Keith, Seabrook, and Sharp also would be essentially untouchable to most Hawks fans in any sort of realistic trade proposal
From a Hawks fan point of view, the only player I would say would never be traded (at least not unless there's some sort of falling out) is Toews. I'd say it's unlikely Kane, Sharp, Keith, or Seabrook get traded, but it could happen.
From a Hawks fan point of view, the only player I would say would never be traded (at least not unless there's some sort of falling out) is Toews. I'd say it's unlikely Kane, Sharp, Keith, or Seabrook get traded, but it could happen.
CBUS is proud to announce that they have acquired Franchise Forward Evander Kane from the Winnipeg Jets in exchange for Jack Johnson, RJ Umberger, David Savard and a 2013 2nd.
CBUS is proud to announce that they have acquired Franchise Forward Evander Kane from the Winnipeg Jets in exchange for Jack Johnson, RJ Umberger, David Savard and a 2013 2nd.
I think all "franchise players" should be put to a league wide vote. Because there is a fine balance between keeping team identity and ruining it for temporary satisfaction.
for instance I would easily veto that suspect columbus winnepeg trade above.
I think all "franchise players" should be put to a league wide vote. Because there is a fine balance between keeping team identity and ruining it for temporary satisfaction.
for instance I would easily veto that suspect columbus winnepeg trade above.
Nobody vetoed the unforgettable Gomez trade or Cammalleri one so who gives us the right to veto anyones trades?
I think all "franchise players" should be put to a league wide vote. Because there is a fine balance between keeping team identity and ruining it for temporary satisfaction.
for instance I would easily veto that suspect columbus winnepeg trade above.
Agreed.
But luckily we have see what HotxFuss has done with Bluth, and considering this is a sister league and we have a very capable Commish, I am sure something will come of this and we'll see some governing of trades!
Which is why Bluth worked so well, and this league will continue at that pace!
I think all "franchise players" should be put to a league wide vote. Because there is a fine balance between keeping team identity and ruining it for temporary satisfaction.
for instance I would easily veto that suspect columbus winnepeg trade above.
for instance I would easily veto that suspect columbus winnepeg trade above.
You think there isn't enough going to the Jets, or there is too much?
See, I think that's a deal that makes some sense, if he thinks he isn't competing this year. Umberger is a really nice player in the league as is JJ. THat's two quality pieces to give up. He's getting a replacement LW who can step in and replace R.J.'s production at the expense of losing his top-defenseman.
But guys like Moore get a decent bump and play above their OV--and of course he has Murray long-term.
I also think a rule should be implemented that a trade involving a star player cannot be proposed by a GM that has been with the league less than 2 blocks. hence all of us right now
You think there isn't enough going to the Jets, or there is too much?
See, I think that's a deal that makes some sense, if he thinks he isn't competing this year. Umberger is a really nice player in the league as is JJ. THat's two quality pieces to give up. He's getting a replacement LW who can step in and replace R.J.'s production at the expense of losing his top-defenseman.
But guys like Moore get a decent bump and play above their OV--and of course he has Murray long-term.
I just wanted to acquire one player that would be fun to play with and would go along with what im trying to accomplish in this league REBUILD!
I also think a rule should be implemented that a trade involving a star player cannot be proposed by a GM that has been with the league less than 2 blocks. hence all of us right now
I think that's a reasonable rule for new players, but I don't know about it to start the league.
I think all "franchise players" should be put to a league wide vote. Because there is a fine balance between keeping team identity and ruining it for temporary satisfaction.
for instance I would easily veto that suspect columbus winnepeg trade above.
Also, the test, as we thought of it before, was whether the team's identity was compromised by removing a player. THat's the criteria for stricter study of a trade, right?
Can anyone really say that they hear Columbus and think of Jack Johnson? He's been there less than a season.
I don't really have a problem with this deal. I'm not great with Kane, and I think he gave up quite a bit in terms of short-term production to pull the trigger, but it's not like he gave up his entire team, or that Winnipeg traded Kane for a package of projects and picks.
I don't really see any grounds to veto that deal. Doing so would bring almost all trades into question.
(This isn't in any way specifically directed at you, PsychicSaw. Despite our earlier differences, I've come to respect you and your game play. Just a difference of opinion is all).
I think that's a reasonable rule for new players, but I don't know about it to start the league.
well im glad this trade came up, because I question his character to begin with (yes bias), so a trade that I feel hurts him completely RIGHT NOW with someone with a heavy rebuilding team, I think he should have to be active for a grip of time before a trade like that even becomes considered.
Bottom line is it can go either way, and I enjoy the healthy discussion about it.
Where I'm coming from though:
considering a franchise player is involved, 2top pieces of a very mediocre team are leaving, my bias towards his character as someone who doesnt care about league integrity, and the fact that he is a SPECIAL experimental case in this league with his availability; there are just too many questions marks that make this suspect, at this point in time.
again easy veto on my part for the integrity of the league.
Also, the test, as we thought of it before, was whether the team's identity was compromised by removing a player. THat's the criteria for stricter study of a trade, right?
Can anyone really say that they hear Columbus and think of Jack Johnson? He's been there less than a season.
I don't really have a problem with this deal. I'm not great with Kane, and I think he gave up quite a bit in terms of short-term production to pull the trigger, but it's not like he gave up his entire team, or that Winnipeg traded Kane for a package of projects and picks.
I don't really see any grounds to veto that deal. Doing so would bring almost all trades into question.
(This isn't in any way specifically directed at you, PsychicSaw. Despite our earlier differences, I've come to respect you and your game play. Just a difference of opinion is all).
Where when I think of columbus I may not think Jack Johnson (considering he's a new aquisition himself), when I think Winnipeg I absolutley think Kane. This a deal that absolutley changes the identity of a team.
I'm not making a judgement on the trade in terms of fair value or not, just pointing out that this is the exact kind of player that is stated should take a big overpayment to have moved.
Where when I think of columbus I may not think Jack Johnson (considering he's a new aquisition himself), when I think Winnipeg I absolutley think Kane. This a deal that absolutley changes the identity of a team.
I'm not making a judgement on the trade in terms of fair value or not, just pointing out that this is the exact kind of player that is stated should take a big overpayment to have moved.
But you don't think Winnipeg loses this deal, right?
But you don't think Winnipeg loses this deal, right?
I think it's relatively even on value tbh. But for a franchise player it shouldn't be just equal value, it should be equal + something significant since the team wouldn't be trading them just to trade them. They would need that extra incentive to make the move. It's sort of like why would Winnipeg trade Kane for fair value when their are plenty happy with him? They would need a deal that blows them away. At least thats how I look at it and how I think they intended for it to be in the rules.
I think it's relatively even on value tbh. But for a franchise player it shouldn't be just equal value, it should be equal + something significant since the team wouldn't be trading them just to trade them. They would need that extra incentive to make the move. It's sort of like why would Winnipeg trade Kane for fair value when their are plenty happy with him? They would need a deal that blows them away. At least thats how I look at it and how I think they intended for it to be in the rules.
In my opinion most fair/sense made of the whole trading "franchise" players
