de

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

RE: de

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

Considering the guy received about 5 e-mails, didn't reply to any of them and didn't try negotiating at all it shows to me that he may be trying to tank the team and no way can I accept this deal.

With all due respect, there's a big difference between purposely tanking a team and not doing as much as others may think that they should have done.

What possible purpose would someone pay their entry fee in real money, only to purposely tank barely 10 games into the season? And c'mon, if you're gonna tank a team, you can do a lot worse than the deal he got. I'm not disagreeing it was a bad deal... I already said in my opinion it was. But tanking the team... c'mon.

At the end of the day the only particular reason why any of the other offers listed are really much better are because of the FA status. Straka's a good player on his own and if he wants to use his tag on him to keep him another year, there you go. If he likes Malik, he likes Malik.

Maybe I'm wrong, but what I hear is a lot of sour grapes around the fact that it wasn't them who got the deal.

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 02:27, 2006-10-19

My frustration is that if you get a damn e-mail you respond to it, it's common courtesy and if you want the best for your team you will look at all offers and not pick a random one and accept it.
I'm also not sure if Kings GM understands how FA works and that's one thing that could explain why this deal was done and needs to be looked at.

CBJackets · Guru

Philippe27 wrote:

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

Considering the guy received about 5 e-mails, didn't reply to any of them and didn't try negotiating at all it shows to me that he may be trying to tank the team and no way can I accept this deal.

With all due respect, there's a big difference between purposely tanking a team and not doing as much as others may think that they should have done.

What possible purpose would someone pay their entry fee in real money, only to purposely tank barely 10 games into the season? And c'mon, if you're gonna tank a team, you can do a lot worse than the deal he got. I'm not disagreeing it was a bad deal... I already said in my opinion it was. But tanking the team... c'mon.

At the end of the day the only particular reason why any of the other offers listed are really much better are because of the FA status. Straka's a good player on his own and if he wants to use his tag on him to keep him another year, there you go. If he likes Malik, he likes Malik.

Maybe I'm wrong, but what I hear is a lot of sour grapes around the fact that it wasn't them who got the deal.

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 02:27, 2006-10-19

My frustration is that if you get a damn e-mail you respond to it, it's common courtesy and if you want the best for your team you will look at all offers and not pick a random one and accept it.
I'm also not sure if Kings GM understands how FA works and that's one thing that could explain why this deal was done and needs to be looked at.

That's really his fault though. And though it would be nice if he responded to some of our emails, I don't think that's any reason to veto the trade.

I'm disappointed I didn't get Bergeron and a little ticked that the guy wouldn't even reply to my email, andddd I think he has no clue what he's doing, but I still think the deal should go through.

Pittsburgh GM · Senior Member

Well although the deal may not be stellar for LA, I am finding it hard to believe that a fellow GM with cash on the line especially this early would intentially try to rip his team apart ! This makes little to no sense to me at all.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Philippe27 wrote:

My frustration is that if you get a damn e-mail you respond to it, it's common courtesy and if you want the best for your team you will look at all offers and not pick a random one and accept it.
I'm also not sure if Kings GM understands how FA works and that's one thing that could explain why this deal was done and needs to be looked at.

I agree 100% wholeheartedly that if you get an e-mail trade offer you should respond to it, even if it's nothing more than a quick "not interested", or "no thanks". No disagreement there what so ever.

With regards to the Kings GM potentially understanding free agency, even if that were the case, I still would not feel that it's at all appropriate to consider overturning the trade. We're a 5th through the season, we've all had plenty of opportunity, and still do, to ask questions about things we don't understand. Perhaps I'm just too harsh, but at the end of the day, if you don't understand something and you screw up, too bad, so sad. Learn from it and move on. The league has done a good job with the rules and explaining them, and it's up to US as GMs to ask if we don't understand something. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when there is a link right there on the main page to them.

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

My frustration is that if you get a damn e-mail you respond to it, it's common courtesy and if you want the best for your team you will look at all offers and not pick a random one and accept it.
I'm also not sure if Kings GM understands how FA works and that's one thing that could explain why this deal was done and needs to be looked at.

I agree 100% wholeheartedly that if you get an e-mail trade offer you should respond to it, even if it's nothing more than a quick "not interested", or "no thanks". No disagreement there what so ever.

With regards to the Kings GM potentially understanding free agency, even if that were the case, I still would not feel that it's at all appropriate to consider overturning the trade. We're a 5th through the season, we've all had plenty of opportunity, and still do, to ask questions about things we don't understand. Perhaps I'm just too harsh, but at the end of the day, if you don't understand something and you screw up, too bad, so sad. Learn from it and move on. The league has done a good job with the rules and explaining them, and it's up to US as GMs to ask if we don't understand something. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when there is a link right there on the main page to them.

I totally agree but the thing with this cash league is that GM has no commitment on this team for next year. Bergeron was traded for UFA's what if he does the samething, you think the new GM will be willing to pay 50 bucks for a team full of UFA's that needs to be rebuilt.
I'm usually not a fan of trade commitees but I think in this league it is relatively important.

CBJackets · Guru

Philippe27 wrote:

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

My frustration is that if you get a damn e-mail you respond to it, it's common courtesy and if you want the best for your team you will look at all offers and not pick a random one and accept it.
I'm also not sure if Kings GM understands how FA works and that's one thing that could explain why this deal was done and needs to be looked at.

I agree 100% wholeheartedly that if you get an e-mail trade offer you should respond to it, even if it's nothing more than a quick "not interested", or "no thanks". No disagreement there what so ever.

With regards to the Kings GM potentially understanding free agency, even if that were the case, I still would not feel that it's at all appropriate to consider overturning the trade. We're a 5th through the season, we've all had plenty of opportunity, and still do, to ask questions about things we don't understand. Perhaps I'm just too harsh, but at the end of the day, if you don't understand something and you screw up, too bad, so sad. Learn from it and move on. The league has done a good job with the rules and explaining them, and it's up to US as GMs to ask if we don't understand something. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when there is a link right there on the main page to them.

I totally agree but the thing with this cash league is that GM has no commitment on this team for next year. Bergeron was traded for UFA's what if he does the samething, you think the new GM will be willing to pay 50 bucks for a team full of UFA's that needs to be rebuilt.
I'm usually not a fan of trade commitees but I think in this league it is relatively important.

Ya but we could always do something creative if a team really can't find a GM, like say give that team one more UFA tag, or first dibs at any Europeans who haven't been drafted into our league. There are lots of creative solutions to employ as long as someone doesn't totally gut their team. The league's first responsibility is to the GMs it currently has, it's going to be much worse if one of our good GMs quits because a trade is vetoed.

CBJackets · Guru

What I really think the committee should do in cases like this is try to even things out if only a bit. Like recommend for the deal to go through Vancouver has to throw the Kings a 2nd rounder in either of the next two years, or a decent prospect. Ya it may not be fair to that GM, but he would still get the better end of the deal and it would be better for the league in the long run.

Philippe27 · Guru

Ya but we could always do something creative if a team really can't find a GM, like say give that team one more UFA tag, or first dibs at any Europeans who haven't been drafted into our league. There are lots of creative solutions to employ as long as someone doesn't totally gut their team. The league's first responsibility is to the GMs it currently has, it's going to be much worse if one of our good GMs quits because a trade is vetoed.

Personally I have to see a reason for both GM's to make a trade and currently I see NO reason for LA to make this so until he comes on here and says why he made this trade or he tells someone on the BOD I don't see why this trade should be let through.
Anyways that's just my opinion.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Philippe27 wrote:

Personally I have to see a reason for both GM's to make a trade and currently I see NO reason for LA to make this so until he comes on here and says why he made this trade or he tells someone on the BOD I don't see why this trade should be let through.
Anyways that's just my opinion.

I guess we see things differently, as I see it the exact opposite way. I don't think that anybody who makes a trade should have to justify just because someone else doesn't like it. If I make a trade, I can have my own reasons for doing so but they're my reasons, and I don't have to explain it. If you want to try to have my trade reversed, it's up to you to prove that something foul is going on.

Here the situation is such that yes, the FA status is what is a key thing, however he didn't exactly get 3 bags of pucks in return. It may be for this year (if he doesn't use a tag), but the players he got back, especially straka, are certainly usable and viable players.

I can understand the concern that it's a cash league and who's going to want to take over a decimated team. I suppose I just don't think it's fair to the current GM, who already has paid his dues, that his right to make a trade as he sees fit, is over-ruled because of what could happen in the future. And then if you look at that, let's extend it even further. Should Buffalo have been allowed to draft the team that he did? If he left today, who's going to want to pay cash to take over that team? Sure it's got a few studs on there, but it's full of prospects and young players that may never ever turn into anything. No I'm not knocking Buffalo or his team, or his strategy... just pointing out how looking at what a new GM might want/think, that if we had a vacant Buffalo team, I think it might difficult to fill in a cash league.

At the end of the day, he may have made a poor trade decision, he may have been out negotiated, he may not have looked at other trade offers as much as he should and maybe he should have done 50 other things as well to get a better deal. But I see absolutely no reason to think that there was any malicious or inappropriate attempt to tank his team, I see nothing else inappropriate done. Making a bad trade decision is the worst thing I see here that has happened. And to me, that's just not even close to being a reason to overturn a trade.

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

Personally I have to see a reason for both GM's to make a trade and currently I see NO reason for LA to make this so until he comes on here and says why he made this trade or he tells someone on the BOD I don't see why this trade should be let through.
Anyways that's just my opinion.

I guess we see things differently, as I see it the exact opposite way. I don't think that anybody who makes a trade should have to justify just because someone else doesn't like it. If I make a trade, I can have my own reasons for doing so but they're my reasons, and I don't have to explain it. If you want to try to have my trade reversed, it's up to you to prove that something foul is going on.

Here the situation is such that yes, the FA status is what is a key thing, however he didn't exactly get 3 bags of pucks in return. It may be for this year (if he doesn't use a tag), but the players he got back, especially straka, are certainly usable and viable players.

I can understand the concern that it's a cash league and who's going to want to take over a decimated team. I suppose I just don't think it's fair to the current GM, who already has paid his dues, that his right to make a trade as he sees fit, is over-ruled because of what could happen in the future. And then if you look at that, let's extend it even further. Should Buffalo have been allowed to draft the team that he did? If he left today, who's going to want to pay cash to take over that team? Sure it's got a few studs on there, but it's full of prospects and young players that may never ever turn into anything. No I'm not knocking Buffalo or his team, or his strategy... just pointing out how looking at what a new GM might want/think, that if we had a vacant Buffalo team, I think it might difficult to fill in a cash league.

At the end of the day, he may have made a poor trade decision, he may have been out negotiated, he may not have looked at other trade offers as much as he should and maybe he should have done 50 other things as well to get a better deal. But I see absolutely no reason to think that there was any malicious or inappropriate attempt to tank his team, I see nothing else inappropriate done. Making a bad trade decision is the worst thing I see here that has happened. And to me, that's just not even close to being a reason to overturn a trade.

I'm sorry but when a guy loses a trade in:
Current ratings, NHL potential, FA status, salary (6M difference) there is something going on that needs to be looked at. if LA was improving now it could be explaine dbut he's NOT, he's downgrading his #2 centre for a small improvement in his 2nd D pair.
And yes I did suggest to Vancouver what he should add to the trade for me to let it go through.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Philippe27 wrote:

I'm sorry but when a guy loses a trade in:
Current ratings, NHL potential, FA status, salary (6M difference) there is something going on that needs to be looked at. if LA was improving now it could be explaine dbut he's NOT, he's downgrading his #2 centre for a small improvement in his 2nd D pair.
And yes I did suggest to Vancouver what he should add to the trade for me to let it go through.

You don't want to look at it though. You've already made up your mind that it's wrong. But I haven't heard why it's wrong. Perhaps it's simply a matter of disagreement, but realistically, this is not a situation of a GM tanking a team. Nobody is going tank a team in a league that just started, when they just put their money in. They just aren't.

And being ignorant of any free agency rules is no reason to veto a trade. The GM has nobody to blame but himself if that happens to be the case, and shouldn't be protected from making a bad trade.

I'm not, and never have disputed that it is a bad deal for LA. But bad deals happen all the time. Being a bad deal is not a reason to veto a trade. The GM making the trade should learn from it and move on for next time. Vancouver shouldn't be penalized and forced to add anything to make it go through.

And with all due respect, it's not up to you to "let it go through". The rules clearly state that even if a trade is vetoed, it's by the collective members of the BOD, not one individual on the board who objects.

Finally, this trade has already happened. It's gone through. If it was even going to be suggested it be looked at, it should have happened before it went through.

I think I've made my viewpoint clear anyway. Perhaps I'm being too positional, however I just think how I would look at things if someone tried to reverse a trade I'd made with (and perhaps this is just my opinion...) zero evidence of any wrongdoing by any party, and only a bad trade by of the sides. I would be royally pissed if someone tried to overturn a trade I made based on that. Vancouver's being polite about it and not putting up resistance, but I sure would be upset at that.

At the end of the day, in my opinion, nothing has happened here other than it's a bad deal. A very bad deal even. That is absolutely not, in my opinion anyway, any reason to overturn a trade, or to force the other GM to add anything.

Philippe27 · Guru

And with all due respect, it's not up to you to "let it go through". The rules clearly state that even if a trade is vetoed, it's by the collective members of the BOD, not one individual on the board who objects.
Hmm I'm not the only one, trade was vetoed by a vote of 6-0.

CBJackets · Guru

That's fairly disappointing...

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

CBJackets wrote:

That's fairly disappointing...

Not only is it disappointing, but it actually makes me pretty upset. Unless there's some evidence that hasn't been shared indicating foul play, I find that to be nothing less than abuse of power.

When this topic was brought up much earlier on, we were assured that no trades would be vetoed except in the most extreme of situations. if this is what the BOD considers to be extreme, that causes me great concern.