|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 26, 2014 21:12:56 GMT -5
To NYI
C John Tavares SNP 89
To WSH
RW Guy LaFleur SNP 91
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 26, 2014 23:45:36 GMT -5
accepted
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche GM on Jan 27, 2014 0:18:59 GMT -5
Solid trade, accept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 27, 2014 0:49:18 GMT -5
I am torn. With the new keeper system, Washington is giving up a 1 slot player at 89, to take on a 3 slot player. Since their current team is built on good depth, I am not sure if giving up TWO 84s makes sense for them - two of:
D Zbynek Michalek DFD 84
LW R.J. Umberger TWF 84
RW Rene Bourque TWF 84
C Stephen Weiss PLY 84
Making this trade an 89 and 2 84s for an 91.
Does the trade make Washington better? No, absolutely not. But does it make them more appealing for new GMs? With Guy LaFleur? Maybe. Probably, though Tavares is appealing to younger people. But if Guy was a different, less popular 91, it would not. Does that aspect have any weight when determining these trades?
|
|
|
|
Post by Florida Panthers GM on Jan 27, 2014 0:57:03 GMT -5
I am torn. With the new keeper system, Washington is giving up a 1 slot player at 89, to take on a 3 slot player. Since their current team is built on good depth, I am not sure if giving up TWO 84s makes sense for them - two of: D Zbynek Michalek DFD 84 LW R.J. Umberger TWF 84 RW Rene Bourque TWF 84 C Stephen Weiss PLY 84 Making this trade an 89 and 2 84s for an 91. Does the trade make Washington better? No, absolutely not. But does it make them more appealing for new GMs? With Guy LaFleur? Maybe. Probably, though Tavares is appealing to younger people. But if Guy was a different, less popular 91, it would not. Does that aspect have any weight when determining these trades? Agreed and I'm no mode but this trade hurts Washington |
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jan 27, 2014 4:02:01 GMT -5
If I was Washington, I would probably keep Tavares. Adding on to what Canes said, Washington ends up improving on the RW where they are already fairly strong and lose their top centre. Even taking into consideration the 2 overalls gained, this trade will eventually even out as Tavares' overall is going to be 90+ in the next game. Be it that is far away, it has to be considered. Washington is better off long-term by keeping Tavares. I will have to reject.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 27, 2014 14:37:57 GMT -5
Lol wow, with this system, 89's are now more valuable then a 91. Sweet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 27, 2014 14:50:24 GMT -5
I've said it for years, there is more to life than just overalls. Like, if this were real life, and a guy is "89" and is making 5M, he might be more attractive than a 91 who is making 7M. The keeper process simulates that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs GM on Jan 27, 2014 16:51:26 GMT -5
Accepted. Im ok with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jan 27, 2014 17:08:08 GMT -5
Lol wow, with this system, 89's are now more valuable then a 91. Sweet. Dude, you and the other admins are the ones who came up with this no-GM trade idea and it was meant to help the vacant teams. If you really think this helps Washington in the long-run then fine. You and I both know that Tavares' actual value is much higher than the 89 overall he has in the game (which will also go up). |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 27, 2014 17:34:49 GMT -5
Yeah, and also this is for No-GM trades. No one said you could not make this same trade with a human GM who thinks the sacrifice is worth it to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 27, 2014 22:19:35 GMT -5
it will hard for Admin to make a no-GM trade they need approval from both of the other two Admin's LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 27, 2014 22:56:26 GMT -5
Should be harder for admins. It's good for admins to be held to a higher standard.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 28, 2014 0:38:15 GMT -5
that is fine with me
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 28, 2014 11:41:49 GMT -5
What's worth more in your opinion, 3 89s or 1 91?
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*