Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 17:10:56 GMT -5
Relevant here: waiting 48 hours for a trade to pass wont work for the draft. Hopefully that gets changed soon. GMs will be wheeling and dealing. Get the trade approved ASAP and keep rolling. or else the draft will drag on forever waiting for traded picks to clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 24, 2014 17:22:38 GMT -5
Its not 48 hours....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 17:28:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 20:09:07 GMT -5
Dave Buffalo: I think your intentions are very good but I fear you are over complicating the trade review process.
I disagree; breaking down each individual trade panel member to figure out the last nook and cranny won't help anything. It think it will accomplish the opposite of what is desired; more disappointment and hard feelings. It's like I try and tell my boss "I work better when you don't micro-manage my day".
Micro-managing? LOL. That's funny to me. [One could argue that micro-managing is exactly what the trade council is doing by offering an opinion on every single trade (even trades between two established GMs need to go through this process). That’s the definition of micro-managing, IMO.] Again, all I am asking you, and other trade council members, is one simple question: what is your criteria for vetoing a trade? Why should people be afraid to disclose this? If a trade council member will not answer that question, then the process is not transparent. And if they cannot answer it, then I just don't see how they are qualified to evaluate a trade. You cannot expect people to invest a lot of time into making trades if you won't even tell us what each individual trade council member will be using to apply a veto.We've at least established something great here: an acknowledgement that there is no common standard and that some members place a much higher standard than others. That at least explains why there appears to be no consistency across panel members, with some members being much more veto-happy than others. I’ve found this discussion very informative, and would welcome other trade council members to let me….and everyone else ...know how they intend to judge trades moving forward. And if a trade council member won’t do this, I’d like to know why they are qualified for the position? In addition to enhancing transparency, publishing individual’s criteria for evaluation of trades should also have the benefit of helping each member being consistent with their decisions. And keep in mind, I'm fully aware that a member's views may evolve over time, and they may wish to alter their philosophy. And that's fine, in my opinion, as long as they disclose it. I would like to thank Red Deer, Pembroke and Barrie for elaborating on their criteria. I look forward to hearing from the other four members (even if it is a refusal to disclose how they will evaluate trades moving forward). Red Deer: "Q1. Yes. For example, GM want someone to trade for his 1st rnd entry 2 months before the draft. IF the GM waited till draft day, the justification for exploring all options would be met. Trading too early for low value can be a reason for a veto. Q2. Trades don't need to equal. In fact most are 60-40 depending on who you ask. Market value means the going rate for that particular player in relation to his key attributes (salary, age, stats, potential). A vetoed trade can happen if the balance is more like 75-25 (as determined by at least three panel members) Q3. GMs use that phrase when the tilt is like 65-35. border line. Meaning they had a tough time deciding if it was so unfair that a veto should be made." Barrie: "For me it's simple.... Does it cause harm to the league's integrity?" Pembroke: "I'm ok with the trade being in favour of one team, especially if the other team initiated the trade. I am of the opinion that there SHOULD be an overpayment made by a team if they are after a player(s) to improve their team. As long as there is no outright evidence of collusion or tanking or a new GM being taken advantage of, I am going to approve the trade." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 20:16:24 GMT -5
Dave Buffalo: We answer your questions and still you are unsatisfied. I don't know what else can be done. All of us here are clear and concise but you persist on questioning like we are the ones making trades lol. Nice try to turn the tables on the trade council but really just focus on making deals for your club and go from there.
Look: by the time this discussion started I have made two trades. I focus on improving my club instead of focusing on what the trade council might say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 21:12:10 GMT -5
Do you not think a line needs to be drawn somewhere? What about Crosby for Jagr? or Stamkos for a 2014 3rd? It's great that you want to let GMs build the way they want, but some GMs are concerned with the health of the entire league. You took over a team and other GMs will likely take over other teams in the future. Why allow a GM to make terrible trades and decimate their team and make it more difficult to find a replacement once the GM realizes his team is terrible and has no hope for the future. This hasn't happened and likely won't, but allowing trades like the ones I used as examples are indefensible and I'm sure you would have enjoyed this league less if the team you took over traded away all his valuable assets for 4th round picks and 38-40 year olds and there was nothing in place to prevent those trades from occurring. No, I don't think a line needs to be drawn anywhere. If someone wants to make bad trades because they don't know any better, it's the only way they are going to learn. I'm anti-veto. Period. You can start listing bad trades, but realistically, no one is going to trade Stamkos for a third. And if they do, well, all we can do is shake our heads that we didn't offer a second. It's a moot point anyways. Out of 17 votes, I am the only one to vote for no veto. So there's no real point of arguing it here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 21:21:55 GMT -5
Dave Buffalo: We answer your questions and still you are unsatisfied. I don't know what else can be done. All of us here are clear and concise but you persist on questioning like we are the ones making trades lol. Nice try to turn the tables on the trade council but really just focus on making deals for your club and go from there.
Look: by the time this discussion started I have made two trades. I focus on improving my club instead of focusing on what the trade council might say.
Dear Eric. I thanked you for answering my question. More that half of your council hasn't not, so the post wasn't addressed to you. My messaging has been very consistent, despite your latest snarky attempts to derail my discussion re: transparency. Perhaps you could just let the other panel members speak for themselves? You've answer me, I thanked you. Let's move on... And perhaps it's easier for you to make trades since you and your council buddies already know each others criteria for getting trades through; unfortunately I'm still trying to gain that insight. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 21:35:32 GMT -5
Dave Buffalo: If I may give advice. Just make the trade without worrying about the council. The very worst thing that could happen is a vetoed trade and then both teams re-work it.
You seem like a guy who likes to do things right. And that is a good thing about you. I would also suggest taking your concerns on a case-by-case basis. For example, One or two GMs (I won't name names) used to ask me about what I thought of their trade before it was posted (back when our league first started and everyone was just getting their bearings). It is always good to get a second opinion from a council member.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jun 24, 2014 21:41:20 GMT -5
I also think the other trade council members would veto for the same reasons myself, Dave and Eric have mentioned. Collusion or a GM being taken advantage of based on the trade being too lopsided. You can't set a criteria on what constitutes being too lopsided because it is subjective. Different GMs have different opinions as you have discovered Eric might consider trades vetoable I do not since his opinion can differ from mine and neither is definitively right. That is why there are 7 voices on the panel to get a variety of opinions.
Without sounding like a broken record let me again stress that the council doesn't go around vetoing deals and there should be no reason to fear having your deals vetoed. As Eric said, worst case scenario it has to be reworked and that is extremely unlikely and not the end of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 25, 2014 10:30:28 GMT -5
I'm leaving this open until Friday, 3 pm Eastern. If you don't vote by then, tough titty.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 11:31:30 GMT -5
Dave Buffalo: I think your intentions are very good but I fear you are over complicating the trade review process.
I disagree; breaking down each individual trade panel member to figure out the last nook and cranny won't help anything. It think it will accomplish the opposite of what is desired; more disappointment and hard feelings. It's like I try and tell my boss "I work better when you don't micro-manage my day".
Micro-managing? LOL. That's funny to me. [One could argue that micro-managing is exactly what the trade council is doing by offering an opinion on every single trade (even trades between two established GMs need to go through this process). That’s the definition of micro-managing, IMO.] Again, all I am asking you, and other trade council members, is one simple question: what is your criteria for vetoing a trade? Why should people be afraid to disclose this? If a trade council member will not answer that question, then the process is not transparent. And if they cannot answer it, then I just don't see how they are qualified to evaluate a trade. You cannot expect people to invest a lot of time into making trades if you won't even tell us what each individual trade council member will be using to apply a veto.We've at least established something great here: an acknowledgement that there is no common standard and that some members place a much higher standard than others. That at least explains why there appears to be no consistency across panel members, with some members being much more veto-happy than others. I’ve found this discussion very informative, and would welcome other trade council members to let me….and everyone else ...know how they intend to judge trades moving forward. And if a trade council member won’t do this, I’d like to know why they are qualified for the position? In addition to enhancing transparency, publishing individual’s criteria for evaluation of trades should also have the benefit of helping each member being consistent with their decisions. And keep in mind, I'm fully aware that a member's views may evolve over time, and they may wish to alter their philosophy. And that's fine, in my opinion, as long as they disclose it. I would like to thank Red Deer, Pembroke and Barrie for elaborating on their criteria. I look forward to hearing from the other four members (even if it is a refusal to disclose how they will evaluate trades moving forward). Red Deer: "Q1. Yes. For example, GM want someone to trade for his 1st rnd entry 2 months before the draft. IF the GM waited till draft day, the justification for exploring all options would be met. Trading too early for low value can be a reason for a veto. Q2. Trades don't need to equal. In fact most are 60-40 depending on who you ask. Market value means the going rate for that particular player in relation to his key attributes (salary, age, stats, potential). A vetoed trade can happen if the balance is more like 75-25 (as determined by at least three panel members) Q3. GMs use that phrase when the tilt is like 65-35. border line. Meaning they had a tough time deciding if it was so unfair that a veto should be made." Barrie: "For me it's simple.... Does it cause harm to the league's integrity?" Pembroke: "I'm ok with the trade being in favour of one team, especially if the other team initiated the trade. I am of the opinion that there SHOULD be an overpayment made by a team if they are after a player(s) to improve their team. As long as there is no outright evidence of collusion or tanking or a new GM being taken advantage of, I am going to approve the trade." What about me ? I know I've been pretty quite about this topic the last week. But I'm sure you know my criteria which is the following; -Is there collusion - Will it hurt the league by letting the deal threw - Reputation of the gm - And if the deal is not balance enough meaning 20-80. What I expect is there to be a winner in every deal. it soo hard to have two winner in every deal. But it doesn't mean the loser isn't happy with the deal. Let's say a gm is looking for a goaltender and he overpay for the keeper, then it make sense. If I was a gm, I would always explain the reason behind doing such a deal. If a gm tell us I was looking for PIM,hits and trade a quality Center to acquire it then I would let it threw. Here's a exemple To team A get: Richard Clune + pick Team B get: Mike Fisher Even tho I feel Fisher is a better player, I still feel that he was getting what he was looking for. If he's happy with the deal then I feel we done our job. But imagine he does this deal Jordan Staal for PIM and hits and block But imagine if the guy is weak in the center department and strong in the stats he's getting in return. Then I would ask why and look threw the deal more in detail. Reasoning behind a deal is a crutial part of accepting a deal. It simply showes us that he knows exactly what he's doing and not dealing for the heck of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 25, 2014 11:38:10 GMT -5
What does the rep of a GM have to do whether you would consider vetoing a deal? Should be on the deal itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 12:00:03 GMT -5
What does the rep of a GM have to do whether you would consider vetoing a deal? Should be on the deal itself. If a gm is known to be losing in most of his deals then that's a reputation. I will be harder to approve another deal of his 40 for him and 60 for the other gm. Reputation become irrelavant if all gm are good but does become if we fear that one or two have shown sign of being a weak gm. |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 25, 2014 12:09:23 GMT -5
What does the rep of a GM have to do whether you would consider vetoing a deal? Should be on the deal itself. If a gm is known to be losing in most of his deals then that's a reputation. I encourage you to make your decision based on the players involved and not the rep of a GM. This is an example as to why I am against having a trade panel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 12:50:52 GMT -5
If a gm is known to be losing in most of his deals then that's a reputation. I encourage you to make your decision based on the players involved and not the rep of a GM. This is an example as to why I am against having a trade panel. My main decision will always be on the player involved but I will always take into consideration who's making the deal and yes their reputation. If it's between Dave and Matt then the reputation becomes irrelevant since both gm ever showed sign of the lack of knowledge that some gm have showned at times. |
|
