The Sitwell Enterprises Lineup-Trade Block
View Single Post
11-27-2012, 05:25 PM
Jack de la Hoya
Join Date: Jun 2011
Originally Posted by
Not any trade but I do feel very strongly that all first line players should be nearly impossible to move- unless of course age is a factor then I agree with age it should become easier, it's realistic.
It's more work to watch for but maybe inhibiting a team to trading (1)1st liner every 3 years or something like this
. In 1.5 years of Bluth there has to be 15-20 big name guys that have changed teams maybe even more and Fuss you have done a great job with policing it as well I just think since we have a very fresh start trading can be even stricter.
I think that's overkill. Anyone over 84 is listed as "1st line," no?
I guess I'm trying to figure out the goal here. Is it to reduce the number of star players being moved, or ensure that the returns for those who are moved are substantial enough to leave the team in better position, long-term, than if they still had the guy.
It has to be the latter, right? The concern is that we'll have GMs dealing star players, then going on a losing streak, then quitting, leaving an unplayable shell behind them. That's a very real concern--though less so here, because we project to get through enough years to make prospects useful.
Might I make a modest proposal?
If, looking at a pending transaction involving a superstar player, Sensi determines that the return is questionable, he firsts asks the trading GM for an explanation. If he's still unsatisfied, he can bring it to the attention of the league, and those active GMs without a clear stake in the proposal can weigh in. We could always set up temporary chatzy or something like that for this purpose. If there's still not a clear consensus, we can put it to a vote, or simply trust the Sensi will make the sensible decision.
If a GM is willing to jump through all those hoops to pull the trigger on a trade--defending the deal to both the commissioner and his fellow GMs, he's probably active and committed enough to deserve the benefit of the doubt, no?
This would replace the general and unspecific language about a higher standard for "franchise" players. Basically, the commissioner is empower, at his discretion, to require an explanation on any trade--with the understanding he would only do so, for practical reasons, if the deal included one or more significant assets. If questions remain, he should consult with a wider circle of GMs, and determine whether the deal should be allowed.
It seems to me that, coupled with the general trade restrictions, would would be sufficient protection against overly-eager deal-making, no?
Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 11-27-2012 at
Jack de la Hoya
View Public Profile
Jack de la Hoya's albums
Find More Posts by Jack de la Hoya