HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > EA Sports NHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
EA Sports NHL Discussion forum for EA Sports NHL video games.

Bluth Company Trade/Lineup Thread PT 3: Offseason Edition

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 01:18 PM
  #851
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArGarBarGar View Post
Didn't you trade Henrik Zetterberg?
It seems that pretty much everyone who has been in the league from the start has traded one franchise asset, right?

The issue is that imposing the rule from now forward creates some problems for teams that stocked up on futures and are now in a position to acquire a difference maker. There's also the question of what constitutes a franchise asset, which was never really discussed. A list was produced, one that mostly made sense, but had some curious inclusions and omissions. Then you add this other element, where some prospects who are not on the original list are also apparently considered "franchise" assets (while other similar / better prospects are not), and it has just created a whole lot of confusion.

Anyway, just an outsider's perspective. I'm new to the league. Haven't been a part of any of the previous deals. In one sense, I have no right to say anything, but I'm also far less biased by past moves.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:18 PM
  #852
Price 89
Registered User
 
Price 89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 984
vCash: 500
Oh and agarbargar however u spell it, that happened two seasons ago when franchise players rules wasn't apart of discussion... Try again

Price 89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:18 PM
  #853
Nick1219
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary83 View Post
By all means, list them off. Canucks haven't exactly been successful with their drafting over the past ten years, so you'll excuse me if I don't consider Cody "franchise" Hodgson to be at the top of my list.
OHL Player of the year
CHL Player of the year
Led the World Junior team in points.
Over .5 PPG playing with the Canucks with 3rd/4th line minutes.
OHL coaches voted him the hardest working, smartest player, best on face offs, and best on the PK in the league.

The kid can play...

Nick1219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:20 PM
  #854
ArGarBarGar
Global Moderator
Defense Please
 
ArGarBarGar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 26,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Price 89 View Post
Oh and agarbargar however u spell it, that happened two seasons ago when franchise players rules wasn't apart of discussion... Try again
Neither was Yandle when I traded him, and now he is on a team with many more assets that have that value over him.

Try again.

ArGarBarGar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:20 PM
  #855
SUBdrewgANS
born into trouble
 
SUBdrewgANS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,776
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SUBdrewgANS
I understand wanting to keep the teams as recognizable as much as possible for future GMs, and Ideally I like the idea of having a realistic league..

I know the biggest concern with this is GMs coming in and not really knowing much about their teams if the rosters are jumbled.. Well lets look at some of the teams that didn't abuse the trades to dismantle their team.. I believe I am one of those teams.. Do you think someone coming in taking over my team (KINGS) would recognize this team? Yeah I little, my identity is still there, but I also created a new identity as well.. the only recognizable players in my top 6 are Kopitar and Richards.. all those wingers are gone.

There are instances where trades need to be veto'd and I dont think that should be a one person decision (Commish) I think there should be a veto system that at least a number of GM's need to veto (and no GM's within the 1/2 divisions involved can vote)

Examples of when trades needed to be veto's in this league?
-Minnesota dismantlement.. The original GM got frustrated with injuries and traded everyone away.. and then quit the league..
-Pittsburgh (Sorry to single you out Matt) Malkin and Sutter were traded for an undesirable return IMO (though I could be a biased pens fan)

Those are the only 2 times in this league I feel a Veto would've been necessary.. there could be others as well I dont have all the trades memorized.. sorry..

I think the 2 trade/amount of players rule restricts us enough.. I dont think we need more restrictions than that.

SUBdrewgANS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:20 PM
  #856
HaroldDruken
Registered User
 
HaroldDruken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
Maybe we should set it so we have 2 franchise players and 1 franchise prospect per team that can't be traded until they are set to become a UFA, or beyond 35 years old. Not fair to teams who have 4 or 5 really good players and multiple prospects being labeled "Franchise".

HaroldDruken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:27 PM
  #857
Nick1219
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Still in favor of Stockey's (I think it was Stockey) idea of having 1 unmovable player on your team.

So all the super super star players are never moved, but other then that? Fair game, but meh.

The pace that trades are being made... by year 6 the teams will be unrecognizable for the most part.

Nick1219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:27 PM
  #858
stevezz
Registered User
 
stevezz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
Guys i havent read all ur posts, but i find the Calgary Minny trade to be fair for several reasons:

1) Cammalleri is a damn good player in this game

2) Rielly is 20 with 4.5 potential, but hes trading him to get a number one center

3) Also look at how stacked minny is with defensemen!! Why cant he use a young one to get an established nhl player?

This trade is a good hockey trade: Calgary shedding some cap as some of his prospects will need new contracts and Minny has alot of cap room and has all kinds of 4-4.5 prospects..

I really dont see the problem with this trade guys..

stevezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:27 PM
  #859
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsfan89 View Post
I actually don't mind the deal because in most cases Cammaleri can be a No. 2 C but won't look out of place as a no.1 C. He's also not that old and has great offensive instincts.

Setoguchi is like what an 82 ovr? good shooting but meh everything else (from memory lol not sure)

Calgary is not in the playoffs right now so his 2nd round pick would be a high pick. Minny is in so the first round pick could potentially be a late one.

Thus, Minny gets a very early 2nd round pick to offset the 1st pick loss, and a top 2 C for pretty much a cap dump in Seto and a prospect Rielly (who is great) but could easily be replaced by Dumba or free agency.
THB I wanted to go after a bigger fish than Cammalleri but this damn new rule would not allow it. I felt I overpayed but that's what I was forced into doing because I knew it would be vetoed if I didn't. I basically hassled Jack the rangers GM for a week trying to get a deal done for Gaborik but gave up when the new rule was made. Both players were not on the franchise list so I found a loop hole.

My opinion on what has to happen from this point -

1- We continue to run the league the way it originally was being run and don't implement the "franchise tag" this would approve Col-Chi trade and Cal-Edm and then you can leave it up to myself and Calgary on whether we want the other deal to still happen.

2- If this gets fully implemented Siemens trade gets reverted and Yandle for that matter because it was less than week before this rule it seems like 1 last big trade can be done then the rule gets put in place. We need a better list for the franchise tag because in no way is it fair for me to have 7 guys on that list and 4 of them being 75 ovr and less and set rules need to be clearer for trades not just 1 final commissioner decision.

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:28 PM
  #860
Price 89
Registered User
 
Price 89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArGarBarGar View Post
Neither was Yandle when I traded him, and now he is on a team with many more assets that have that value over him.

Try again.
its been at least a week or two of this franchise player rule. Anyways, I stated my opinion, Yandle is a franchise player in Phoenix.

Price 89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:30 PM
  #861
EvoLu7ioN
Registered User
 
EvoLu7ioN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Lol, Reilly turns into a much better player than Siemens. Reilly for Cammelari alone would be more fair IMO, I still give the edge to Calgary there given Cammelari's age. There's no need for Seto or the first rounder in the deal, that's for sure.

It seems really simple to me. If a deal involves a franchise player or prospect, both sides need to include a franchise player or prospect...

Reilly is a franchise prospect, there isn't a franchise player or prospect coming back. And since there's clearly not an overpayment by Calgary to compensate for the lack of franchise in the deal, it got rejected.

EvoLu7ioN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:32 PM
  #862
avsfan89
Registered User
 
avsfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoLu7ioN View Post
Lol, Reilly turns into a much better player than Siemens. Reilly for Cammelari alone would be more fair IMO, I still give the edge to Calgary there given Cammelari's age. There's no need for Seto or the first rounder in the deal, that's for sure.

It seems really simple to me. If a deal involves a franchise player or prospect, both sides need to include a franchise player or prospect...

Reilly is a franchise prospect, there isn't a franchise player or prospect coming back. And since there's clearly not an overpayment by Calgary to compensate for the lack of franchise in the deal, it got rejected.
i see what you're saying. If it was like Cammy and a 2nd for Rielly that could be fair enough

avsfan89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:33 PM
  #863
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoLu7ioN View Post
Lol, Reilly turns into a much better player than Siemens. Reilly for Cammelari alone would be more fair IMO, I still give the edge to Calgary there given Cammelari's age. There's no need for Seto or the first rounder in the deal, that's for sure.

It seems really simple to me. If a deal involves a franchise player or prospect, both sides need to include a franchise player or prospect...

Reilly is a franchise prospect, there isn't a franchise player or prospect coming back. And since there's clearly not an overpayment by Calgary to compensate for the lack of franchise in the deal, it got rejected.
With that logic used

Calgary - Edmonton deal = accepted

I've also scene Siemens at 88ovr after a few years.

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:34 PM
  #864
gunnerdom
Go HABS Go!!!!
 
gunnerdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,540
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to gunnerdom
I think we're going a bit overboard with this. I mean look at the Habs a few seasons back. They literally changed half the team in the off-season. I'm okay with having like 2 or 3 players a team that can't be moved but the rest should be available for trades. Or maybe 2 regular players and 1 prospect should be on the no-touch list. Make a list, the rest tradeable. It would take the guess work out of this because this is getting too complicated for nothing.

gunnerdom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:35 PM
  #865
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoLu7ioN View Post
Lol, Reilly turns into a much better player than Siemens. Reilly for Cammelari alone would be more fair IMO, I still give the edge to Calgary there given Cammelari's age. There's no need for Seto or the first rounder in the deal, that's for sure.

It seems really simple to me. If a deal involves a franchise player or prospect, both sides need to include a franchise player or prospect...

Reilly is a franchise prospect, there isn't a franchise player or prospect coming back. And since there's clearly not an overpayment by Calgary to compensate for the lack of franchise in the deal, it got rejected.
Reilly doesn't generally break 80 until the 2018-2019 season... He's quite usable the year before, but I wouldn't exaggerate his online progression.

That's not to say Siemens does (I have no idea), but I just have a hard time seeing someone who won't play a role on an NHL roster for at least the first 5 years of a league as a "franchise" asset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunner View Post
I've also scene Siemens at 88ovr after a few years.
That's offline, I assume?

I've never seen a currently-drafted CHL prospect other than Huberdeau register that sort of jump that quickly (Klimchuk obviously does it too).

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:36 PM
  #866
matt1396
Registered User
 
matt1396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
I don't see how my Malkin should have been vetoed. How is the return undesirable? I got Eriksson who I play better with, and Roy is better than Sutter.

matt1396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:40 PM
  #867
dunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Reilly doesn't generally break 80 until the 2018-2019 season...

That's not to say Siemens does (I have no idea), but I just have a hard time seeing someone who won't play a role on an NHL roster for at least the first 5 years of a league as a "franchise" asset.



That's offline, I assume?

I've never seen a currently-drafted CHL prospect other than Huberdeau register that sort of jump that quickly (Klimchuk obviously does it too).
Yes offline - I have no idea on any online progression.
How many sims have you run online to know that Reilly won't break 80 by then? Because offline i've seen him have a slow progression and a fast progression.

dunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:40 PM
  #868
Nick1219
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Reilly doesn't generally break 80 until the 2018-2019 season...
Again... We're talking about realism here, yet we're discussing prospects in the context that we know EXACTLY how they develop.

Realism went out the door in this game the moment everyone found how that Mursak and Nyquist jump through the roof before it even happened.

edit: well Nyquist was expected I suppose being 4.5 star, but you guys get what I mean.

Nick1219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:43 PM
  #869
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick1219 View Post
Again... We're talking about realism here, yet we're discussing prospects in the context that we know EXACTLY how they develop.

Realism went out the door in this game the moment everyone found how that Mursak and Nyquist jump through the roof before it even happened.
Oh I agree. It is completely dumb that we know how prospects turn out, and when they do. But I don't see how we can ignore that information when determining their value.

I think there's a difference, then, between the "real" prospects (who's progression is quite obviously pre-determined) and the fictional prospects who have been drafted since. We don't know how those guys progress--some of them will jump, others won't.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Take all "real" prospects who aren't on NHL rosters this season off the untouchable list. It just doesn't make sense to treat them as having that sort of value, since it is unlikely that any of them ever develop into more than decent "playable" players with low OV ratings.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:43 PM
  #870
avsfan89
Registered User
 
avsfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Fuss I think you should approve this deal. Minny isn't losing much they got other great prospects and Suter still on there. Maybe Minny taking off their 1st round pick could be the modifier though. Maybe:

Cammaleri + 1st

for

Rielly, Setoguchi (optional inclusion)

avsfan89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:44 PM
  #871
PasswordIsTaco
2012 & 2014
 
PasswordIsTaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
This is ridiculous, I did everything asked of me in this trade to get it accepted.

None of the listed "franchise players" are part of the deal.

There are not more that 4 roster players being moved.

There are not more than 6 total pieces being moved.

There is an overpayment for a good player (Cammalleri).

BOTH GM's ACCEPTED THE DEAL AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT

If I can't move my 32 year old 1st line C for a 20 year old 4.5 star D prospect, what am I supposed to move him for? Another 30 year old player?

I'm fine with not being allowed to trade Bartschi, but I don't see how this trade can be vetoed.

PasswordIsTaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:45 PM
  #872
stevezz
Registered User
 
stevezz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsfan89 View Post
Fuss I think you should approve this deal. Minny isn't losing much they got other great prospects and Suter still on there. Maybe Minny taking off their 1st round pick could be the modifier though. Maybe:

Cammaleri + 1st

for

Rielly, Setoguchi (optional inclusion)
I agree, it makes for a good hockey trade if u ask me

stevezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:46 PM
  #873
avsfan89
Registered User
 
avsfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevezz View Post
I agree, it makes for a good hockey trade if u ask me
yup, especially if CGY doesn't make the playoffs their first rounder becomes a high one (thus, giving minny a chance to gain a 'franchise' prospect back in the upcoming draft.

avsfan89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:47 PM
  #874
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xX Hot Fuss View Post
There is no veto system. There are clear cut rules regarding trades and franchise players. As long as you follow them you should be fine.

I've denied trades based on value before but it's a rarity
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbokan View Post
This is ridiculous, I did everything asked of me in this trade to get it accepted.

None of the listed "franchise players" are part of the deal.

There are not more that 4 roster players being moved.

There are not more than 6 total pieces being moved.

There is an overpayment for a good player (Cammalleri).

BOTH GM's ACCEPTED THE DEAL AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT

If I can't move my 32 year old 1st line C for a 20 year old 4.5 star D prospect, what am I supposed to move him for? Another 30 year old player?

I'm fine with not being allowed to trade Bartschi, but I don't see how this trade can be vetoed.
These two posts neatly capture why I am confused.


Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 12-11-2012 at 01:56 PM.
Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2012, 01:54 PM
  #875
Nick1219
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsfan89 View Post
Fuss I think you should approve this deal. Minny isn't losing much they got other great prospects and Suter still on there. Maybe Minny taking off their 1st round pick could be the modifier though. Maybe:

Cammaleri + 1st

for

Rielly, Setoguchi (optional inclusion)
What in the hell is going on lol...

Setoguchi and Cammalleri are basically the same player!
Cammy skates at a 90 vs 87
Shoots the puck 1 or 2 points better
Puck skills are 1 or 2 points higher
Seto plays the body a lot better
Cammy is 32 making 6 mil long term
Seto 27 making 3 mil long term

That slight difference in talent, which is slightly over shadowed by the cap disparity warrants Minnesota also including a 4.5 star prospect AND something else?

Cammalleri <<<<<< Yakupov
Rielly = Bartschi
Setoguchi = Hudler

Failing to see a difference here. Yakupov is better than Bartschi so another respectable player is included to balance it out. My trade certainly has better balance...no?

Nick1219 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 12:35 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.