|
Post by BluesGM on Jul 15, 2011 19:57:28 GMT -5
I'm not critiquing you and your deals overall. Im talking about Hortons asking price and how a trade occured and it was completely different. And to say he will get more for Visnovsky than Horton, I completely disagree. A team would rather have a 77 OV rated winger who is 25 than a 35+ year old defensemen who has a massive contract and a few seasons at best remaining. and btw - i know you're not critiquing me. you're critiquing the sens GM - and i'm sticking up for him. the entire time we were talking i knew he was trading for visnovsky to trade him. just like he traded for horton just to trade him. if he can get alot for lubo - it makes sense. if he can't - it might backfire. but it's a risk he, apparently, was willing to take. and it was his decision to make, not yours.
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Jul 15, 2011 21:33:53 GMT -5
It still doesn't make much sense as to why he'd trade for Lubomir only to trade him away for more kids though...why do that at all when he could trade Horton directly for kids in the first place? Why put any risk on that move? it's a move that gives him all the risk and no greater return really.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jul 15, 2011 22:07:42 GMT -5
because he got Schlemko, a top prospect and Fiddler (a favorite of his) out of it.
Regardless, it's his team, what gives you or anyone to question him publicly? Everyone makes bad trades. But everyone also has different opinions on trades, so who are you to call judge on a public forum?
|
|
|
Post by blackhawks on Jul 15, 2011 22:20:05 GMT -5
Alex, I have no idea why Ottawa did the deal as well, and all of us can say that if we want. It goes against everything they have been doing.
If Visnovsky goes for that, I should get something good for Brian Campbell, right?
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Jul 15, 2011 22:38:37 GMT -5
Teams have the right to question deals as long as they do it in the appropriate manner. For example, earlier this year, a GM questioned Vancouver's deal with a post titled, "Is the Vancouver GM on crack!?". This would be the incorrect way of complaining.
I don't see a problem with how the complaints were presented in this thread. I do, however, have a problem with sarcastic responses that's only purpose is to flame an argument. I'm pretty sure you know who you are.
It has been brought to my attention before by a few different GMs that they believed that there was a group of GMs who were moving players to/from their team indiscriminately as if they were just passing players back and forth. I'm not accusing anyone of this, however, it is something that I and the deputy commissioner have been keeping an eye on.
I believe that this trade has been brought into question because many a team have had discussions with Ottawa and offered what could be deamed a lot better value for Horton than he eventually accepted. It's understandable that this could be taken to look suspicious. I personally had discussions with Ottawa as well and felt the asking price for Horton was too high.
I'm going to hold off a day on processing this trade so we can all discuss it further.
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Jul 15, 2011 22:57:36 GMT -5
I do, however, have a problem with sarcastic responses that's only purpose is to flame an argument. I'm pretty sure you know who you are. *hides*
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jul 15, 2011 23:17:22 GMT -5
Teams have the right to question deals as long as they do it in the appropriate manner. For example, earlier this year, a GM questioned Vancouver's deal with a post titled, "Is the Vancouver GM on crack!?". This would be the incorrect way of complaining. I don't see a problem with how the complaints were presented in this thread. I do, however, have a problem with sarcastic responses that's only purpose is to flame an argument. I'm pretty sure you know who you are. It has been brought to my attention before by a few different GMs that they believed that there was a group of GMs who were moving players to/from their team indiscriminately as if they were just passing players back and forth. I'm not accusing anyone of this, however, it is something that I and the deputy commissioner have been keeping an eye on. I believe that this trade has been brought into question because many a team have had discussions with Ottawa and offered what could be deamed a lot better value for Horton than he eventually accepted. It's understandable that this could be taken to look suspicious. I personally had discussions with Ottawa as well and felt the asking price for Horton was too high. I'm going to hold off a day on processing this trade so we can all discuss it further. this trade should not, and better not, be vetoed, if that is what is being insinuated. there have been far more unfair trades, such as shawn horcoff for jussi jokinen, that have been accepted without complaint. trades are subjective, and unless CLEAR COLLUSION is present, no trade should be vetoed. we discussed this trade for HOURS, i was late to work because of it as well. even if you think the deal is lopsided, it is clearly NOT collusion. i'm not sure i'd want to be a part of this league if you veto this deal. you cannot set double standards as commisioner when it comes to this (which this clearly would) - and i already have made moves under the assumption i had horton (and visnovsky not...$$$$) on my team. again - people see trades differently. just because you wouldn't have done it, doesn't mean it's a bad trade. i had two of my buddies (avs and CBJ) tell me the trade i made with montreal was bad and i overpaid. so what? it happens. we all make deals for a reason, and unless our intentions are not pure, trades should never be vetoed. if that was the case, the panthers never would have traded luongo for bryan allen and todd bertuzzi.....
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jul 15, 2011 23:25:21 GMT -5
and by no means am i trying to threaten you - but as you can imagine - this is a very sensitive subject. i like to make alot of deals, and if trades like this start getting vetoed, it just promotes inactivity.
it's not like he traded me horton for visnovsky straight up either, he got a 23 yr old 71 d man and a top prospect in kristo. it's not a veto-able deal.
|
|
|
Post by Avs on Jul 15, 2011 23:28:06 GMT -5
I agree that it could be argued that worse trades have been made, and even accepted without discussion. That being said, I think we should allow the Ottawa GM a chance to voice his thoughts on the deal. Who knows, maybe he had a deal worked out with a 3rd party team that really wanted a defenseman (or Visnovsky specifically). Both sides should be heard before an arbitration ruling is rendered.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Jul 15, 2011 23:33:14 GMT -5
shawn horcoff is a 74 overall making 7 mil a year. he threw in a 67 overall and got jussi jokinen (a cheap, in his prime, signed to a nice contract, second line winger) for it.
that trade is FAR, FAR!! worse, and got accepted, no questions asked. this should not be vetoed.
|
|