Post by kilmo on May 10, 2012 3:58:26 GMT -5
All right so I guess I need to better understand what the rules are here. I’m posting this on the board because I believe other GMs might be interested in understanding the thought process and I really want to make sure we all have the same understanding.
Why was that trade vetoed yesterday? Does that mean every time any GM is gonna make a trade it is gonna be looked at like this and cancelled because someone doesn’t like it from a GM’s perspective? Why did this trade get vetoed although it seems clear that some of the previous trades were more lopsided and it didn’t seem to bother anyone?
From a GM’s perspective I wasn’t happy the trade went through yesterday for two reasons:
I wanted the pick (45) and had made an offer to Leafs GM and he decided to take another one
I actually thought my offer was better than the one he accepted
So OK I’m disappointed, BUT in no way did I think this trade was susceptible of being reviewed. When I saw it was I decided to post a message on the trade thread to offer my two cents and say I didn’t have any problem with the trade. I posted just as Eric wrote his message asking us to not post on this if we weren’t one of the trading GMs or the commissioner. Fine, I never thought it would get this out of control and the only two GMs (that I saw) that actually commented on the trade said they had no problems with it.
From the decision that was taken yesterday I understand the following:
Hockey trades can be vetoed arbitrarily even if both trading GMs agree on the terms of the trade.
Pick #45 in this draft will definitely have a better month, year and career than pick # 50 (whoever pick #50 ends up actually being). Or maybe not, but pick #45 plus pick #56 will for sure be better than picks # 50 & 51. Well we’re not sure, but there is no doubt that picks pick #45 #56 #85 will crush picks # 50 #51 #90
We are now asked to provide the reason behind all of our trades potentially exposing our strategy to the rest of the GM community. I wondered why Leafs GM chose one offer over the other (and potentially other offers from other GMs). If I want to know, I can ask him, he can give me a reason, no reason tell me I’m deluded and that my offer was crap, whatever. It’s his choice.
Hockey trades have to be fair to all GMs even if they aren’t
The commissioner knows what the best interest of any given team is more than its GM.
Competing here to see who is the best GM in evaluating players’ potential, swinging better deals, crunching numbers, understand the rules and settings, etc… is actually not the goal here.
Is this how we’re moving forward?
If I’m the Nordiques I’m frustrated because my deal is cancelled when others stand
If I’m the Leafs I’m frustrated because my hands are tied and I’m judged on the way I do business.
This is none of my business as I’m not the owner of these two franchises.
But I am very conscious that I might have to face the same situation later (today, next week, in six months) and I would certainly not like it or accept it.
Why was that trade vetoed yesterday? Does that mean every time any GM is gonna make a trade it is gonna be looked at like this and cancelled because someone doesn’t like it from a GM’s perspective? Why did this trade get vetoed although it seems clear that some of the previous trades were more lopsided and it didn’t seem to bother anyone?
From a GM’s perspective I wasn’t happy the trade went through yesterday for two reasons:
I wanted the pick (45) and had made an offer to Leafs GM and he decided to take another one
I actually thought my offer was better than the one he accepted
So OK I’m disappointed, BUT in no way did I think this trade was susceptible of being reviewed. When I saw it was I decided to post a message on the trade thread to offer my two cents and say I didn’t have any problem with the trade. I posted just as Eric wrote his message asking us to not post on this if we weren’t one of the trading GMs or the commissioner. Fine, I never thought it would get this out of control and the only two GMs (that I saw) that actually commented on the trade said they had no problems with it.
From the decision that was taken yesterday I understand the following:
Hockey trades can be vetoed arbitrarily even if both trading GMs agree on the terms of the trade.
Pick #45 in this draft will definitely have a better month, year and career than pick # 50 (whoever pick #50 ends up actually being). Or maybe not, but pick #45 plus pick #56 will for sure be better than picks # 50 & 51. Well we’re not sure, but there is no doubt that picks pick #45 #56 #85 will crush picks # 50 #51 #90
We are now asked to provide the reason behind all of our trades potentially exposing our strategy to the rest of the GM community. I wondered why Leafs GM chose one offer over the other (and potentially other offers from other GMs). If I want to know, I can ask him, he can give me a reason, no reason tell me I’m deluded and that my offer was crap, whatever. It’s his choice.
Hockey trades have to be fair to all GMs even if they aren’t
The commissioner knows what the best interest of any given team is more than its GM.
Competing here to see who is the best GM in evaluating players’ potential, swinging better deals, crunching numbers, understand the rules and settings, etc… is actually not the goal here.
Is this how we’re moving forward?
If I’m the Nordiques I’m frustrated because my deal is cancelled when others stand
If I’m the Leafs I’m frustrated because my hands are tied and I’m judged on the way I do business.
This is none of my business as I’m not the owner of these two franchises.
But I am very conscious that I might have to face the same situation later (today, next week, in six months) and I would certainly not like it or accept it.