ATD2011 Trade Thread & Trade Talk

[seventieslord]

Trading brings out the worst in posters. The bickering about them instead of the appreciative and informative discussions about players and the history of hockey. The whole thing becomes a petty, selfish exercise overly obsessed on competiveness and winning in the playoffs when team building is supposed to be beside the point, the playoffs a fun offshoot instead of the point of it all, the draft about thinking through the history of the game, seeking to appreciate to the proper degree various contributors. A trade-free draft (or at least a trade-free conference to show the relative saneness and difference) was going to be the first step on the road to returning to the History board as a subforum there. Trading just shows the ATD subforum belongs where it is, with the games forum and all the jostling gamesmanship that goes on in fantasy competition. Oh well. So be it. 59% of us wanted it this way. We get what we deserve.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

It's kinda hard to have appreciative and informative discussions about the players and the history of hockey when the draft has not even started yet.

I have worked very hard to put all mentions of trades in a separate thread so that it's not so "in your face" for the people who were opposed to trading, and still I get a post like this, in the trade thread, before the draft has started.

There's nothing petty or selfish about trading or about what Mr. Bugg in particular is trying to do. He's actually a perfect example of why a no-trade draft would be utterly boring - now we get to see what happens to a team built on three top-40 players (assuming he pulls it off) and we also get to see two teams without a franchise player but assumedly stronger depth beyond that. Much better than 40 vanilla teams.

Trading does not make this any less of an important exercise in the appreciation of hockey history. I'm sorry that you feel that way though. I know you don't really think this draft is no better than some fantasy draft, or you wouldn't be here. What trading does is make this fun for a lot of people, and more interesting for a lot of others. We're allowed to have fun, right?

If it's so bad then perhaps more than 41% will vote against trades next year. So far, with the draft not even on yet, it's really hard to put forth a convincing argument that trades have had a negative impact.

 

[hfboardsuser]

oh, come on, don't be like that. It's not that the advantage is "slight", it was quickly apparent to the first three people to comment on it, that it's very much in your favour, and no wonder you'd also be open to doing it!

If the 5th and 8th were switched around, it would be a pretty fair deal, IMO. Six rounds out of the 1st, for 3 later, and 14 much later.

As I said, two GMs have already indicated it's, in their opinion, a fair deal. Two veteran GMs, no less. I didn't come to my conclusion about its validity by magic.

Yes, you are right, an eighth rounder instead of a fifth rounder would be "more fair"... But as I said, that's not the purpose of vetoes.

And VI, with all due respect, grand-standing about bush league conduct and fretting over how it hurts the "image" of the ATD is ironic considering it was you who drove new GMs away with your childish behavior.

 

[Sturminator]

I see the ATD remains the same sewing circle as ever.

How about I just let the other 39 GMs negotiate my trades for me, then, as apparently I'm either always giving too much or too little?

It is not a coincidence that we've already seen several successful deals in this ATD, but your plans are taken to task. You are not being nitpicked because we "just don't like" your proposals. You are attempting large and radical trades. Such deals are often imbalanced.

I'm not trying to be a Pronger over this, but vetos are meant for deals that would imply collusion or otherwise undermine the process- not ones you just don't like.

Where did you get that idea? Trade vetoes exist to maintain competitive balance within the league - to keep trades within reason, whether or not they are consumated between consenting parties.

In that case, I'm going to veto every deal because one team will always have a greater advantage, however slight.

Fortunately, we do not run a system that allows a single GM absolute veto rights. This is not the UN, Nikita.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Is this draft that big of a deal that people fight over petty details like this?

 

[DoMakc]

Is this draft that big of a deal that people fight over petty details like this?

It seems to. We need to start drafting, so we'll have something else to talk about.

 

[vancityluongo]

To be honest, I'd allow that trade. I could see how Bugg could gain a slight advantage, but that's life. Do you think Gary Bettman vetoes trades because he can't allow player X to go to Detroit because they're already too good and that'll ruin league parity!!! Send him to the Devils instead, they're in last!

Maybe I'm not thinking the same way as the rest of the people on the trade committee, but IMO this trade is barely veto-consideration worthy. Not every trade is going to be perfectly balanced, and this one doesn't stand out to me as completely slanted one way.

My 2 cents.

 

[jarek]

To be honest, I'd allow that trade. I could see how Bugg could gain a slight advantage, but that's life. Do you think Gary Bettman vetoes trades because he can't allow player X to go to Detroit because they're already too good and that'll ruin league parity!!! Send him to the Devils instead, they're in last!

Maybe I'm not thinking the same way as the rest of the people on the trade committee, but IMO this trade is barely veto-consideration worthy. Not every trade is going to be perfectly balanced, and this one doesn't stand out to me as completely slanted one way.

My 2 cents.

Then what is the point of the trade committee to begin with if these trades are allowed through? Give me my no-trade conference and you guys can do whatever you want. Until then, we need to keep this draft balanced. This trade is horribly unbalanced. Basically, he wants us to give up a franchise player and a top-3 forward/top-2 defenseman and a spare for 3 2nd liners or 2nd pairing defensemen (at best).

As far as why the real NHL doesn't veto these types of trades: the situations aren't even close to comparable. This is a competitive draft where EVERYONE starts with a clean slate. The NHL is nothing close to that kind of situation.

 

[hfboardsuser]

How does a 5th and 7th rounder for a 1st and 23rd rounder grab people?

 

[jarek]

How does a 5th and 7th rounder for a 1st and 23rd rounder grab people?

That one is more plausible. Much more plausible. I'd probably be OK with that.

 

[nik jr]

I believe I've come up with a fair but still intriguing trade package for any GM looking to trade out of the first round:

Your first, fifth, 23rd rounder
For
My seventh, eighth, ninth rounder

A couple of folks are already considering it, but anyone who is interested can PM me.

i would not veto.

 

[vancityluongo]

Then what is the point of the trade committee to begin with if these trades are allowed through? Give me my no-trade conference and you guys can do whatever you want. Until then, we need to keep this draft balanced. This trade is horribly unbalanced. Basically, he wants us to give up a franchise player and a top-3 forward/top-2 defenseman and a spare for 3 2nd liners or 2nd pairing defensemen (at best).

As far as why the real NHL doesn't veto these types of trades: the situations aren't even close to comparable. This is a competitive draft where EVERYONE starts with a clean slate. The NHL is nothing close to that kind of situation.

I think the trade committee is working fantastic, because when something like this happens, there are a few specific people who can have a discussion and then decide whether or not a trade is veto worthy or not.

Through PM, I discussed this deal with another GM, and I myself came to the conclusion that this deal is more lopsided than I first thought. Thinking it through, my vote as of right now would also be to disallow it.

What the previous post was getting at though is that overall, let's try and be a little less trigger happy with vetoing deals. There's a huge difference between "unfair" and "lopsided". The same applies to the other side too, as I just learned, it can't be a quick 30 second glance and then "bam, approved" either.

 

[jarek]

I think the trade committee is working fantastic, because when something like this happens, there are a few specific people who can have a discussion and then decide whether or not a trade is veto worthy or not.

Through PM, I discussed this deal with another GM, and I myself came to the conclusion that this deal is more lopsided than I first thought. Thinking it through, my vote as of right now would also be to disallow it.

What the previous post was getting at though is that overall, let's try and be a little less trigger happy with vetoing deals. There's a huge difference between "unfair" and "lopsided". The same applies to the other side too, as I just learned, it can't be a quick 30 second glance and then "bam, approved" either.

Some trades don't need much thought as to whether or not they're accept worthy or not. If the 5th and 7th rounders were going in opposite directions, that is something I would have to think about. As it stands, though, Bugg's latest idea is cool with me, so it's a non issue at this point as far as I'm concerned.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Home Nugget and I have agreed ( can ask him for confirmation ) to make the following trade:

To Home Nugget: 2nd overall , 79th , 159th & 239th picks.

To ReenMachine: 3rd overall , 78th , 158th & 238th picks.

Basically we switch 1st , 2nd , 4th and 6th round picks.

( If the trade is made official then Home Nugget can choose his pick if he's ready )

 

[BigDucky]

Home Nugget and I have agreed ( can ask him for confirmation ) to make the following trade:

To Home Nugget: 2nd overall , 79th , 159th & 239th picks.

To ReenMachine: 3rd overall , 78th , 158th & 238th picks.

Basically we switch 1st , 2nd , 4th and 6th round picks.

( If the trade is made official then Home Nugget can choose his pick if he's ready )

I, HomeNugget, do hereby confirm this trade.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I am willing to trade 64th overall...

But I don't want to drop down too far.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Zamboni Mania - 1st ( 5th overall ) , 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th
for
My 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 25th

Still to be confirmed by Zamboni Mania

 

[Dwight]

Whoa, when did this happen?

ZM, we need to talk this over...

 

[BenchBrawl]

Whoa, when did this happen?

ZM, we need to talk this over...

It's his offer , not mine.I thought we had a deal but go ahead and talk it over no problem.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Zamboni Mania - 1st ( 5th overall ) , 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th
for
My 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 25th

Still to be confirmed by Zamboni Mania

I don't know what to say! BIG trade.

Reen, I would advice you to wait before making your selection (Even though we know who you want). The draft clock hasn't started yet, I think it's preferable that the draft committee take a look at this. If they decide it's veto worthy (one way or another) and we're at pick #8 or #9, it might create trouble we don't need.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't know what to say! BIG trade.

Reen, I would advice you to wait before making your selection (Even though we know who you want). The draft clock hasn't started yet, I think it's preferable that the draft committee take a look at this. If they decide it's veto worthy (one way or another) and we're at pick #8 or #9, it might create trouble we don't need.

Allright , but I don't see why people should veto against it , I get the best player in the trade by far and they get depth.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Allright , but I don't see why people should veto against it , I get the best player in the trade by far and they get depth.

A bit too much depth. You turn a first liner into a franchise player and a spare into a third/fourth liner, but then you also turn 3 first liners into third liners, so to speak.

 

[Dwight]

I say don't do anything until I get ahold of ZM. I feel like I get equal say in whether this trade goes through, so I want to know what his mindset is behind this. I'm not sure if I'm interested in making this deal.

 

[BenchBrawl]

A bit too much depth. You turn a first liner into a franchise player and a spare into a third/fourth liner, but then you also turn 3 first liners into third liners, so to speak.

But I have 2 of the ''top 5'' player of all-time so to speak to compensate , which my make my borderline players way better by playing with them.Anyway , It's still to be confirmed and accepted by gms.

Also , veto is good and all , but it's pretty clear there's no collusion here , i'm new to this experience and it's VERY VERY clear what my intentions are with this trade if you take into account I already have Gretzky.

But we'll see.

 

[Derick*]

What a trade. What a top heavy team that would be.

If anyone drafting in the mid to late teens finds the player they wanted is gone, if the one I want is still available with your pick, don't draft. If you'd rather trade up for Orr we could trade him to you if the guy I want (and spend three or four days trying to trade for while still getting assets back) is still there, so long as reasonable asset combination comes back with your pick.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have... no idea what to make of that trade. My first thought is to let it through, but I don't know.

I do find it funny that GMs who voted for no trades or were vocal about no trades are now guys making huge splashes. Nothing wrong with that of course, I just find it funny.