HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > EA Sports NHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

EA Sports NHL Discussion forum for EA Sports NHL video games.

The Sitwell Enterprises Lineup-Trade Block

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 03:37 PM
  #51
wilco5886
Come On You Spurs
 
wilco5886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xX Hot Fuss View Post
Kovy is a "franchise player". Might take a lot for Sensi to approve the deal
I understand, but personally I'm much better with teams that have scoring depth rather than 1 or two elite players carrying the load. Plus I have two goalies, the youngest being 39 yrs old, so I need to address that problem sooner rather than later. If he feel the value isn't there I'll be fine with it, but I'd be fairly surprised if he didn't think there was lots of value going both ways.

wilco5886 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:43 PM
  #52
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
If that description is close to correct, then I don't see how he couldn't. Two top-line players and a young starting goalie is a fair price, no?
It is just so unrealistic it shouldn't be approved. Kovalchuk is not getting traded in real life and shouldn't be allowed in the game for the sake of the league. It seems as though every trade in these leagues has to involve a big name and well, that is just not accurate at all in the real NHL. I'm guilty of this in Bluth a little but trust me I inherited a team that was already demolished. I hate seeing trade talk on day two of the league with guys names like Kovalchuk, Perry, Getzlaf, Richards all being tossed around it's just not right it doesn't take long for teams to lose identity even with 2 deals a year because those two deals almost always involve star players.

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:46 PM
  #53
ChuckWoods
Registered User
 
ChuckWoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
It is just so unrealistic it shouldn't be approved. Kovalchuk is not getting traded in real life and shouldn't be allowed in the game for the sake of the league. It seems as though every trade in these leagues has to involve a big name and well, that is just not accurate at all in the real NHL. I'm guilty of this in Bluth a little but trust me I inherited a team that was already demolished. I hate seeing trade talk on day two of the league with guys names like Kovalchuk, Perry, Getzlaf, Richards all being tossed around it's just not right it doesn't take long for teams to lose identity even with 2 deals a year because those two deals almost always involve star players.
To be fair and realistic, if you take a look at the state of the Anaheim Ducks, Perry and Getzlaf are both going to be wildly discussed in trade rumors.

If there was a season, there would have been a strong rumor mill right from the get go.

I wouldn't move any pieces that wouldn't be realistically in play for the Ducks.

But the fact of the matter is both Getzlaf and Perry may have been moved in real life if there were no positive talks in terms of contract extension.

I am simply exploring my options and not trading just to trade.

The Ducks have a very depleted core in terms of NHL ready youth and don't exactly have an earth shattering prospect pool either.

This is their chance in real life, and this game, to finally gain some respectability by moving one or both of Getz/Perry and acquiring young, controllable assets for the future.


New Jersey on the other hand is a completely different scenario, as it is highly unlikely Kovalchuk moves due to that contract, commitment from the team and the fact they want to base their franchise around him, which is clearly indicated by that contract.

ChuckWoods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:47 PM
  #54
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 15,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
It is just so unrealistic it shouldn't be approved. Kovalchuk is not getting traded in real life and shouldn't be allowed in the game for the sake of the league. It seems as though every trade in these leagues has to involve a big name and well, that is just not accurate at all in the real NHL. I'm guilty of this in Bluth a little but trust me I inherited a team that was already demolished. I hate seeing trade talk on day two of the league with guys names like Kovalchuk, Perry, Getzlaf, Richards all being tossed around it's just not right it doesn't take long for teams to lose identity even with 2 deals a year because those two deals almost always involve star players.
Devil's Advocate:

Getzlaf and Perry are UFA in a year, so if the GM decides he doesn't believe they will be worth their contracts, why shouldn't he be able to deal them?

- Mike Richards was dealt IRL just eighteen months ago, and is stuck on a team with three 1Cs. In the game, he's the 4th best player on his team, so I think it is a little tough to elevate him to franchise status.

- Kovy is a trickier case, but the Devils are a weakish team in the game with a lot of holes and not a lot of assets. I think he should be held to a higher standard if moved, to be sure, but if a GM can move him for multiple top-line players and a goalie (all of which are needs), I'm not sure we can deny him that chance.

In other words, while I agree in principle with pretty much everything you've said, I also think that the 2 trade limit takes care of most of the problems. You can't blow up a team in this situation--it isn't possible. And you need to think carefully about whatever trades you do decide to pull the trigger on.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:49 PM
  #55
x Tame Impala
Registered User
 
x Tame Impala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16,647
vCash: 500
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

x Tame Impala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:52 PM
  #56
wilco5886
Come On You Spurs
 
wilco5886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
It is just so unrealistic it shouldn't be approved. Kovalchuk is not getting traded in real life and shouldn't be allowed in the game for the sake of the league. It seems as though every trade in these leagues has to involve a big name and well, that is just not accurate at all in the real NHL. I'm guilty of this in Bluth a little but trust me I inherited a team that was already demolished. I hate seeing trade talk on day two of the league with guys names like Kovalchuk, Perry, Getzlaf, Richards all being tossed around it's just not right it doesn't take long for teams to lose identity even with 2 deals a year because those two deals almost always involve star players.
I understand what you are saying, but I'm not Lou Lams and my vision for the Devils is different than his. Am I not supposed to try and craft the team I'm most successful playing with?

I currently have Zubrus on my 2nd line. I know I will not be very successful with team I currently have. And I only have 3 players that have any value. Zajac has some, but he only has 1 yr left. Elias, Brodeur and most of my D are old (and I actually like my defense). Clarkson is nice, but he won't be able to get me any decent depth. So im left with Kovy, Henrique, and Larsson. I don't want to move either Henrique or Larsson, so that leaves Kovy.

Like I said, I will be fine if the commish/other GMs veto the deal, but if so, that leaves me pretty handicapped on what trades I can make.

wilco5886 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:53 PM
  #57
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 15,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xX Hot Fuss View Post
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 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:54 PM
  #58
dbridge
Bluth Lockout 2015
 
dbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,526
vCash: 500
I understand the desire to keep teams intact (I had the same issue in Bluth with Stamkos; even though I'm not very good with him, I have to keep him because he is the Lightning identity), but it's not like star players don't get traded. Who would've thought a couple years ago Rick Nash would've gotten traded, or Richards or Carter? Getzlaf and Perry are both potential UFAs who may or may not have interest in resigning with the Ducks in real life. I wouldn't necessarily call them the immovable faces of the team. Kovalchuk nearly requested a trade away from the Devils about a year ago, and with the state of the team questionable now with an aging Elias and Brodeur and no Parise, who's to say the Devils would never consider trading him? The main hurdle there would be that it's tough to move contract with 13 years left, but it's not as big of a hurdle in a video game where there's no ownership to foot the bill. Just my opinion though.

dbridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:55 PM
  #59
xVx Santillo
Registered User
 
xVx Santillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
It is just so unrealistic it shouldn't be approved. Kovalchuk is not getting traded in real life and shouldn't be allowed in the game for the sake of the league. It seems as though every trade in these leagues has to involve a big name and well, that is just not accurate at all in the real NHL. I'm guilty of this in Bluth a little but trust me I inherited a team that was already demolished. I hate seeing trade talk on day two of the league with guys names like Kovalchuk, Perry, Getzlaf, Richards all being tossed around it's just not right it doesn't take long for teams to lose identity even with 2 deals a year because those two deals almost always involve star players.
Dont want to start anything but where have you guys been the past 2yrs? it is not unrealistic AT ALL for "franchise players" being dealt....Kovy already got dealt, Nash got dealt, Carter, Richards, and a bunch of other big name/franchise players are getting more and more dealt in the NHL...and honestly I've seen better deals on here for them than in real life..

xVx Santillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:00 PM
  #60
Gary83*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,287
vCash: 500
I think the most important thing right now is that we, or someone establish franchise players for each team. Should there be more then one franchise player? I would be doing exactly what the devils are doing right now and I would definitely move Kovalchuk for something like:

Richards
Bernier
Voynov/something with good value.


NJ kinda sucks, they would probably be the last team I would pick, but a move like that would help to solidify them at three important positions and make their team better then having just Kovalchuk.

Gary83* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:02 PM
  #61
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011-12_NHL_transactions

Look at this for all transaction in the last year of NHL the only big names on there are Carter and Richards, now think of this league if we allow 2 trades and everyone deals star players that means up to 60 big name players can change teams in a single year.

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:03 PM
  #62
matt1396
Registered User
 
matt1396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xX Hot Fuss View Post
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
don't worry I pulled out, his asking price was to high for me and yes my Penguins thing didn't work out this season, but just watch me next season

matt1396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:05 PM
  #63
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 15,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary83 View Post
I think the most important thing right now is that we, or someone establish franchise players for each team. Should there be more then one franchise player? I would be doing exactly what the devils are doing right now and I would definitely move Kovalchuk for something like:
This was exactly my point yesterday, really.

For example, I've got Detroit. Datsyuk is the best player, by far, but he's 34/35. Zetterberg is likely to be the new captain, is an elite player in his own right, and is only 32. Which one of is the "franchise" player. Say I suck it up this year--not a remote possibility, mind you --who's to say I shouldn't be able to decide at the deadline that I'm moving some of my aging superstars for younger talent?

Or a team like the Oilers? In real life, it is probably RNH, but he's easily the least valuable in the game because he takes a bit to progress. But that leaves Hall or Eberle.

I think it has to be left to the discretion of the individual GMs, baring something that obviously "feels" off.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:06 PM
  #64
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1396 View Post
don't worry I pulled out, his asking price was to high for me and yes my Penguins thing didn't work out this season, but just watch me next season
It's not the fact that they didn't work out it's the fact that if you removed Crosby from your lineup right now and showed it to someone they might not even be able to tell you it's the Penguins.

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:07 PM
  #65
Firefoxx
Registered User
 
Firefoxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
I agree with this. Someone (the commish or Fuss?) should just make a list of the "franchise players" for each team. That way there isn't a lot of confussion for anyone trying trade for one.

Lets not forget that the biggest reason for this is so if a team leaves/gets booted, their team is still recognizable to the next GM. The worst part of other leagues is when you play someone and they dont have any of the big names left that you associate with the other team.


Last edited by Firefoxx: 11-27-2012 at 04:21 PM.
Firefoxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:07 PM
  #66
matt1396
Registered User
 
matt1396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
It's not the fact that they didn't work out it's the fact that if you removed Crosby from your lineup right now and showed it to someone they might not even be able to tell you it's the Penguins.
good point, but don't worry that won't happen with the Kings, i'm not looking to move everyone on this team, i'm just looking to upgrade my top 6. I've learned from my mistakes in the bluth, and trust me that won't happen here.

matt1396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:09 PM
  #67
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 15,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011-12_NHL_transactions

Look at this for all transaction in the last year of NHL the only big names on there are Carter and Richards, now think of this league if we allow 2 trades and everyone deals star players that means up to 60 big name players can change teams in a single year.
But everyone isn't looking to deal stars, right?

At most, you're probably looking at a handful of teams who would entertain moving one of their star players for multiple assets. And a few other teams who might have the young, talent NHL players required to build a package that could net one of those stars.

It is also worth stating the obvious: it is almost impossible to build through FA in NHL 13 because no one lets their guys go, and with a few exceptions, both draft picks and existing prospects take multiple seasons to progress to a point of any usefulness. Unlike real life, then, trading is about the only way to improve your team--which is why everyone over-does it in most other leagues.

The challenge in this league, and TBC, is that trades are limited. That's the appeal. But removing the ability to make any trade with or for a star player seems to go a bit too far.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:17 PM
  #68
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
But everyone isn't looking to deal stars, right?

At most, you're probably looking at a handful of teams who would entertain moving one of their star players for multiple assets. And a few other teams who might have the young, talent NHL players required to build a package that could net one of those stars.

It is also worth stating the obvious: it is almost impossible to build through FA in NHL 13 because no one lets their guys go, and with a few exceptions, both draft picks and existing prospects take multiple seasons to progress to a point of any usefulness. Unlike real life, then, trading is about the only way to improve your team--which is why everyone over-does it in most other leagues.

The challenge in this league, and TBC, is that trades are limited. That's the appeal. But removing the ability to make any trade with or for a star player seems to go a bit too far.
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.

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:25 PM
  #69
Stockey
Let's Go Buffalo!
 
Stockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
:blackcocks

Franchise Players

Kane
Toews
Who else?

Stockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:25 PM
  #70
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 15,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
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 04:43 PM.
Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:27 PM
  #71
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockey View Post
:blackcocks

Franchise Players

Kane
Toews
Who else?
Keith

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:28 PM
  #72
xVx Santillo
Registered User
 
xVx Santillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 500
I think 25 teams will actually stay in this league if we compare it to Bluth...therefore let whomever trade whoever (unless its completely lopsided) we arent trying to his realism here we are doing this to have fun no? trading is fun therefore why not?

xVx Santillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:28 PM
  #73
matt1396
Registered User
 
matt1396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
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 there are a couple cases where a 1st line player can be moved. 1.) If he has 1 year left on his contract. In real life star players who have 1 year left on their contracts are always in the rumor mill so it would only make sense if they were here as well. 2.) Team is struggling and needs a rebuild. In this case a team is doing terrible that season and would like to rebuild it's team, i'd say 1st line players would then become available then. Other than that I can't think of anymore reasons to trade big name players other than the fact that you just want to make a trade, or your looking to fill needs throughout your team and you feel like you'd be better off with a well rounded roster than one with 1 or 2 superstars and a bunch of scrubs.

matt1396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:43 PM
  #74
x Tame Impala
Registered User
 
x Tame Impala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockey View Post
:blackcocks

Franchise Players

Kane
Toews
Who else?
Keith, Seabrook, and Sharp also would be essentially untouchable to most Hawks fans in any sort of realistic trade proposal

x Tame Impala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:44 PM
  #75
xVx Santillo
Registered User
 
xVx Santillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 500
Anyways in other news the Caps are looking for a #1-2 RW

Trade Block:

Ward
Knuble
Hamrlik
Hillen
Poti
Perrault
Laich
Johansson
Holtby
Can include picks or prospects

xVx Santillo 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 12:37 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.