HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Dallas Stars (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   GM Protocol / Morrow for Morrow trade (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1386769)

haf 03-27-2013 02:38 PM

GM Protocol / Morrow for Morrow trade
 
I have heard (albeit from unreliable sources) that GM's in the NHL have a code. Basically, if one GM ends up fleecing another GM in a trade (ala Goose for Neal/Niskanen) then the winning GM will in the future throw the losing GM a bone and treat the win as "future considerations".

I ask for obvious reasons, wondering if this had anything to do with our "winning" the recent trade with Pittsburgh. Anyone know anything about something like this?

*dear moderators: sorry if this should go in another thread, please move as you see fit

Stars99Lobo37 03-27-2013 02:58 PM

Then what did Army give back to Montreal for absolutely fleecing them with the Ribeiro/Niinimaa trade? How bout Joe to Atlanta/Winnipeg for the Lehtonen/Visnevskiy trade?

Yea, don't buy it.

txomisc 03-27-2013 03:00 PM

Yeah I think its more about a GM really wanting something and having some familiarity with a negotiating partner than any "well i took him to the woodshed before so i owe him" situation.

glovesave_35 03-27-2013 07:54 PM

I think there's something to it. Because it doesn't happen every time doesn't seem to be a good indicator that it's complete b.s. I would think it has more to do with familiarity and desire to do future business with a certain GM. I was dubious of this before but this latest trade shows that either Pittsburgh's pro scouting has some explaining to do, veteran experience is ridiculously highly sought after this year, or that there is some amount of give back from the Neal trade. There's a reason we are all so happy with the return and it isn't because Joe Morrow is a meh prospect and we just aren't aware of that.

piqued 03-27-2013 08:53 PM

I don't know. There may be a little kernel of truth behind such an idea, maybe it was the last nudge Shero needed to pull the trigger... that twang of guilt in the back of his head.

What calls that into question though is Boston's offer. Khokhlachev + 2nd is a stout return in its own right and the Bruins don't owe us anything.

So it seems that the explanation may just be that Brenden Morrow, for whatever reason, still holds significant value.

MetalGodAOD* 03-27-2013 08:55 PM

We did always speculate Morrow held more value around the league than he should have.

LatvianTwist 03-27-2013 09:46 PM

Considering what he paid for Murray the day after, no.

LordHelmet 03-28-2013 12:19 PM

Curious where you have "heard this" other than the clueless sea of posters (myself included) obsessed with 'winning' and 'losing' trades here on HF?

haf 04-03-2013 12:22 AM

Hey there, sorry to just now respond. Moving across the country and time is scarce.

I hate to be vague like that but no choice on this one. The first time I heard this was a few years ago (chris higgins was still at yale, whenever that was) and i remember it as being a fairly legitimate source. Since then, just echoes on ye olde hfboards. I am not sure.

I asked because it is an interesting idea and not out of the realm of reality, but one I couldn't possibly begin to verify. Truth is though, even it was true, it would probably not ever be verified.

slaps 04-03-2013 02:02 PM

Right, because GM's are totally OK with screwing over their own team because they feel bad about coming out ahead in a trade. That's some sound business planning right there.

glovesave_35 04-03-2013 07:40 PM

If you look at the other trades, both ours and other teams, this Morrow trade looks like an outlier.

I don't know if there's anything to the idea that GMs do anything of this sort but I do recall Rangers GM Jon Daniels saying in an interview that the best possible outcome of a trade is that both sides are happy. He explicitly said that it's not good when one guy gets absolutely bent over. Baseball and hockey aren't much different in the way these things appear to be done from the outside, so it's not inconceivable that a GM makes a second trade in relation to the first trade.

ck26 04-03-2013 09:45 PM

There was a study done years ago documented in the book "Freakenomics" about sumo wrestling in Japan. The contention -- backed by statistical analysis -- is that certain wrestlers from certain training camps would throw fights late in a tournament when a win meant more to his opponent than the loss meant to him.

This trade thing DOES happen. It doesn't happen in every trade and it doesn't happen between every organization ... "yeah well what about Trade X" ... whatever. Don't know if it happened here, but I'm told that Pittsburgh is loaded with blue line prospects, so it's a situation where the Pens have "wiggle room" to overpay for a veteran they need. "A code?" Maybe.

TMFN 04-13-2013 09:49 AM

I don't know if there was any debt being paid with this trade by Pittsburgh, I just think the price for players was much higher in the week prior to the deadline then it actually ended up being once the deadline arrived. The longer the buyers waited the better deals they got. Murray for 2 2nd's was insane. Anyway this was a great deal for you guys. Had Morrow ranked as the 2nd best prospect moved at the deadline.

http://hockeyphenoms.blogspot.com/20...-deadline.html

He should end up being a key player for you guys.

haf 04-13-2013 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slaps (Post 63146645)
Right, because GM's are totally OK with screwing over their own team because they feel bad about coming out ahead in a trade. That's some sound business planning right there.

Business is actually like this in my experience. The general idea is that you want the relationship strong for the future more than to just win with the single transaction. As a general manager of a print production company, I have acted on this principle many times. Long-term versus short term strategy.

LatvianTwist 04-13-2013 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMFN (Post 63858359)
I don't know if there was any debt being paid with this trade by Pittsburgh, I just think the price for players was much higher in the week prior to the deadline then it actually ended up being once the deadline arrived. The longer the buyers waited the better deals they got. Murray for 2 2nd's was insane. Anyway this was a great deal for you guys. Had Morrow ranked as the 2nd best prospect moved at the deadline.

http://hockeyphenoms.blogspot.com/20...-deadline.html

He should end up being a key player for you guys.

Can't help but :laugh: at how none of the Calgary prospects were included in this.

TMFN 04-13-2013 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LatvianTwist (Post 63875941)
Can't help but :laugh: at how none of the Calgary prospects were included in this.

lol yeah that's because those prospects just aren't that good. I guess the Pens did make amends for losing out on the Morrow and Murray deals by totally winning that one. Not completely the Flames fault though, can't get good value for a guy with a no move clause if he only wants to go to one place.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.