The Sitwell Enterprises Lineup-Trade Block
View Single Post
11-27-2012, 03:53 PM
Jack de la Hoya
Join Date: Jun 2011
Originally Posted by
xX Hot Fuss
It's definitely something I regret, allowing all these big names to be moved. I compromised my rules because I wanted an active league. Shouldn't have done that.
Plus, if he is going to
that's such a pointless trade. The kings GM totally (and pointlessly) blew up the Penguins and it blew up in my face and in his.
Why trade two elite wingers and for one slightly better one? Makes no sense. I understand moving Bernier, but adding Carter + Richards is just stupid (if that's the deal).
Nonetheless, It's not my league so ill just mind my business
Well, you're still in it, so like the rest of us it seems you've got a right to voice your opinion, no? (After all, I'm running up my post count with no particular claim to wisdom or status.
Anyway, I was just throwing that out there for LAK--basically based on the fact that he said Richards might be available, and Bernier is obviously a movable asset. I've got no idea whether its legit, and there are other teams that could potentially offer a similar combination of assets, no?
Basically, I love the two trade limit. It was the main draw to this league. I'm a bit wary of commissioner "vetos" unless there is some very specific criteria--you'll recall that I specifically asked about this "franchise" rule yesterday in the other thread. My general view is that you set the rules--very clearly stated here--and then, except in the case of obvious shenanigans, you leave the GMs to run their teams.
If a team has three top-2 Cs but lacks a proven goal-scorer, why shouldn't they be able to move one of them plus other superfluous assets to get a superstar? If a player seems overpaid and GM wants to move him for younger, cheaper options, isn't that valid? If a player just doesn't "feel" right, then is that so different from a real-life malcontent?
Jack de la Hoya
View Public Profile
Jack de la Hoya's albums
Find More Posts by Jack de la Hoya