SJ Sharks trade block

[Brent Burns Beard]

Trade was rejected... not my fault

Now officially sharks will package

Stafford + Raymond + Handzus

for top line center who has lower than 4mil salary, has PAssing over 80, and in NHL playing almost PPG, and has good history in scoring points.

2013 1st can be negotiated in to the package

If the player that you were supposed to get wasn't good enough, I don't see anyone offering more.

You were getting an in the prime #1 C with a great contract, how can it be topped?

 

[PasiK]

Sharks wont give up ...

Looking for

1st line Center with high passing.
3rd pair defenseman with DF close to 70 and low salary

offer it up

Only players not available are ...

Corvo and Pyatt which are signed .... and all stars defenseman Odonnell which will be signed. And Heatley who is waiting for new center

 

[PasiK]

.... Steve Bernier has good ratings and could be had for Dman with similar salary

 

[Ohio Jones]

Good luck on the centre front - took me a full year, two prime forwards (one of them a center himself) and a very dub-par year on the Part of Zajac for him to be made available. You might do an inventory of exactly how many players in the league actually fit your description (or rather, how few). The price will almost certainly be higher than you imagine...

 

[Canuck09]

Good luck on the centre front - took me a full year, two prime forwards (one of them a center himself) and a very dub-par year on the Part of Zajac for him to be made available. You might do an inventory of exactly how many players in the league actually fit your description (or rather, how few). The price will almost certainly be higher than you imagine...

This is just rubbing salt in the wounds I would think Doug....lol

A deal was done apparently and just not approved because what it did to the Sharks depth and future draft picks....or so it seems.

 

[PasiK]

This is just rubbing salt in the wounds I would think Doug....lol

A deal was done apparently and just not approved because what it did to the Sharks depth and future draft picks....or so it seems.

draft picks goes one for one ..

loosing depth wont hurt me as i have it a lot.

I did research league thru and did find some centers who might be available, but those players MOrale rating was low and that hurts my team if i acquire them. Also salaries were too high and i have been closer to cap already in two checkpoints.

 

[Ohio Jones]

If the deal was rejected on the grounds of San Jose giving up a draft pick, I'd question whether that was a fair call. I understand what would have motivated such a decision - one of the reasons we have trade reviews at all is to keep GMs - especially new GMs - from raiding their farms to the point where the team has no assets in two years, the GM bolts and nobody wants to take on the train wreck. However, I don't see that as being the case here.

Whatever you think of Pasi's trading style, you can hardly call him a rookie GM, and if the rumours of Koivu are true, it's not like he'd be giving up a pick for a veteran - he'd be getting a player in his prime - a top centre with a decade left to play. I think this season we've established that is the hardest asset in the league to acquire, and therefore the most valuable. Plus, I think Pasi has demonstrated that he's not in it for the immediate gratification - he's not about to bolt anywhere, I don't think.

No doubt there's more to the story - there almost always is. But if this truly is the crux of why the rumoured deal was shot down - i.e. that San Jose was giving up too much by swapping a first for a third - then I hope the DoPP office reconsiders.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have a once-in-a-lifetime event: me defending Pasi's trading approach!


(Oh, and Pasi: I wouldn't worry too much about an incoming player's morale: Vokoun had a morale in the low 30s when I acquired him - it hasn't stopped him from going 10-2 with a .944 save% and a 1.92 gaa. His morale is now 51.)

 

[Hossa]

If the deal was rejected on the grounds of San Jose giving up a draft pick, I'd question whether that was a fair call. I understand what would have motivated such a decision - one of the reasons we have trade reviews at all is to keep GMs - especially new GMs - from raiding their farms to the point where the team has no assets in two years, the GM bolts and nobody wants to take on the train wreck. However, I don't see that as being the case here.

Whatever you think of Pasi's trading style, you can hardly call him a rookie GM, and if the rumours of Koivu are true, it's not like he'd be giving up a pick for a veteran - he'd be getting a player in his prime - a top centre with a decade left to play. I think this season we've established that is the hardest asset in the league to acquire, and therefore the most valuable. Plus, I think Pasi has demonstrated that he's not in it for the immediate gratification - he's not about to bolt anywhere, I don't think.

No doubt there's more to the story - there almost always is. But if this truly is the crux of why the rumoured deal was shot down - i.e. that San Jose was giving up too much by swapping a first for a third - then I hope the DoPP office reconsiders.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have a once-in-a-lifetime event: me defending Pasi's trading approach!

I won't enter into an evaluation of a DoPP decision on the board, because frankly neither Tony or I will continue with the job if every trade we reject ends up being hashed out on the board. If the GMs of the league would prefer to simply put questionable trades to a vote and do away with the DoPP fine, we'd be more than happy to take back our free time, energy and use our thick skin to fend off other challenges in life.

But if people are going to discuss it anyways, then I will simply point out two issues which need to be considered. First, San Jose is projected go bankrupt, and second it is a team without a first round pick until 2013 and a very limited prospect list. In a league which in the past has fired, or threaten to fire at least, GMs of teams who go bankrupt, any evaluation of the trade, whether by the peanut gallery or the two suckers making the rulings, has to consider that.

I'm sorry if that sounds snappy, but dealing with the blowback from these decisions from the parties involved is one thing, but if we're going to have to explain ourselves to all 30 GMs every time a frustrated GM sounds off on the message board, then there's really no point of having a DoPP.

 

[Ohio Jones]

True enough, and my apologies for perpetuating that process. That said, the DoPP process is not infallible, and perhaps there ought to be an appeals process of some kind - call it a court of sober secon thought. I'm not suggesting that it take place in the harsh glare of the boards, but that perhaps the key arguments get raised to the admin team at large, or to the Commish. It would perhaps take some of the pressure off the DoPP team, and give GMs who passionately believe in the reasoning behind their trade a last chance to sell it. We've seen past decisions get bumped to the Admin team for consideration - given the experience of the GMs involved, that might have been worth doing in this case.

EDIT: having said all of that, and understanding how annoying it is to be second-guessed, I think it's unrealistic to expect that controversial decisions won't be subjected to some kind of public scrutiny or debate. It's part of the job, just as it is for Colin Cambell. (The very relevant difference, of course, being that Campbell gets paid to take the heat.)

 

[Hossa]

True enough, and my apologies for perpetuating that process. That said, the DoPP process is not infallible, and perhaps there ought to be an appeals process of some kind - call it a court of sober secon thought. I'm not suggesting that it take place in theharsh flare of the boards, but that perhaps the key arguments get raised to the admin team at large, or to the Commish. It would perhaps take some of the pressure off the DoPP team, and give GMs who passionately believe in the reasoning behind their trade a last chance to sell it.

EDIT: having said all of that, and understanding how annoying it is to be second-guessed, I think it's unrealistic to expect that controversial decisions won't be subjected to some kind of public scrutiny or debate. It's part of the job, just as it is for Colin Cambell. (The very relevant difference, of course, being that Campbell gets paid to take the heat.)

Just a suggestion.

I like the suggestion, but the key problem (other than we're not necessarily looking to add to the time constraints of the position) is that trades are expected to be turned around promptly. We almost always give teams a chance to explain their positions before making a final decision, and more often than not we put the trade on hold, ask the GMs to have a dialogue with us, and then at least half the time let it through in the end. In many cases we also get input from other admin members as well. It is extremely rare for us to reject a trade without doing one, or both of those things. Nor was this deal an exception. Other admin team members were consulted before a decision was made (necessitated in part by the fact I was on a safari tracking lions on the weekend), which is nonetheless a fact most would not know when they only hear the rumours.

Personally, I'm happy to take as long to be thorough as possible, but GMs are quick to put pressure on us to come up with a final decision. More consultations and discussions takes more time, so unless GMs are prepared to wait a few days at least, then it only creates more headaches. There are two guys in the DoPP office so that most trades get two looks, and I think the idea behind that every trade was guaranteed two looks. You should see the facebook messages and e-mails Tony and I trade on a weekly basis, almost every trade we consult on, and at least a third we go back and forth.

I don't really think the comparison with Colin Campbell is fair either. For one thing, he's not expected to respond to the criticism of his rulings, and if you're putting things on this board, you're expecting us to respond. If people want to question our competence on MSN, Skype, TSN or HNIC, or even write us a scathing e-mail, giddy up, but personally we don't have the time or energy to answer to these trades in the DoPP office and also on the board. Think of how annoying those financial debates that we have once or twice a year are when the Flames or somebody else is near bankruptcy. I don't think its fair or reasonable to expect the DoPP to play defense several times a year with a tone that plays like that.

I know that all sounds a bit autocratic, and I've considered for a while now how to make the DoPP more transparent, believe me I have. The political scientist in me would love it to function better, but transparency, consultations, appeals, that all takes time. Even if Tony and I had the free time to give, from my experience GMs keen to move on to their next move feel they don't.

 

[PasiK]

I won't enter into an evaluation of a DoPP decision on the board, because frankly neither Tony or I will continue with the job if every trade we reject ends up being hashed out on the board. If the GMs of the league would prefer to simply put questionable trades to a vote and do away with the DoPP fine, we'd be more than happy to take back our free time, energy and use our thick skin to fend off other challenges in life.

But if people are going to discuss it anyways, then I will simply point out two issues which need to be considered. First, San Jose is projected go bankrupt, and second it is a team without a first round pick until 2013 and a very limited prospect list. In a league which in the past has fired, or threaten to fire at least, GMs of teams who go bankrupt, any evaluation of the trade, whether by the peanut gallery or the two suckers making the rulings, has to consider that.

I'm sorry if that sounds snappy, but dealing with the blowback from these decisions from the parties involved is one thing, but if we're going to have to explain ourselves to all 30 GMs every time a frustrated GM sounds off on the message board, then there's really no point of having a DoPP.

Just hit my eye..

Trade would have only helped me in case 1. 2.5mil more out that in. In Case 2; 3rd round pick for this year draft aint bad, might give very talented prospect as well.. oh .. and i have depth and prospects still and perhaps other 2nd round pick coming.. trade clause with isles.

But have to post new trade block thread, this is going out of track, thanks for GMs given support.

Trade Committee is doing good job, but this time i dont agree their decision and reasons.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Not that I ever want to defend Tony or Sean (especially after raking my name through the mud in a previous post... look at my bank balance now Keogh!!!!) ... and the other admin team members who were involved in the discussion about this particular trade.... nor do I want to diss an existing GM or two but I'm going to. Apologies on both counts.

The DoPP's responsibility is to ensure that trades, especially when they're at the end of a sequence of bad trades, do not irrevocably endanger a franchise to the point where it takes ten years for a new GM (or existing one) to rebuild.

This trade was rejected because it is one in a long line of trades that have lowered the future talent on the Sharks to practically nothing - and not only that talent but the ability to replenish that talent.

The trade was obviously very one sided against the Sharks when viewed through this prism. And that is why it had to be rejected. If the Sharks had draft picks and young talent then perhaps the trade would not have been rejected - but even the smallest glance at the prospects page will tell you the future trouble (and then to make it worse he's trading two good young players with good upside in the deal as well...and today traded away yet another draft pick.)

In cases like this - the good of the league and franchises is the priority - despite the longevity of the GM's. I don't think an appeals process would do anything but aggravate the process. This might seem very autocratic. Because it is. And has to be. That's the point of the DoPP office.

And to add as well, I will say that in this case (and in all of them), the DoPP office didn't make the decision without careful consideration and without input from the higher up offices of the league as well. So well done Sean and Tony. Thanks for doing a very difficult job very well.

 

[MatthewFlames]

It would perhaps take some of the pressure off the DoPP team, and give GMs who passionately believe in the reasoning behind their trade a last chance to sell it.

but this time I don't agree their decision and reasons.

I'm sorry guys. But to be blunt. You are both terribly wrong. This was a horrible brutal trade for the future of the Sharks. There is no selling it.

 

[MatthewFlames]

If the deal was rejected on the grounds of San Jose giving up a draft pick, I'd question whether that was a fair call. I understand what would have motivated such a decision - one of the reasons we have trade reviews at all is to keep GMs - especially new GMs - from raiding their farms to the point where the team has no assets in two years, the GM bolts and nobody wants to take on the train wreck. However, I don't see that as being the case here.

Prospects

C Ben Ferriero 05, C Jean-Simon Allard 07, C Robin Lindqvist 06, C Tomas Kana 06, C/LW Brad Malone 07, D AJ Thelen (04), D Brandon Burlon 08, D Josh Godfrey 07, D Nick Ross 07, D Radim Ostrcil 07, Dwight Helminen 910Kx2 EURO, F A.J. Jenks 08, F Anton Gustafsson 08, F Christian Isackson(Y:2010-O:137), F Connor Brickley(Y:2010-O:91), F Geordie Wudrick 08, F Jason Clark(Y:2010-O:115), F Luke Moffat(Y:2010-O:170), F Mitch Wahl 08, G Philip Grubauer(Y:2010-O:97), G Zane Gothberg(Y:2010-O:106), RW Igor Makarov 06, RW Maxim Mayorov 07, RW Sergei Korostin 07, Tim Hambly 500Kx2 EURO, W Mike Hoeffel 07
Draft Picks

Year 2011: PHX 6, SAN 6
Year 2012: SAN 3, SAN 4, SAN 5, SAN 6, SAN 7
Year 2013: SAN 2, SAN 3, SAN 4, SAN 5, SAN 6, SAN 7

Really? How can you say that considering that there are NO assets in this list? Especially as I've edited it reflect what it would look like after the trade in question. This team has no future assets NOW. Let alone in two years....

 

[Ohio Jones]

Really? How can you say that considering that there are NO assets in this list? Especially as I've edited it reflect what it would look like after the trade in question. This team has no future assets NOW. Let alone in two years....

Two simple reasons:

1) Pasi isn't a fly-by-night GM, and he's not going to bolt when the going undoubtedly gets tough, unlike some GMs in the past.

2) He's not mortgaging the future for an aging vet with declining value (as past GMs have done) - he's getting young player in his prime, who will still have top value in the league for several years. Getting Koivu would actually *insulate* the Sharks' weak farm system long enough for Pasi to build up a decent prospect pool again.

Considering this sort of deal is what the other GM in the trade has made his bread and butter for several years, I just find it odd (and somewhat funny, Rob! ). But I do understand the thinking of the DoPP office and Admin team, and I do respect the process and the time and work of those that run it, so I'll clam up.

Nothing to see here - please move along.

 

[PasiK]

add to that prospect list ..

2011 3rd rd pick and 2012 2nd round pick..

it looks better after that

i have or would have had after trade about 17 players 29 or under playing in NHL this season. .. careers ahead.

add couple veterans and my team is ok. I understand your worries if my team has 17 over 35yrs players without prospects and picks

I agree with ohio jones .. looking further i see some of players giving prospects and picks to me more

 

[Dryden]

not that it matters but I side with Matt K and the DoPP on this

 

[MatthewFlames]

Two simple reasons:

1) Pasi isn't a fly-by-night GM, and he's not going to bolt when the going undoubtedly gets tough, unlike some GMs in the past.

Yes. This is true. Pasi is one of the top GM's in this league when it comes to participation and lines etc. and I hope he sticks around for a long time!

2) He's not mortgaging the future for an aging vet with declining value (as past GMs have done) - he's getting young player in his prime, who will still have top value in the league for several years.

I don't think this trade mortgages the future. I think that's already been done, hence the rejection.

Nothing to see here - please move along.

Nothing? It's not like you and me to get into a spat. I usually save those for Alvaro.

 

[MatthewFlames]

not that it matters but I side with Matt K and the DoPP on this

Free drinks for Dry in Vegas!!!

 

[kasper11]

Hard to comment on the trade without having seen the details, but....as someone who has been DoPP before, figured I would chime in on a couple of things...

1) It is bush league for people to complain about the job the DoPP on a public board. If you have a problem, they have email. Use it. Still have a problem? Bring it up with the commish. Especially for GMs that have been in the league for a long time and aren't even a party to the deal.

2) Pasi is projected to go bankrupt. That automatically puts him under heightened scrutiny. EVERY trade needs to be examined closely. Right now, he is only 4 points up on a playoff spot. If he doesn't make it, then what?

 

[HFNHL Commish]

For the record...and hopefully to close out this line of discussion...I was consulted on this trade and assented to the DoPP's recommendation.

In the "Sticky" section of this board, there is a post referencing guidelines for GMs in financial trouble. San Jose is one of these teams (as are Pittsburgh and Ottawa). The guidelines laid out in that post give the DoPP additional leeway in reviewing trades for financially-troubled teams. While it's true that San Jose would have shed a little salary in the trade proposed, there was concern that the big picture was being missed. In other words, relatively affordable players were the ones being traded, and not any of the more weighty contracts.

I think Pasi's a very good GM. I think our league is full of fantastic GMs. It's very rare that trades get rejected, and every once in awhile, someone's going to draw the short straw. For my part, I an determined to never have to fire a GM over finances again. I want that issue to be a thing of the past. As such, if the DoPP's office needs to be a little heavy-handed with teams projecting into bankruptcy, they're always going to have my full support.

Any further comments may be submitted to me via email.

Respectfully submitted,

The Commish