|
|
Post by Calgary Flames GM on Jan 28, 2014 12:57:47 GMT -5
3 89s
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 28, 2014 16:20:01 GMT -5
More directed Justin but agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Calgary Flames GM on Jan 28, 2014 17:51:14 GMT -5
Well who would be stupid enough not to agree your losing 3 already amazing players for 1 super amazing player. Doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 28, 2014 19:53:23 GMT -5
More directed Justin but agreed. Then why post an unfair trade with a No-GM team with that in mind? |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 28, 2014 19:59:54 GMT -5
More directed Justin but agreed. Then why post an unfair trade with a No-GM team with that in mind? Exactly my point, this keeper system makes 89s more valuable then a 91. But I thought this would clearly get accepted, as I'm giving up one of my most touted players that I constantly get offers for. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 28, 2014 20:53:05 GMT -5
If you think you are giving up one of your better players, you will not mind that it is rejected. The No-GM team obviously doesn't mind either, as they are not here to care. Win-Win.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 28, 2014 22:00:26 GMT -5
If you think you are giving up one of your better players, you will not mind that it is rejected. The No-GM team obviously doesn't mind either, as they are not here to care. Win-Win. Once again, that is not the point of my post. The point I'm making is this keeper system is retarded. I actually do mind, because I'm set to lose all of my players, even though LaFleur is better. Let's take in what just got rejected. RW Guy LaFleur 91 SNP - 1 of 10 91+ wingers - Noted as crucial part of one of the best cores in the league - I have about 2-3 offers for him every season, (technically 1 good solid offer) - Has history of lighting this league up. - Static RW 91 SNP, that is hard to acquire for teams. This does not have enough value for a 89 player anymore. If 3 89s does not equal a 91, why exactly do they have the same keeper value? It's gotten so far/bad that a 91 WINGER (hardest thing to acquire (especially top ones)) no longer =s a common 89 C. |
|
|
|
Post by C00kies - Retired Kings GM on Jan 28, 2014 22:31:20 GMT -5
I accept. Washington will only lose players rated 84 and under, which they can replenish through the draft.
Elaborated: 11 slots:
C John Tavares SNP 89 (1)- Lafleur 91 (3)
C Mikko Koivu PLY 87 (1)
RW Ryan Callahan GRN 87 (1)
RW Martin St. Louis PLY 87 (1)
D Andrei Markov OFD 86 (1)
D Robyn Regehr DFD 85 (1)
LW Dany Heatley SNP 85 (1)
C Stephen Weiss PLY 84 (1)
LW R.J. Umberger TWF 84 (1)
RW Rene Bourque TWF 84 (1)
D Zbynek Michalek DFD 84 (1)
Two of the 84s would go into the draft due this trade, which I don't feel is a problem due to the team as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 29, 2014 2:44:51 GMT -5
which they can replenish through the draft. See, now this is a decent point that I can almost get behind. They would, however, still be down those 2 84s rather than loading up on additional 80+ players and improving through the draft. A good point to consider though. But in the interest of making an informed decision, I would still be much more comfortable with this trade after the draft. I'll reject for now, but definitely be open to reconsidering this deal once we all get to see how the new keeper draft works out in practice, rather than in theory. Two of the 84s would go into the draft due this trade, which I don't feel is a problem due to the team as a whole. @kings, A PROBLEM, probably not. But do you really think that it's worth them losing those 2 players within that ratings bracket for a 2 overall upgrade on a rising young superstar in Tavares? Does the 2 overall upgrade make them better enough that NOT pulling the trigger on this trade would make you stupid if you were a GM? |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 29, 2014 11:31:08 GMT -5
Lol this team has struggled to get a 90 player for 30 seasons, now when the opportunity arises, they'd rather keep their 84s.......
Whatever, this is what the league wants apparently, to have huge boners for the 89s. And I'm not just saying this because of this trade, I could care less about it, I'm technically forced to do it, yet I can't even trade a 91 SNP winger for a 89 C. Maybe I should try Gretzky, who knows, maybe that doesn't get accepted because it's technically Tavares and 5 84s! omg!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 29, 2014 12:23:03 GMT -5
lol or maybe if you're looking to have an 89 over a 91 you can make a trade with a team that has a gm, than to argue against the league when you're doing for your team exactly what the league is saying they'd rather do for the gm-less team - have more attractive players than having a 91 rated player who arguably is less coveted than the 89 being acquired.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 29, 2014 13:10:21 GMT -5
This is a recording, the point is a 91 is now less valuable then a 89. That is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 29, 2014 13:11:03 GMT -5
I could give less then 2 fucks about this trade tbh, I'd much rather have LaFleur if we had actual rules that worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 29, 2014 13:46:23 GMT -5
I don't think anyone can say anything to you about this anymore. It was put to a vote, the league incredibly favored this method, your trade got rejected and now the world is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 29, 2014 14:50:15 GMT -5
I don't think anyone can say anything to you about this anymore. It was put to a vote, the league incredibly favored this method, your trade got rejected and now the world is over. Then roll with it. |
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*