Sens/Yotes *No-GM* *Re-Done*

[Deleted]

So essentially I NEED The Admin Account to accept this?

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Jan 3, 2014 0:50:31 GMT -5 Mike - Former Wild GM said:

I think the process of this trade will be interesting moving forward for everyone else looking at possibly making these kinds of trades, and my comment here is not to disrupt the process, but more of a question in relation to the trade as Isles has concerns over it:

Aren't the players that the Yotes are getting back on the bottom end also going into the draft anyway? I think this kind of trade sort of brings to light the minor issues that have to do with the keeper-draft formula, but by the logic of rejecting this trade, its suggesting that any player rated under an 87 is by all standards useless to the entire site, as no matter who they are you will lose them.

I think thats been my problem in trying to build a team, and others in their lack of interest (though in large part that has happily been returning to this site I just worry that by putting so much consideration into the bottom end players on any trade might make pretty much any trade in which someone downgrades at a position a pointless trade by that philosophy.

No Yotes players probably won't be going back into the draft as he is here to build his team and those players will probably to low and will be kept on his roster

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Jan 3, 2014 2:25:46 GMT -5 @cor99 said:

So essentially I NEED The Admin Account to accept this?

No two admins, which are Myself and Justin have OKed it. You just need one more staff on that

[The Admin Account]

Jan 3, 2014 0:50:31 GMT -5 Mike - Former Wild GM said:

I think the process of this trade will be interesting moving forward for everyone else looking at possibly making these kinds of trades, and my comment here is not to disrupt the process, but more of a question in relation to the trade as Isles has concerns over it:

Aren't the players that the Yotes are getting back on the bottom end also going into the draft anyway? I think this kind of trade sort of brings to light the minor issues that have to do with the keeper-draft formula, but by the logic of rejecting this trade, its suggesting that any player rated under an 87 is by all standards useless to the entire site, as no matter who they are you will lose them.

I think thats been my problem in trying to build a team, and others in their lack of interest (though in large part that has happily been returning to this site I just worry that by putting so much consideration into the bottom end players on any trade might make pretty much any trade in which someone downgrades at a position a pointless trade by that philosophy.

This would be fine if it was a GM and GM trade, but it's not. I'm only accepting non-GM trades if I feel it helps the team without a GM. This sets them back.


They do hold value, but what's the point if the value is lost? It's different if you were switching around guys you were going to lose and didn't downgrade their top 8 players, but he downgrades 2 of their top 8 and doesn't upgrade anything else in their top 8.

[Mike - Former Wild GM]

I can see your point there, but the point I think you're missing that I'm trying to make is that every trade has someone downgrading in one area and then losing those players to the draft. So if my team sucks and I build for depth, I will then lose those higher end depth guys to the draft. If I place well in the standings, I now lose my depth and draft worse players, and I still have lost my top end players because I downgraded for one playoff appearance.

But if I trade all my depth to slowly increase my top players, I will forever be an elite team, as long as I find someone who is willing to be the guy in my first paragraph and downgrade only to have one chance-ful year and then be terrible for the rest of it.

The only way a perennial non-playoff team can succeed is if they acquire the first overall selection, as that has been a legend recently. There is no other way for someone to come in and take a shitty team and turn them into a successful franchise unless he is somehow able to maintain the depth of the team. Without that depth or 8 absolute elite players and not a mix of 3 or 4 88+ players and 4 guys who are around 84-87, a perennial non-playoff team has no chance. That's all I was getting at.

So I see your point about this trade regarding the bottom end players, but I'm mostly addressing it as a concern that Phoenix feels it makes the team more attractive, and my concern is that it is only attractive for one season (as you have pointed out because they will lose those players). I'm sort of saying that your opinion on this trade means that something should be changed to help prevent no-gm teams from never having a chance if everyone is just going to try and poach them, and for the perennial non-playoff teams to find a better solution to allow more people to contend and have fun.

Sorry again that my comments appeared in this trade, but I felt they were somewhat related. If you need to move these elsewhere no worries, just glad you took the time to hear me out It's weird having an issue in which I agree with both sides and hoping there's a middle ground that can be found.

[Deleted]

So can someone else accept this please? Sorta want to get on with my other moves

[The Admin Account]

Jan 3, 2014 11:48:50 GMT -5 Mike - Former Wild GM said:

I can see your point there, but the point I think you're missing that I'm trying to make is that every trade has someone downgrading in one area and then losing those players to the draft. So if my team sucks and I build for depth, I will then lose those higher end depth guys to the draft. If I place well in the standings, I now lose my depth and draft worse players, and I still have lost my top end players because I downgraded for one playoff appearance.

But if I trade all my depth to slowly increase my top players, I will forever be an elite team, as long as I find someone who is willing to be the guy in my first paragraph and downgrade only to have one chance-ful year and then be terrible for the rest of it.

The only way a perennial non-playoff team can succeed is if they acquire the first overall selection, as that has been a legend recently. There is no other way for someone to come in and take a shitty team and turn them into a successful franchise unless he is somehow able to maintain the depth of the team. Without that depth or 8 absolute elite players and not a mix of 3 or 4 88+ players and 4 guys who are around 84-87, a perennial non-playoff team has no chance. That's all I was getting at.

So I see your point about this trade regarding the bottom end players, but I'm mostly addressing it as a concern that Phoenix feels it makes the team more attractive, and my concern is that it is only attractive for one season (as you have pointed out because they will lose those players). I'm sort of saying that your opinion on this trade means that something should be changed to help prevent no-gm teams from never having a chance if everyone is just going to try and poach them, and for the perennial non-playoff teams to find a better solution to allow more people to contend and have fun.

Sorry again that my comments appeared in this trade, but I felt they were somewhat related. If you need to move these elsewhere no worries, just glad you took the time to hear me out It's weird having an issue in which I agree with both sides and hoping there's a middle ground that can be found.

I understand that completely. That is why we have been trying to work on our keeper system for the past 5 seasons. Based on what we have now, this doesn't work.

[Deleted]

3 accepts, 1 reject. 1 more accept needed

This whole discussion should be moved to the keeper suggestion or a new thread.

[Boston Bruins GM]

Accept.

[C00kies - Retired Kings GM]

I don't want to accept this because it'll open up the door for other GMs to improve their top players by giving up expendable depth to non-GM teams.

I think we need more defined rules regarding non-gm trades so that it isn't just GMs improving their top 7 (8 most years) players with every deal. An 89+86 for an 88+87 is a better type of deal for the non-GM team.

Maybe add a rule where a non-GM team must gain the same number of overalls in the top 7/8 that it loses in its top 7/8 (see above example).

[Deleted]

4 accepts, this is finalized

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Yes it is Finalized

[The Admin Account]

Jan 3, 2014 15:28:23 GMT -5 C00kies - Retired Kings GM said:

I don't want to accept this because it'll open up the door for other GMs to improve their top players by giving up expendable depth to non-GM teams.

I think we need more defined rules regarding non-gm trades so that it isn't just GMs improving their top 7 (8 most years) players with every deal. An 89+86 for an 88+87 is a better type of deal for the non-GM team.

Maybe add a rule where a non-GM team must gain the same number of overalls in the top 7/8 that it loses in its top 7/8 (see above example).

Or just remove them if this continues.