Saying goodbye

[Deleted]

It's been great here guys but it's time to say good bye, for the last time. I no longer agree with the direction of this league via the trade panel.

I, the Texas Stars GM, wanted to trade my depth and mid range NHL players/prospects & picks for an upgrade this trade deadline as this is where the Texas Stars are now. The Texas Stars lack high end talent but have alot of depth in average NHLers. I've succeeded at the entry and waiver drafts, but realize I need to trade to upgrade my current roster players. As a rule, I would not trade any of my 1st rounders or top end prospects for players above 26 years old or out of thier RFA contract statuses. In fantasy cap hit hockey, the highest value assets are the high picks, ELC top end players and those elite young NHLers. Today, we witnessed the trade panel allow Panarin to be dealt for Brock Nelson + Tage Thompson (as part of a larger deal) but veto a Panarin deal for a much larger package of Lehkonen + Schneider + Dubinsky + a collection of prospects and picks. Their justifications involved pulling out crystal balls and telling us all what will happen with the players traded for Panarin (all of course were glass half empty opinions). I'm told Dubi is washed up (tell that to Parise) or Schnieder won't get his game back (tell that to Rinne who also struggled following hip surgery (Albeit he had a much better team in front of him to support his recovery). It's like no one stopped to think that maybe the Devils just suck defensively and give no help to Schneider to help his recovery from surgery. On the other hand, the trade panel completely neglects to weigh the negatives of taking on Panarin like: 1) one dimensional scorers aren't the ideal IFFHL fantrax stat player 2) About to be overpaid on the free agent market or 3) risk of signing in Russia (unlikely but there are rumors). Basically, the trade panel is trying to increase the value on a player (soley because said player is on a weaker roster) and force my hand to overpay for the upgrade the Texas Stars need. I'm sorry but I'm not Peter Chiarelli and I won't be forced into a bad deal.

As one of the longest standing trade panel members, I've voted on deals for nearly six years and can honestly say as a group we haven't learned anything. If two GMs come together and agree on a deal and are both able justify the deal, that should be main point unless there is a grievous error such as a brand new GM making off the cuff deals or collusion. Are all trades perfect? No, and the trade panel doesn't exist to make perfect 50/50 deals. Trades are integral and a fun part of the fantasy hockey expereince and must be left to the GMs as much as possible. The intention of the trade panel when we started was to prevent collusion; the IFFHL was the offspring of a league where the Commish cheated and traded players to himself. I think we've strayed far from the trade fundamentals of our league and I've personally reached the breaking point.

As a trade panel member, have I made mistakes in vetos/approvals? Yes of course. But that's why there are multiple trade panel members in case one panel member gets it wrong. In this case of three straight vetos as in the Panarin deal, I ask myself: do I belong in this league if I am making trades that are so clearly vetoable in the eyes of four straight trade panel members? After six years, do I still have no idea how to make fair trades in this league? Or is it I need a different fantasy hockey expereince where all the GMs are all mature enough in hockey knowledge and are allowed to make their own hockey decisions without a trade panel?

I am very disappointed and sorry it's come to this but I can't change the trade panel or the structure of the league rules. So my only option is to agree and move one from having my trade (which I think and ORL thinks is fair) suppressed or make a stand and just leave the league entirely. I chose leave. Thanks for reading and all the best.

[Golden Seals]

Lame, sincerely sad to see you go but the panel is just trying to protect the integrity of the league.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

Funny how things have come full circle Eric. Recall you saying in earlier years that the Trade Panel was essential to the league, and that you would leave if it was ever taken away, you were one of its largest proponents.

You said it best, the highest value assets are high picks, ELC top end players and elite young NHLers - those are always the toughest to get. When trading away an elite player like Panarin, you need to get high value/elite assets in return, not a bunch of low/mid range and high risk assets, no matter the volume. Particularly if you're one of the lower asset value teams in the league, you have to be extremely careful about trading away the few high value assets you have. Those are your most valuable pieces that everybody covets, you really need to make the best use of them to improve your situation. You've always liked to bring up my Voracek trade (which was a large volume trade) saying that was the type of deal we need to be vetoing in this league to protect the weaker teams (even though you had no problem approving it at the time)

So now when the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it and quit? Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago you mention needing to scrutinize deals with the weaker teams a lot more. After all that was one of the trade evaluation criteria that you clearly hi-lited when vetoing my recent deals.

Really, looking at the deal itself, do agree with some of your points and don't mind it as much as some of the others - if you made it with me I'm sure many won't give it a second thought. Problem is you were dealing with one of the lower asset value teams in the league, who is trading away one of his few remaining prime assets. You mention countless times that should be our main focus in trade evaluation (other than detecting collusion), to ensure these lower asset value teams do not lose so much value as to become unrecoverable. Trades are always going to be very subjective and will garner wide ranges of valuation. We usually overvalue our own players and undervalue others - we make internal mental notes to convince us of that. But in the end, you really do need to view this from what's best for the league to be truly objective and try not to take things too personally.

[Djurgardens]

Feb 1, 2019 16:44:43 GMT -5 @texasgm said:

It's been great here guys but it's time to say good bye, for the last time. I no longer agree with the direction of this league via the trade panel.

I, the Texas Stars GM, wanted to trade my depth and mid range NHL players/prospects & picks for an upgrade this trade deadline as this is where the Texas Stars are now. The Texas Stars lack high end talent but have alot of depth in average NHLers. I've succeeded at the entry and waiver drafts, but realize I need to trade to upgrade my current roster players. As a rule, I would not trade any of my 1st rounders or top end prospects for players above 26 years old or out of thier RFA contract statuses. In fantasy cap hit hockey, the highest value assets are the high picks, ELC top end players and those elite young NHLers. Today, we witnessed the trade panel allow Panarin to be dealt for Brock Nelson + Tage Thompson (as part of a larger deal) but veto a Panarin deal for a much larger package of Lehkonen + Schneider + Dubinsky + a collection of prospects and picks. Their justifications involved pulling out crystal balls and telling us all what will happen with the players traded for Panarin (all of course were glass half empty opinions). I'm told Dubi is washed up (tell that to Parise) or Schnieder won't get his game back (tell that to Rinne who also struggled following hip surgery (Albeit he had a much better team in front of him to support his recovery). It's like no one stopped to think that maybe the Devils just suck defensively and give no help to Schneider to help his recovery from surgery. On the other hand, the trade panel completely neglects to weigh the negatives of taking on Panarin like: 1) one dimensional scorers aren't the ideal IFFHL fantrax stat player 2) About to be overpaid on the free agent market or 3) risk of signing in Russia (unlikely but there are rumors). Basically, the trade panel is trying to increase the value on a player (soley because said player is on a weaker roster) and force my hand to overpay for the upgrade the Texas Stars need. I'm sorry but I'm not Peter Chiarelli and I won't be forced into a bad deal.

As one of the longest standing trade panel members, I've voted on deals for nearly six years and can honestly say as a group we haven't learned anything. If two GMs come together and agree on a deal and are both able justify the deal, that should be main point unless there is a grievous error such as a brand new GM making off the cuff deals or collusion. Are all trades perfect? No, and the trade panel doesn't exist to make perfect 50/50 deals. Trades are integral and a fun part of the fantasy hockey expereince and must be left to the GMs as much as possible. The intention of the trade panel when we started was to prevent collusion; the IFFHL was the offspring of a league where the Commish cheated and traded players to himself. I think we've strayed far from the trade fundamentals of our league and I've personally reached the breaking point.

As a trade panel member, have I made mistakes in vetos/approvals? Yes of course. But that's why there are multiple trade panel members in case one panel member gets it wrong. In this case of three straight vetos as in the Panarin deal, I ask myself: do I belong in this league if I am making trades that are so clearly vetoable in the eyes of four straight trade panel members? After six years, do I still have no idea how to make fair trades in this league? Or is it I need a different fantasy hockey expereince where all the GMs are all mature enough in hockey knowledge and are allowed to make their own hockey decisions without a trade panel?

I am very disappointed and sorry it's come to this but I can't change the trade panel or the structure of the league rules. So my only option is to agree and move one from having my trade (which I think and ORL thinks is fair) suppressed or make a stand and just leave the league entirely. I chose leave. Thanks for reading and all the best.

You submitted two trades. One was passed effortlessly, the other vetoed with effort and investigation. Let's look at the one that passed:

Brandon Saad, W - IFFHL Ranking: 128nd(W); Pts:(82nd - Tied for 79th with 27pts with 5 other players)
for
Milan Lucic, W - IFFHL Ranking:136th(W)
Kevin Stenlund, C - IFFHL Ranking:N/A >>> Drafted: 2/58
Semyon Der-Arguchintsev, C -IFFHL Ranking:N/A >>> Drafted: 3/76
Alexander Volkov, W - IFFHL Ranking:N/A >>> Drafted: 2/48
2020 TEX 5E

Read more: iffhl.proboards.com/thread/1513/soo-tex-approved-3#ixzz5eK7K4f1Y

The distance between Lucic's decline and his peripheral contribution is mitigated by IFFHL's scoring allocation. Saad is the 128th best producing winger this season, Lucic is the 136th best producing winger this season. Supplementing the difference with known, quality, consensus up and coming assets like Stenlund, SDA, Volkov and a pick is an easy pass, at first glance and with subsequent verification. 

For me, it was an easy win long term for a club that needs long term value vs a club on the hunt, improving at position and in the near and mid to long term period.

Compare the value here with the value offered in your Panarin deal and two things should become factually self-evident. That your deal for Brandon Saad looks much more comparable to my Panarin deal with Orlando (i.e. Nelson is the 41st ranked winger to Panarin's 26th ranked placement) including the supplemental components that offset value where appropriate. How completely different the value is in your offer for Sadd, then it is for your offer of Panarin. 

You said: " As a rule, I would not trade any of my 1st rounders or top end prospects for players above 26 years old or out of thier RFA contract statuses. In fantasy cap hit hockey, the highest value assets are the high picks, ELC top end players and those elite young NHLers."


That's YOUR rule, Eric. That's not the guidelines by which I evaluate my deals. I HAPPILY paid a 1st round pick for Panarin PLUS two players I selected in the IFFHL's Entry Draft FIRST ROUND. It's ARTEMI PANARIN! for goodness sake. But more importantly, your valuation system isn't a compelled system of valuation...anywhere. 

Now couple your comment concerning where YOU SAID you needed to be more prudent in your exercise of vetoes for the express purpose of...PROTECTING WEAKER CLUBS. And you did that in comparing my Athanasiou/Namestnikov deal. Well that's interesting because Athanasiou is the 112th ranked winger in the league. Namestnikov is the 160th ranked winger. Leivo's the 173rd. Both are young. One is a former first round pick who played outstandingly in Tampa. And Leivo has certainly experienced a small increase in his play, but nonetheless supplements in peripheral categories and was included per request. Add Sean Durzi (also included per request) who was compared in offensive stats to Merkely, Bouchard and Clague, and the value is clearly verifiable.

It's interesting that on one hand you can look at a deal and conclude greater veto prudence for the protection of weaker clubs is necessary, and then on the heels of the same aim achieved against your deal, but for the protection of a weaker club, state: "I am very disappointed and sorry it's come to this but I can't change the trade panel or the structure of the league rules."

Your best asset going for the 26th best winger in the league was Lehkonen, the 96th best winger in the league. That disparity is a greater disparity than either Athanasiou to Namestnikov OR Panarin to Nelson...Selective reasoning my friend. Selective reasoning.

You said: "Today, we witnessed the trade panel allow Panarin to be dealt for Brock Nelson + Tage Thompson (as part of a larger deal) but veto a Panarin deal for a much larger package of Lehkonen + Schneider + Dubinsky + a collection of prospects and picks. Their justifications involved pulling out crystal balls and telling us all what will happen with the players traded for Panarin (all of course were glass half empty opinions)."


WRONG!

FIRSTLY: Today YOUR deal for Panarin was vetoed. And any day a deal is vetoed it can be reapplied for. Your deal TODAY was vetoed. Your deal for Saad days before was APPROVED. 

SECONDLY - AND AGAIN: My deal was not in acquiring Panarin. I SOLD Panarin. Meaning, the most valuable piece in the deal went to the WEAKER club, you know, like the ones you wanted to exercise your veto power more prudently for? What SELLING PANARIN entails was appropriate value in the offset i.e. CAP RELIEF. DUAL POSITIONAL ELIGIBILITY. 

THIRDLY: MY justification didn't include one magic trick. Unless of course you define corroborating players listed in their value according to their IFFHL point accruement. That's not magic, Eric, that's MATH. And remember, you criticized on the basis of LOGIC. Defined as: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Those rankings supplied by Fantrax's setting to the league's point allocation system don't employ future prognostications based on prediction or feelings. They are mathematically valid. 

On "glass half empty opinions"...When the player "above 26 players old" is an Artemi Panarin, it's reasonable to presume, first round talent is going to be exchanged on top of a suitable primary piece if enough first round talent hasn't been provided. Especially if that piece is leaving a bottom tiered club. It's the principal that's universally recognized with teams rebuilding: You move veteran pieces for high picks and valued prospects that were high picks. Clubs don't move youngish top tier ppg wingers for "lottery tickets" that have been on measurable decline for years (PLURAL) and who are bywords for devaluing assets in the NHL.

Consider the problem for what it is. You mentioned "crystal balls"...Is one needed more to determine against trend or with trend? Remember, you mentioned the word logic, Eric. Moreover, you referred to Rinne as a verifiable example to your claim...By all means, provide the season, and SEASONS in which Pekka Rinne's career mirrored Corey Schneider's?

You said: "On the other hand, the trade panel completely neglects to weigh the negatives of taking on Panarin"

Oh really? So (alleged) "rumors" of flight to Russia, of being "overpaid" in the upcoming free market and one-dimensionality in a league where he's ranked 26th by IFFHL standards and 16th in scored points are valid reasons to decrease Panarin's value below that of the 92nd ranked winger, two struggling veterans and rightly said "dime a dozen" pieces?

My primary reason for vetoing the deal wasn't you taking on Panarin, Eric. It was Orlando taking on a deal that doesn't fit any contending club, my goodness, let alone a bottom tiered club.

You described Dubinsky and Schneider as "lottery tickets:. What's the possible payout? When is a team like Orlando going to benefit from a player like Dubinsky or Schneider that he can't kick out a 4E or a 3W for in similar gambles? Really...When?

Artemi Panarin looks like a winning lottery ticket in hand. And I'd rather Orlando hold on to him and get the return his CLUB deserves. If the issue is additionally of using a veto...What can I say, Eric? I'm not trying to sell anyone on not using their veto after declaring I need to use it more judiciously to protect weaker teams now am I?

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

As someone who had a trade vetoed recently that I strongly disagreed with I get it. Take some time to cool off maybe, but respect whatever decision you end up making.

[Deleted]

If you are leaving to make a stand, then you're making a mistake. If you don't agree talk to the rest of the people on here and come up with a solution. And if you don't agree with that solution, maybe take some time off.

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

Feb 5, 2019 10:33:15 GMT -5 @mcdoused said:

If you are leaving to make a stand, then you're making a mistake. If you don't agree talk to the rest of the people on here and come up with a solution. And if you don't agree with that solution, maybe take some time off.

<iframe width="21.120000000000005" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 21.120000000000005px; height: 3.240000000000009px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_5153377" scrolling="no"></iframe>

<iframe width="21.120000000000005" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 21.12px; height: 3.24px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 998px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_44013783" scrolling="no"></iframe>

<iframe width="21.120000000000005" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 21.12px; height: 3.24px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 102px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_54663097" scrolling="no"></iframe>

<iframe width="21.120000000000005" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 21.12px; height: 3.24px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 998px; top: 102px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_30881043" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Pretty sure this is his version of taking time off, this is the 3rd or 4th time he has left.

[Deleted]

Prediction: Eric will come back, manage a new team...and then quit when the trade panel doesn't veto a trade that he finds unbalanced

[Dave (PLK)]

he is very wishy washy, to say the least

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

Have to love Eric's passion for the game though, always one for creating controversy around here. But just like Frank, gotta take the good, with the not so good:P

[Golden Seals]

Feb 12, 2019 12:59:48 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

Prediction: Eric will come back, manage a new team...and then quit when the trade panel doesn't veto a trade that he finds unbalanced

who's this person making his first ever post? 

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

Feb 13, 2019 16:25:30 GMT -5 Golden Seals said:

Feb 12, 2019 12:59:48 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

Prediction: Eric will come back, manage a new team...and then quit when the trade panel doesn't veto a trade that he finds unbalanced

who's this person making his first ever post? 

Previous BUF team - Dave who built a powerhouse team that rivaled mine, but quit during our championship finals matchup a couple of seasons ago because I started Kaapo Kahkonen instead of my regular starter(s) (still insist there was nothing wrong with that , though it did result in a subsequent rule change)

[Deleted]

Rule's changed? Well, then ... welcome back, Dave. Let's hook him up with a team.

[Dave (PLK)]

I have tried