NYR-PHX

[New York Islanders GM]

I still don't see where Rangers needs to be rewarded because he was screwed over in the past. And when has that ever really a concern, if you make a bad deal, its your own fault, you aren't just given Lidstrom.

[New York Rangers GM]

Mar 1, 2012 14:56:53 GMT -5 New York Islanders GM said:

I still don't see where Rangers needs to be rewarded because he was screwed over in the past. And when has that ever really a concern, if you make a bad deal, its your own fault, you aren't just given Lidstrom.

I think what Yotes means was that I was screwed over by the mods, mostly him because he rejected it first and everyone followed suit when my deal was rejected and that Leafs/Avs deal was accepted straight off.

[Wynne - Retired Flyers GM]

And that's the thing, Yotes is saying you got screwed, but you would have been getting an 87 for an 83 and what, an 81 or something?

[New York Rangers GM]

Mar 1, 2012 15:03:37 GMT -5 Wynne - Retired Flyers GM said:

And that's the thing, Yotes is saying you got screwed, but you would have been getting an 87 for an 83 and what, an 81 or something?

Yes, that is correct, and that deal got rejected. So, I ended up trading Loops 83 for Gooch 84 then just 2 days ago, Loops 83 went in the Leafs/Avs for Koivu 88. How is that right?

Take a look for yourself.

www.eanhlsimulation.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=approvedtrades3&action=display&thread=33567

[Wynne - Retired Flyers GM]

Yeah, I saw it, I made a post in the thread, take a look for yourself. Forgot to add a reject to my post.

I don't know how that screws you over though? In your trade, you were ripping off Toronto, wether he was cool with it or not. In the Colorado/Toronto trade, Colorado is the one getting the short end of the stick.

Don't see how the person that would have come out on top gets screwed because they didn't manage to pull a lop sided trade off.

[New York Rangers GM]

Mar 1, 2012 15:40:08 GMT -5 Wynne - Retired Flyers GM said:

Yeah, I saw it, I made a post in the thread, take a look for yourself. Forgot to add a reject to my post.

I don't know how that screws you over though? In your trade, you were ripping off Toronto, wether he was cool with it or not. In the Colorado/Toronto trade, Colorado is the one getting the short end of the stick.

Don't see how the person that would have come out on top gets screwed because they didn't manage to pull a lop sided trade off.

So it's perfectly alright for one GM to take the short end of the stick, but not another? And how is an 83 for an 88 not lopsided yet an 83 + an 81 for an 87 is? Explain that to me?

[Wynne - Retired Flyers GM]

Again, not sure where I said 88 for 83 isn't lopsided? Can you show me where I said that?

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

so we are at 2accepts and 2 rejects??

[Detroit Red Wings GM]

I believe so.

[New York Rangers GM]

Mar 1, 2012 16:00:01 GMT -5 Wynne - Retired Flyers GM said:

Again, not sure where I said 88 for 83 isn't lopsided? Can you show me where I said that?

As I said in c-box, the 83 for an 88 was accepted, yet an 83, 81 for an 87 was rejected. Not specifically you, just that you are a mod and your fellow mods accepted a similar deal but rejected mine.

[Wynne - Retired Flyers GM]

So if we start putting stupid deals like this through, I guess we can get rid of mods for trades, nothing else should be debated.

[Wynne - Retired Flyers GM]

Mar 1, 2012 16:12:51 GMT -5 New York Rangers GM said:

Mar 1, 2012 16:00:01 GMT -5 Wynne - Retired Flyers GM said:

Again, not sure where I said 88 for 83 isn't lopsided? Can you show me where I said that?

As I said in c-box, the 83 for an 88 was accepted, yet an 83, 81 for an 87 was rejected. Not specifically you, just that you are a mod and your fellow mods accepted a similar deal but rejected mine.

Holy fuck..

Believe it or not, I don't know what goes on in other mods' heads, I know, weird right? You're asking me to explain why a trade I didn't accept went through.

The explaination; More mods accepted it than rejected it

That's about all I can tell you.

[New York Rangers GM]

Mar 1, 2012 16:13:28 GMT -5 Wynne - Retired Flyers GM said:

So if we start putting stupid deals like this through, I guess we can get rid of mods for trades, nothing else should be debated.

lol Not quite, but one stupid deal got pushed through already. (No, not your fault, I get it.) Just needs to be made light of so that it doesn't happen anymore.

[Deleted]

If you let the other deal through, this one has to go go through, and really every deal has to go through because of the first deal

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

I have a team that just won the cup. I feel as though as a result of me pushing for Rangers 1st deal to be rejected he got screwed out of what he could have gotten for Lupul. I am willing and would like to compensate him for that. Then we can move forward taking player value into affect on all future trades. If a GM wants to overpay he must make an arguement for the Overpayment IE Great stats for a lower rated player, possible future value in say NHL13. How does that sound??