Bergeron moving East

Philippe27 · Guru

Bergeron moving East

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

And this probably the most picture perfect example of what leaves a bad taste in my mouth with regards to a trade being veto'd.

First let me make it absolutely clear that there's clearly no doubt that the deal that they got for Bergeron this time around. No doubt what so ever.

But that's not the point. The point is that on the surface, this is what happened.

A trade was made between 2 willing parties, and the trade was processed. The one GM of the BOD that seemed to vocally object the most to that trade and I would guess (and it is just that, a guess, nothing more) did some persuading of the BOD had the trade veto'd. 2 days later, that same GM from the BOD lands the prize of Bergeron.

I fully understand the reasoning that the league gave for reversing the trade. I still wholeheartedly disagree with it and feel that there was no grounds for reversing the trade, but never the less, I understand the reasoning.

But the fact remains that what has happened, is trade is made, GM and BOD member objects, BOD reverses trade, the same GM ends up with the key player. It looks bad. Very very bad.

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 00:14, 2006-10-25

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

And this probably the most picture perfect example of what leaves a bad taste in my mouth with regards to a trade being veto'd.

First let me make it absolutely clear that there's clearly no doubt that the deal that they got for Bergeron this time around. No doubt what so ever.

But that's not the point. The point is that on the surface, this is what happened.

A trade was made between 2 willing parties, and the trade was processed. The one GM of the BOD that seemed to vocally object the most to that trade and I would guess (and it is just that, a guess, nothing more) did some persuading of the BOD had the trade veto'd. 2 days later, that same GM from the BOD lands the prize of Bergeron.

I fully understand the reasoning that the league gave for reversing the trade. I still wholeheartedly disagree with it and feel that there was no grounds for reversing the trade, but never the less, I understand the reasoning.

But the fact remains that what has happened, is trade is made, GM and BOD member objects, BOD reverses trade, the same GM ends up with the key player. It looks bad. Very very bad.

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 00:14, 2006-10-25

First of all I do agree that from your point of view it can look bad. However I did go to Michael the Vancouver GM and ask him if he tried to get Bergeron and he said he did but it didn't work out so he just got Clark. I then asked him if he would mind if I tried to get Bergeron as I'm the one who objected to the trade. He told me to "go for it". As he is the GM that it concerns and he has no issues with it you have no reason to be upset.

-- Edited by Philippe27 at 00:23, 2006-10-25

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Philippe27 wrote:

First of all I do agree that from your point of view it can look bad. However I did go to Michael the Vancouver GM and ask him if he tried to get Bergeron and he said he did but it didn't work out so he just got Clark. I then asked him if he would mind if I tried to get Bergeron as I'm the one who objected to the trade. He told me to "go for it". As he is the GM that it concerns and he has no issues with it you have no reason to be upset.

I absolutely do and am. Doesn't really matter to me if the Vancouver GM said to go ahead. It's the integrity of the members of the BOD and the system in general that looks bad... period. It looks like a situation of sour grapes by a member of the BOD when his own offer wasn't accepted, or possibly even looked at, who then went and used that power as a member of the BOD to have a trade reversed to get what he wants.

Let me be clear that I'm not particularly making that accusation, however I will also be honest in that the question is sure in my mind about how much a factor that it did play. And I would find it extremely difficult to believe if I was told that disappointment about not having a clearly superior trade offer looked at, wasn't a factor at all, even a little.

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

First of all I do agree that from your point of view it can look bad. However I did go to Michael the Vancouver GM and ask him if he tried to get Bergeron and he said he did but it didn't work out so he just got Clark. I then asked him if he would mind if I tried to get Bergeron as I'm the one who objected to the trade. He told me to "go for it". As he is the GM that it concerns and he has no issues with it you have no reason to be upset.

I absolutely do and am. Doesn't really matter to me if the Vancouver GM said to go ahead. It's the integrity of the members of the BOD and the system in general that looks bad... period. It looks like a situation of sour grapes by a member of the BOD when his own offer wasn't accepted, or possibly even looked at, who then went and used that power as a member of the BOD to have a trade reversed to get what he wants.

Let me be clear that I'm not particularly making that accusation, however I will also be honest in that the question is sure in my mind about how much a factor that it did play. And I would find it extremely difficult to believe if I was told that disappointment about not having a clearly superior trade offer looked at, wasn't a factor at all, even a little.

Say whatever you want but the trade was voted down 6-0 by the BOD and anyone who has a brain and understands the league would veto a trade that will look like this next year:
Marek Malik 2.5M 1 yr contract
for
Patrice Bergeron 21 yrs old 73 pts in the NHL
So what am I supposed to do? Let someone else get Bergeron? LA wanted to deal him and he was gonna go somewhere. So I did the ethical thing and check with Michael first and he didn't mind? So am I banned from negotiating a FAIR deal with LA for Bergeron because I vetoed a trade that made ZERO sense?
Send this deal through the BOD if you want if they feel the trade is unfair they can veto it. I'll have nothing against that and then they can tell me what I'll need to add to make the deal work (like I did with Michael) and we'll work something out.
However I think this deal is fair and I think most GM's here would agree and I followed ethical rules that I didn't have to follow so you got no ****ing reason to be upset.

-- Edited by Philippe27 at 00:42, 2006-10-25

Pittsburgh GM · Senior Member

Look FLA GM, get over it !

The first deal was terrible and had to be vetoed for the integrity of the league. Anyone who feels otherwise is only looking to screw fellow GMs in future deals. You can rebut this all you want but there are many of you out there.

Second of all, just because a deal goes bad does not mean all BOD members should now never be allowed to make dealings for these players ever. This is just plain stupid. This is why there is more than one BOD member !

As far as I am concerned the deal made in this case was a good one. So who got the Bergeron is irrelevant.

Like I said live with it because it seems to me you are more upset you did not rip the GM off more than you are upset over the actual deal. You had the same opportunity to get Bergeron as did everyone else !

WildJamie · Senior Member

I am in general agreement with the Panthers GM on this one. This pay league should have much less controls than the free leagues around. Personally, I don't see how this league is going to last more than a season or two the way things are going. Don't get me wrong, I sure hope it does, but I fully expect an offseason coming our way with several teams that will not have GMs nor we will find GMs for those teams.

I don't think vetoing trades is going to help this, I think it will hurt more than anything. There needs to be more creative ways of salvaging a GM-less team in the offseason than trying to make sure all trades are balanced. I think the BOD overstepped their authority on vetoing this latest deal, and if this is the way things are going to go, I think there needs to be more league-wide votes on these types of things. Last time I checked we all paid the same $50, so why should we not all get equal say? Obviosuly this would not apply to every trade or policy dispute, but maybe if the BOD votes to reject a deal and there is no evidence of collusion (as in this case) it should go to a league wide vote as well.

The very least I would ask for in a situation like this is that all assets of a rejected trade be frozen for a month (or some similar time frame). This way at least a GM has time to think about the value of his players and what reasons he has for trading or not trading thiose players. In this case, what is the hurry to unload Bergeron?

Philippe27 · Guru

WildJamie wrote:

I am in general agreement with the Panthers GM on this one. This pay league should have much less controls than the free leagues around. Personally, I don't see how this league is going to last more than a season or two the way things are going. Don't get me wrong, I sure hope it does, but I fully expect an offseason coming our way with several teams that will not have GMs nor we will find GMs for those teams.

I don't think vetoing trades is going to help this, I think it will hurt more than anything. There needs to be more creative ways of salvaging a GM-less team in the offseason than trying to make sure all trades are balanced. I think the BOD overstepped their authority on vetoing this latest deal, and if this is the way things are going to go, I think there needs to be more league-wide votes on these types of things. Last time I checked we all paid the same $50, so why should we not all get equal say? Obviosuly this would not apply to every trade or policy dispute, but maybe if the BOD votes to reject a deal and there is no evidence of collusion (as in this case) it should go to a league wide vote as well.

The very least I would ask for in a situation like this is that all assets of a rejected trade be frozen for a month (or some similar time frame). This way at least a GM has time to think about the value of his players and what reasons he has for trading or not trading thiose players. In this case, what is the hurry to unload Bergeron?

I'm sorry but how can anyone think that the BOD overstepped their authority by vetoing a trade that next season will be:
Marek Malik for Patrice Bergeron

It was a ridiculous trade and the BOD's job is to make sure the long term interest of each team is at least considered when making a trade. In the case of the trade that was vetoed it was completely ignored and the short term didn't even improve improved.

What is the hurry to unload Bergeron?
I don't know but LA wanted to unload him so I wasn't just gonna watch and let him go somewhere else. I made a fair deal, I didn't do anything wrong.

-- Edited by Philippe27 at 11:45, 2006-10-25

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Pittsburgh GM wrote:

The first deal was terrible and had to be vetoed for the integrity of the league. Anyone who feels otherwise is only looking to screw fellow GMs in future deals. You can rebut this all you want but there are many of you out there.

And damn straight I will call you on that and refute that. I said long long ago before this ever happened just how opposed I was to the idea of a trade being veto'd and a GM can run his team as he sees fit and unless there's clear evidence of some type of wrong-doing. But at the same time absolutely I want to get the best deal that I possibly can. As we all do.

Pittsburgh GM wrote:

Second of all, just because a deal goes bad does not mean all BOD members should now never be allowed to make dealings for these players ever. This is just plain stupid. This is why there is more than one BOD member !

As far as I am concerned the deal made in this case was a good one. So who got the Bergeron is irrelevant.

Like I said live with it because it seems to me you are more upset you did not rip the GM off more than you are upset over the actual deal. You had the same opportunity to get Bergeron as did everyone else !

Given that I hadn't made a trade offer for Bergeron... ever... pretty much refutes that. And oh the irony over someone else trying to say that my viewpoint is as it is because I have sour grapes over not getting Bergeron is amazing.

I've also flat out said that the current deal is without a doubt superior to the one previous made.

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 12:11, 2006-10-25

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Philippe27 wrote:

I'm sorry but how can anyone think that the BOD overstepped their authority by vetoing a trade that next season will be:
Marek Malik for Patrice Bergeron

Because 1) you can't simply look at a trade for what it will be next year. There are plenty of times where a team gives up a lot for this year. I'm sure everyone remembers the insane trade of all those draft picks, and Maxime Ouellet (who granted, is a bust now, but had great value at the time) for Oates who was UFA after the season. Looking at it the following year, it was NOTHING for draft picks, and a top goalie prospect. And more importantly 2) Nothing inappropriate was done by either GM in that trade. It was simply a bad trade. That shouldn't be the job of the league to interfere with.

But I argued that 2nd point already, and frankly, got over-ruled. As I said, I understand the reasoning, I simply disagree with it. That isn't what this most recent objection is to.

Philippe27 wrote:

What is the hurry to unload Bergeron?
I don't know but LA wanted to unload him so I wasn't just gonna watch and let him go somewhere else. I made a fair deal, I didn't do anything wrong.

Are you going to honestly sit there and try to tell me that the fact that you made a superior offer to the guy that wasn't even looked at, didn't influence your desire to have that trade veto'd so you could get another shot? Not at all? You even posted what your trade offer was, but you're going to say that your desire to spearhead the overturning of the trade was 100% for the good of the league and had nothing to do wanting Bergeron yourself.

1) I wouldn't believe that, and 2) even if you were a saint, the BOD has to be impartial and this certainly doesn't look impartial.

"The good of the league" is being talked about. Is it good for the league to have such controversy as this where GMs (yes, plural, I'm not the only one as there's a 2nd to post in this thread now and I've certainly talked to others on ICQ) see stuff like this by the BOD as being entirely inappropriate?

Philippe27 · Guru

Are you going to honestly sit there and try to tell me that the fact that you made a superior offer to the guy that wasn't even looked at, didn't influence your desire to have that trade veto'd so you could get another shot? Not at all? You even posted what your trade offer was, but you're going to say that your desire to spearhead the overturning of the trade was 100% for the good of the league and had nothing to do wanting Bergeron yourself.

Yes I wanted Bergeron and yes I was upset but no it didn't influence my decision.
The deal was unfair, I told Michael what he needed to add to the deal for it to be passable, he didn't want to. I also took the effort to go ask Jason the LA GM why he did the trade to see if he had a reason for doing it?
Did anyone else in this league or the BOD do this to try and understand? No
I am the only one who tried to understand why an unfair deal was made so that it could go through the BOD. I am also the only one who told Michael why I vetoed the deal and what he needs to add.
Also you are criticizing the entire BOD which includes 6 of the most experienced GM's in this league and if you can,t accept us making a decision for th ebetter of the league there's a problem.

Predsgm · Guru

Okay guys.... you are all taking this way too far... I too was a little peeved about sending a couple of emails and the LA GM didn't respond to him.. but you know what. no need to cry over spilt milk.. try a deal somewhere else... If you think its suspicious talk to the commish... better yet. talk to both gms and see what they are thinking..

i think the deal is fair. and this bergeron saga should just get moved on.. because its sickening to hear the crying that is beginning... if we dont have a BOD. then we will end up having a team that trades away everyeone and all they have left is one rated guy at least 75.. then what do we do... who will pay 50 dolllars.. right no one..

read the trade blocks guys.. gms are putting up msgs there everyday.. theres lots of centers available besides some 20 yr old.. who had a good rookie season.. but we dont know. maybe his career will be cut short cause of an injury...

Preds GM

VancouverGM · Senior Member

Ok i just wanted to way my 2 cents in here because this is a player who i recieved in a deal then was taken away by the BOD. I received an email from the BOD that said that the LA GM said "He didnt think he was going to be around next year because he thought that the league wouldnt want him back" So that was one of the reasons the trade got vetoed. So is he done after this year or not? If he is done after this year then this trade is BS.......I understand that this trade is a better deal then the deal i offerd to the Kings Gm. But if you know that he isnt coming back net year how do you let him trade bergeron then. I mean Straka and Conroy is the same kind of player. So Vermette and Volchenkov versus Malik is going to make the next gm that comes in and say "Wow i really gotta get this squad". Bergeron was LA's 1st round pick in the draft, "Franchise Player".

My trade got vetoed because the opinion of the BOD. Marek Malik for Bergeron? He was also receiving 2.5 mil in cash a 3rd round pick a young prospect with a little potential but def no slouch prospect and Martin Straka and Eric Daze. If Straka and Malik and 2.5 mil for Bergeron was a bad deal....sooo bad that it wasnt even close to being considered then fine. Because all the other players in the deal were traded. Daze the 3rd rounder and Korpikoski was dealt for Clark.

And yes i told the Tampa that it was ok if he went after him. Although his trade is better then mine it aint all that better. I also was given a chance to rework the deal and when i did they said well we need an explanation from the LA GM to see his reasoning behind the deal, I mean after all he paid the 50 bucks and it is his team and this is what he said. " The reason for this trade is a need a shakeup in my lineup and i believe having Martin Straka will be a leader and I will be receiving a good prospect and cash in return. Chris Clark was a bad trade in my part and he has not proved himself. Thats was a quick decision on my part to get under the cap before the season started". I guess that reason wasnt good enough :(

Philippe27 · Guru

VancouverGM wrote:

Ok i just wanted to way my 2 cents in here because this is a player who i recieved in a deal then was taken away by the BOD. I received an email from the BOD that said that the LA GM said "He didnt think he was going to be around next year because he thought that the league wouldnt want him back" So that was one of the reasons the trade got vetoed. So is he done after this year or not? If he is done after this year then this trade is BS.......I understand that this trade is a better deal then the deal i offerd to the Kings Gm. But if you know that he isnt coming back net year how do you let him trade bergeron then. I mean Straka and Conroy is the same kind of player. So Vermette and Volchenkov versus Malik is going to make the next gm that comes in and say "Wow i really gotta get this squad". Bergeron was LA's 1st round pick in the draft, "Franchise Player".

My trade got vetoed because the opinion of the BOD. Marek Malik for Bergeron? He was also receiving 2.5 mil in cash a 3rd round pick a young prospect with a little potential but def no slouch prospect and Martin Straka and Eric Daze. If Straka and Malik and 2.5 mil for Bergeron was a bad deal....sooo bad that it wasnt even close to being considered then fine. Because all the other players in the deal were traded. Daze the 3rd rounder and Korpikoski was dealt for Clark.

And yes i told the Tampa that it was ok if he went after him. Although his trade is better then mine it aint all that better. I also was given a chance to rework the deal and when i did they said well we need an explanation from the LA GM to see his reasoning behind the deal, I mean after all he paid the 50 bucks and it is his team and this is what he said. " The reason for this trade is a need a shakeup in my lineup and i believe having Martin Straka will be a leader and I will be receiving a good prospect and cash in return. Chris Clark was a bad trade in my part and he has not proved himself. Thats was a quick decision on my part to get under the cap before the season started". I guess that reason wasnt good enough :(

I just want to say the reason I thought your deal was so unfair is that Straka cannot be tagged next year if he is traded and Daze even if he comes back will also be a UFA because he can't be tagged. Therefore next year the only asset that LA will have next year is Malik.

I am the one who talked to LA and he did tell me he didn't think he'd be back but that is between Eric and Jason. Michael then made a deal with jason which meant to me that he was back and would remain at least until the end of the season which gives me the right to deal with him.

If the issue here is that this trade is unfair then send it to the BOD like I said before I got no problem with that and tell me that I need to add to make this deal go through like I did with Michael.
If the issue is that I can't deal for him because the trade was vetoed 6-0 by the BOD then it makes no sense.
Finally if the issue is that the previous deal shouldn't have been vetoed, that question was dealt with and it was UNANIMOUS WITH THE BOD. We all agreed the deal cannot go through for the better of the LA franchise, it wasn't just me.

VancouverGM · Senior Member

Yes but who is to say he wouldnt have resigned Straka? And honestly if i didnt give you the Ok to go for him would have you backed off and said no.....Of course not and you shouldnt you want to make your team better then you have every right. Just dont come on here and act like you are a saint, and when i threw in a pick a prospect and 2.5 million it still got shot down. If all we can do in this league is make fair deals then dont bother asking Vancouver for deals anymore he aint listening. Im not saying im only looking for unfair deals im all for fair deals as well. After all this im a little sour and im not dealing anyone anymore. Thats the last thing Ill write on this topic.

-- Edited by VancouverGM at 16:37, 2006-10-25