffs, why would you want to hold onto the 70+ rated 30+ year old guy when you can turn it into a couple of decent guys that might be 50+ point getters in a season or two? Conversely, why wouldn't you give a couple of mid-to-high prospects or even a younger poorly rated now player that you know will be rated well next season for a guy like a Mike Modano and his ratings if he you're in the top 5 of the league and he's the guy that can put you over the top?

To counter the point you made, why would I trade even a mid level prospect for a sub 70 OVer that's old, has little to no prospect of ever getting better ratings, and due to their ratings now, has absolutely no use to my roster other than farm filler?

Obviously every deal has a great number of factors involved - who's involved, long-term vs. short-term benefits, personal value estimations, etc. Just because it's not the type of trade that you wouldn't do doesn't mean that it isn't done on a regular basis.

I nominate this post for the most arrogant and useless post yet. You and George are a match made in heaven.

Matt, and you wonder why you have trouble filling your leagues with GMs? My post is valid.

Why comment on a guy's trade block? Either a guy is an ******* trying to reduce the value of what he is trying to trade, or just being a prick.

If I say I want to trade Kevin Klein for a first rounder, it isn't any of yours or any other GM's business. Whether you think it is a lousy deal or not, then you should keep your mouth shut because your ignorance hurts the GMs chances of getting his deal elsewhere.

So I think that GMs should keep their mouths shut in the trade block thread. Why would you have a problem with that?

VanIslander · Guru

My post was not sarcastic. It was a Public Service Announcement borne out of disappointment. Re-read if necessary.

Very tame compared to the urinating that happened all over my trade block.

Yes, the commishes in this league should do what most leagues do: not tolerate any posts not directly related to the trade interest. Squabbles and criticism should be elsewhere if anywhere.

Hawks_G · Guru

VanIslander wrote:

My post was not sarcastic. It was a Public Service Announcement borne out of disappointment. Re-read if necessary.

Very tame compared to the urinating that happened all over my trade block.

Yes, the commishes in this league should do what most leagues do: not tolerate any posts not directly related to the trade interest. Squabbles and criticism should be elsewhere if anywhere.

Don't worry Jay, my post isn't just about my trade block, it is about all trade blocks.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

VanIslander wrote:

Yes, the commishes in this league should do what most leagues do: not tolerate any posts not directly related to the trade interest. Squabbles and criticism should be elsewhere if anywhere.

I don't really understand how you can be suggesting that, when it was you yourself that posted the comments about another GM and what he would and would not trade. Columbus was the one that said he had interest in the Hawks offer, and you were the one that basically butt in putting down what Chicago was willing to do! Guess it's just "do as I say, not as I do".

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 01:25, 2006-09-05

VanIslander · Guru

*sigh*

Hawks GM 2 · Senior Member

CBJackets wrote:

Hawks GM 2 wrote:

Florida Panthers wrote:

Hawks_G wrote:

I am trying to figure out why people need to post and debate on other people's trade blocks. If you aren't interested, then move on. If you are interested, then contact the GM.

It seems like half the blocks have someone commenting on the value or what the guys trading style is.

It is poor etiquette, and insulting to the GM.

I wasn't commenting on your original post, but rather the VanIslander response about another team not offering up 70+ players for prospects as if it were something shocking or unreasonable...

I'll field this one...

By your response I gather that you're a rookie GM; this isn't uncommon at all. It depends on a couple of factors:

a) what direction you're taking your team in: long-term vs. short-term
b) whether or not you think you're in a position to compete now
c) your overall philosophy as a GM; some GMs prefer prospects and younger players vs vets
d) waiver draft - better to gain an asset or two rather than lose one for nothing

If you have mainly have mid-to-low rated youth on your roster and don't really have a shot at going far or even making the playoffs, why would you want to hold onto the 70+ rated 30+ year old guy when you can turn it into a couple of decent guys that might be 50+ point getters in a season or two? Conversely, why wouldn't you give a couple of mid-to-high prospects or even a younger poorly rated now player that you know will be rated well next season for a guy like a Mike Modano and his ratings if he you're in the top 5 of the league and he's the guy that can put you over the top?

To counter the point you made, why would I trade even a mid level prospect for a sub 70 OVer that's old, has little to no prospect of ever getting better ratings, and due to their ratings now, has absolutely no use to my roster other than farm filler?

Obviously every deal has a great number of factors involved - who's involved, long-term vs. short-term benefits, personal value estimations, etc. Just because it's not the type of trade that you wouldn't do doesn't mean that it isn't done on a regular basis.

I nominate this post for the most arrogant and useless post yet. You and George are a match made in heaven.

Care to point out where anything I stated is incorrect? It's not me that's coming across as the jackass here. And if it is truely the case where all you're offering up are guys like Hordichuk or May and looking for quality... have fun sitting on your team.