HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD Trade Review Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2012, 01:52 PM
  #76
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,269
vCash: 500
Makes me think of my first trade ever in the ATD:

9 & 216
vs.
36 & 92


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is this trade better, worse, or the same than this trade from last draft that we allowed?

To Kenora: 2nd (#64) and 6th (#231)
To Minnesota: 2nd (#75) and 5th (#166)
This is definitely not veto worthy. I would do that trade if I was targetting a player that I believe was important to the building of my team and the last of his tier. We could argue that the difference between 166 and 231 can be minimal at time.

EagleBelfour is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 01:54 PM
  #77
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I PMed the other 4 guys who volunteered to be on the trade committee. Though chaos already made a negative comment.

As for you all who posted opinions, you know you could be on this trade committee thing if you want to be, right?
Ah, hell...allright, I'll join the committee.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 01:56 PM
  #78
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,583
vCash: 500
So we agree that they should rework the trade?

Changing the 7th to a 5th was suggested.

But I also think a later swap with more going back to papershoes could work too.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-22-2012 at 02:02 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 01:58 PM
  #79
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
Makes me think of my first trade ever in the ATD:

9 & 216
vs.
36 & 92




This is definitely not veto worthy. I would do that trade if I was targetting a player that I believe was important to the building of my team and the last of his tier. We could argue that the difference between 166 and 231 can be minimal at time.
Oh, I agree with you. I brought it up because it caused a controversy last time. I think we were a bit too vigilant last time because of how the draft started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Ah, hell...allright, I'll join the committee.
COuldn't stay away, huh?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 02:49 PM
  #80
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,281
vCash: 500
How about this:

To Kenora- #23, #215, #407, #426
To Kimberley- #59, #70, #443, #454

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 02:52 PM
  #81
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
How about this:

To Kenora- #23, #215, #407, #426
To Kimberley- #59, #70, #443, #454
My humble opinion is that this one is just as bad. Those late 400+ picks swap means about nothing.

EagleBelfour is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 03:13 PM
  #82
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
My humble opinion is that this one is just as bad. Those late 400+ picks swap means about nothing.
He literally just added insignificant late round pick swap so our eyes wouldn't look at the right

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 03:31 PM
  #83
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,281
vCash: 500
#23, #170, #151
for
#59, #70, #134

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 03:33 PM
  #84
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
#23, #170, #151
for
#59, #70, #134

#23, #170
for
#59, #70

Is a 50/50 trade IMO. If you want to add the picks for a little edge, I wouldn't of mind if that was the first trade offered.

EagleBelfour is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 03:37 PM
  #85
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
Yeah , the first 2 set would be a fair trade.

edit: come on , let's reach a consensus and keep this boat moving.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 01-22-2012 at 03:47 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 03:54 PM
  #86
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,269
vCash: 500
Anyones mind if I give my opinion, even though I'm not in the trade commitee? I shouldn't be the one making those kind of remarks in hindsight ...

EagleBelfour is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:12 PM
  #87
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,281
vCash: 500
My problem is that I don't feel I'm getting enough of a gain there, hence the additional bump of seventeen in the #134 vs #151 portion. Yes, 100 versus 36 is more, but you all know that I'm giving up the opportunity to have a top-40 player on my roster if I do this trade.

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:16 PM
  #88
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
My problem is that I don't feel I'm getting enough of a gain there, hence the additional bump of seventeen in the #134 vs #151 portion. Yes, 100 versus 36 is more, but you all know that I'm giving up the opportunity to have a top-40 player on my roster if I do this trade.
As I said, the last trade proposal I wrote down is a 50-50 one. However, if you look at the group of players available at 70 and the group of players available at 170, the difference is just as big if not bigger than the difference between 23 and 59. But that's one man opinion.

EagleBelfour is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:16 PM
  #89
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
I would personally tell you to stuff it with that kind of offer, but I don't think it's vetoable as is. It's unbalanced, but not unacceptable so. Better than the one you slipped by last draft, Bugg. It's really up to paper, though.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:23 PM
  #90
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,010
vCash: 500
Before I say any comments, I just want to let it be known that I did inquire about the 23rd overall pick, so if that changes perspective on what I have to say, it is better that I be open and honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
My problem is that I don't feel I'm getting enough of a gain there, hence the additional bump of seventeen in the #134 vs #151 portion. Yes, 100 versus 36 is more, but you all know that I'm giving up the opportunity to have a top-40 player on my roster if I do this trade.
As someone who has traded out of the 1st round many times before. You are choosing to not have a top 40 pick. You don't have to. And for better or for worse, there is only so much you can get for making that choice. We can't have teams willingly throw themself under a bus to get their guy, it's why allowing trades is always such a hotly disputed topic.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:25 PM
  #91
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Better than the one you slipped by last draft, Bugg.
Every ATD, someone tells me that, and yet the next one somebody agrees to a deal with similar parameters that offend certain people. I'm beginning to think it's not me that's the problem with trading in the ATD, but that's for another thread.

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:27 PM
  #92
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
You are choosing to not have a top 40 pick. You don't have to.
Sure, but I better be compensated for it. And it just so happens a GM- an experienced GM- agreed. Free market and all that.

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:32 PM
  #93
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
Sure, but I better be compensated for it. And it just so happens a GM- an experienced GM- agreed. Free market and all that.
I dont disagree. But just because a team is volunteering to hurt themself doesn't make it in the best interest of the ATD to let them. This isn't a free market though, we said from the get go that it's controlled. And while you are obviously entitled to compensation, you are entitled to fair compensation.

Nalyd Psycho is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:33 PM
  #94
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
Anyones mind if I give my opinion, even though I'm not in the trade commitee? I shouldn't be the one making those kind of remarks in hindsight ...
Not at all, this thread is important and should have discussion on trades like that. I'm fine with either one of:

#23, #170, #151
for
#59, #70, #134

or

#23, #170
for
#59, #70


The first is still an obvious edge for Mr. Bugg, but it does narrow the gap.

markrander87 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:37 PM
  #95
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,678
vCash: 500
I have no issue with Bugg's most recent submission for the deal either, for the record.

Stoneberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:48 PM
  #96
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneberg View Post
I have no issue with Bugg's most recent submission for the deal either, for the record.

Velociraptor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:50 PM
  #97
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,387
vCash: 500
Eh I guess I'm okay with the most recent submission although I prefer it without 151 and 134 being involved. I still think it's an advantage to you, but I don't think it's THAT BAD that it can be vetoed.

chaosrevolver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 04:52 PM
  #98
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
so are we accepting it?

TDMM what are your thoughts?

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 05:09 PM
  #99
vancityluongo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
#23, #170, #151
for
#59, #70, #134
I see no reason to veto this. +1 for it.

vancityluongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2012, 05:09 PM
  #100
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,583
vCash: 500
So it goes from:

To Kenora Thistles- #23, #215
To Kimberley Dynamiters- #59, #70

to:

#23, #170, #151
for
#59, #70, #134

You're basically swapping the difference between 215 and 170 for the difference between 151 and 134. I guess it's... slightly better.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.