ATD2011 Trade Thread & Trade Talk

[Sturminator]

Not that I disagree with you, but.. how come? In a draft this huge, having a lot of strong players in the top-6 and top-4 D will be critical, and each pick I'm receiving will get me a player in one of those positions.

Well...I think it's close. At pick #16, you know what you're giving up. Getting an extra 7th rounder is pretty big, but not as big as dropping from the 1st to 5th round, IMO. Moving up into the 11th round is useful, as well, but I still wouldn't do it from your perspective. You will definitely have impressive depth. I guess it's just a question of how you use it.

 

[jarek]

Well...I think it's close. At pick #16, you know what you're giving up. Getting an extra 7th rounder is pretty big, but not as big as dropping from the 1st to 5th round, IMO. Moving up into the 11th round is useful, as well, but I still wouldn't do it from your perspective. You will definitely have impressive depth. I guess it's just a question of how you use it.

The 5th round pick that I'm getting is still going to be a 1st line player or 1st pairing defenseman. That 7th rounder is also potentially a 1st line player or a very good 2nd liner player. Regardless, I have a specific plan in mind that will require me to have strong depth at the top. I am very confident in my abilities to pick out the best player remaining going into the second half of the draft as well, so.. I should be good.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well boys and girls, I know I said that I wouldn't make any trades this time around, but with the consensus agreeing that trades are necessary, I have found an opportunity to do something I've never done before - start the draft in the 2nd round!

My 1st (16), 18th (705), 20th (785)
Mr. Bugg's 5th (177), 7th (257), 11th (417)

Pending review of course, but in light of some of the insanity that's been going on recently, this should be fairly agreeable.

This one is completely fair.

It's also more proof that many of the GMs voting for a no-trade draft just wanted to be saved from themselves.

 

[Dwight]

So am I to assume that our trade is vetoed, then?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not worried about your team Reen - I can see arguments for it being both good and bad for you. I'm worried that you are giving Dwight/Zamboni Mania a huge advantage over the rest of us.

To ReenMachine - 5, 405, 476, 585, and 556
To Dwight/Zamboni - 76, 85, 156, 165, and 965

That would give him the following picks in total:
76, 79, 82, 85, 156, 159, 162, and 165

He'll have 8 picks when most people only have 4, which will give him overpowering depth.

On the other hand, your 3rd and 4th picks will be 239 and 242, by which point almost every team will have their starting 6 set.

When you put it that way: VETO!

By the way, I pretty much agree with everything sturm said in this thread (as I do most of the time, with the noteworthy exception of his opinion about a certain modern center)

I was actually coming here to suggest a limit of 4 picks swapped per trade. I can see a need for a 4 pick swap on occasion, if GMs need a minor swap later on to even out a deal. But I really don't see why a 5 pick deal is ever necessary.

That's too conservative , no room to maneuver.People have already traded ALL OF THEIR PICKS for the other GM entire set of picks.
.

There was already a decision before the draft that swapping an entire set of picks wouldn't count as a "trade," it was choosing your draft position. Nobody disagreed at the time.

Also, 2 GMs swapping an entire set of picks does nothing to change the balance of the draft.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Almost a week after the draft order was released, the "trade" thread is now longer than the "draft" thread. Worst start to the ATD ever?

 

[Dwight]

Ok, no trade. I'm sure ZM and I will be able to cope with having to draft that guy at 5th

 

[hfboardsuser]

Almost a week after the draft started, the "trade" thread is now longer than the "draft" thread. Worst start to the ATD ever?

The draft doesn't start for another six days. I myself would prefer we get all the movement out of the way beforehand so we're not having people kind of sort of trade on the clock.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The draft doesn't start for another six days. I myself would prefer we get all the movement out of the way beforehand so we're not having people kind of sort of trade on the clock.

I should have said "after the draft order was released."

I think we got through the majority of the first round last time before the clocks officially started.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

The draft doesn't start for another six days. I myself would prefer we get all the movement out of the way beforehand so we're not having people kind of sort of trade on the clock.

Jan 31 is just a guideline...the order is set the draft has begun.

 

[seventieslord]

Right now, we have a 5 man trade committee (not sure if 70's counts as the sixth), and two (myself and jarek) have come out with a vote to veto this deal, but we need a decision from TheDevilMadeMe, vancityluongo and MVPeyton (a single veto from any of them will do) to move on. Let's go ahead and get this done one way or another, as the disputed pick is currently on the clock.

Yes, I'm a part of it, and Yes, I vote veto. Which looks like it has been carried through already, so good.

This one is completely fair.

It's also more proof that many of the GMs voting for a no-trade draft just wanted to be saved from themselves.

Almost a week after the draft order was released, the "trade" thread is now longer than the "draft" thread. Worst start to the ATD ever?

I was actually coming in here to post: "I'm going to do a happy dance once the draft thread is longer than the trade thread."

 

[vancityluongo]

Almost a week after the draft order was released, the "trade" thread is now longer than the "draft" thread.

I was skeptical about that too when seeing the lengths of the respective threads. What's going on in here, you guys are moving too fast with all these deals!

Not that it matters anymore, but I'd veto that above deal too. I was a little worried yesterday that it would be shot down because of the one team getting Gretzky and that other guy, but agreed with Sturm and the others now, the return was just too massive, and looking at the deal without considering who the other team already had, just way too much to overlook.

 

[markrander87]

Looking to move the 23rd overall pick. PM with trade offers.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Looking to move the 23rd overall pick. PM with trade offers.

You had one and "LOL"ed at it.

 

[markrander87]

You had one and "LOL"ed at it.

Because the offer was "LOL" Worthy.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Because the offer was "LOL" Worthy.

And yet a similar package got me a higher pick than yours. Maybe you need to re-evaluate what the 23rd pick is actually worth?

 

[markrander87]

And yet a similar package got me a higher pick than yours. Maybe you need to re-evaluate what the 23rd pick is actually worth?

LOL

L
O
L

You wanted it so bad, you must hold a lot of value for it.

 

[Derick*]

Wow, trading is tearing us apart.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Wow, trading is tearing us apart.

No , it's pretty entertaining

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I am thinking of a new trade metric (read "restriction") which would probably do a lot more to maintain league balance than the three trade maximum rule.

No more than three rounds movement (up or down) for any pair of picks in a trade and no more than three picks involved in any trade.

What does this mean? Well, it makes huge and complicated trades impossible. If you wanted to bail out of the 1st round, for example, you could not accept anything less than a 4th rounder for it, and nothing more in return than two seperate move ups of three rounds (with the other two picks in the deal). So, for example, under this metric, the highest possible return for a trade down out of the first round (and the most unbalancing possible trade) would be as follows:

1st, 6th, 7th

for

2nd, 3rd, 4th

The 1st pairs with the 2nd (the smallest movedown possible), while the 6th and 7th pair with the 3rd and 4th (three round move up in both cases). It is still potentially unbalancing, but I would personally find the above trade acceptable. One GM might end up with an advantage, but it would not be a league-killer.

If we adopt the above standard, all the nonsense trade bickering could be put to rest. Trades belong in the ATD; they are a very important tool that allows GMs to build the kind of team they want to build. A little move-up here to get the guy you want, a little strategic move-down there because you don't like the guys on the board...these things are good, and should remain in the ATD.

But these monster trades are a poison to the league, and should be snuffed out once and for all with a clear rule.

Does anyone else want to pursue the idea of a brightline rule farther? I tried to come up with something in the pre-draft discussions, but it was based on ratios and really didn't go anywhere.

I agree with sturm in theory but:

1) I think the limit should be 4, not 3.

2) These limits would prohibit future trades like this one:

Well boys and girls, I know I said that I wouldn't make any trades this time around, but with the consensus agreeing that trades are necessary, I have found an opportunity to do something I've never done before - start the draft in the 2nd round!

My 1st (16), 18th (705), 20th (785)
Mr. Bugg's 5th (177), 7th (257), 11th (417)

Pending review of course, but in light of some of the insanity that's been going on recently, this should be fairly agreeable.

And it seems nobody on the trade committee has a problem with the above.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Does anyone else want to pursue the idea of a brightline rule farther? I tried to come up with something in the pre-draft discussions, but it was based on ratios and really didn't go anywhere.

I agree with sturm in theory but:

1) I think the limit should be 4, not 3.

2) These limits would prohibit future trades like this one:



And it seems nobody on the trade committee has a problem with the above.

I strongly disagree with any rule , I think we just have to judge every trade and not be so severe , I understand my ''trade'' with Zamboni was crazy , but there's a way of making original trade without it to be as crazy as the one I tried to pull off.

Also , making rule on ''rounds'' is not really fair because a round has 40 picks and there's a big differance in value especially in the first couple of rounds.

I don't think nobody is gonna trade their 1st and 4th for a 2nd and 3rd for example.The value differance between the 1st rounder and the 2nd rounder is probably as big as the differance between the 2nd and the 4th.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I strongly disagree with any rule , I think we just have to judge every trade and not be so severe , I understand my ''trade'' with Zamboni was crazy , but there's a way of making original trade without it to be as crazy as the one I tried to pull off.

Also , making rule on ''rounds'' is not really fair because a round has 40 picks and there's a big differance in value especially in the first couple of rounds.

I prefer brightline rules whenever possible, but only if they make sense. And I think a ban on trades involving 5 or more picks is absolutely justified at this point.*

I tend to agree with you that the concept of "rounds" is far to nebulous to incorporate a strict rule. It's why I was trying to use ratios of picks in coming up with a rule, but it quickly ran into failure.

*and no, I don't consider 2 GMs swapping draft positions a "trade" for this purpose, as it does nothing to change the balance of the draft.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Anybody want to trade their 1st rounder pm me I'm interested to talk

 

[VanIslander]

Mr Bugg has three of the top-17 picks yet has held onto picks in rounds 4,5,6 too.

I predict he will win his division. He certainly already is a contender without making a single pick!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Mr Bugg has three of the top-17 picks yet has held onto picks in rounds 4,5,6 too.

I predict he will win his division. He certainly already is a contender without making a single pick!

He traded his 5th and 7th to jarek. He still has 4 and 6, though.

It will certainly be interesting to see how he fills out his team.

Edit: Duh, you're right of course. He got the extra 5th from Nayld.