If this trade committee thing actually gets off the ground, then I would be on it. It really needs at least 5-10 GMs to be fair, IMO.
And I really hope that if there is a trade committee, the draft isn't held up every time there is a trade because the committee needs "time to review." Only the rare problematic trade should cause discussion.
If this trade committee thing actually gets off the ground, then I would be on it. It really needs at least 5-10 GMs to be fair, IMO.
And I really hope that if there is a trade committee, the draft isn't held up every time there is a trade because the committee needs "time to review." Only the rare problematic trade should cause discussion.
Trades should only come to this committee by request. Any GM can request that a trade be reviewed, but each GM can only make one such request during this draft.
Most trades don't even need to be approved, but some might look a little fishy, and those are the only ones we need to take time on.
Trades should only come to this committee by request. Any GM can request that a trade be reviewed, but each GM can only make one such request during this draft.
Most trades don't even need to be approved, but some might look a little fishy, and those are the only ones we need to take time on.
Exactly. Not every swap of 3rd and 6th round picks needs to be approved by the committee; only the ones that are more than slightly questionable should come through here.
I'd also like to help out and be a member of the committee. Agreed that it's best we have 8 or 9 guys, so there's a great chance that there will be at least a couple online at any given time.
I really wish you did it the other way around. One member of the trade committee should have the OP so we can update the trades made into the OP.
regardless of what we do with that, I stole one of your older posts and put it here so that it became the OP. I also moved your OP back into it. Look good now?
There was the Kimberly/Minnesota deal that was already reflected in the draft thread, then the EB/dreakmur massive conditional trade, then the full swap by jarek and TDMM. that's it, right?
There was the Kimberly/Minnesota deal that was already reflected in the draft thread, then the EB/dreakmur massive conditional trade, then the full swap by jarek and TDMM. that's it, right?
I believe I've come up with a fair but still intriguing trade package for any GM looking to trade out of the first round:
Your first, fifth, 23rd rounder
For
My seventh, eighth, ninth rounder
A couple of folks are already considering it, but anyone who is interested can PM me.
This trade doesn't make any sense. You're asking us to give up our franchise player AND a top-6 forward/top-4 defenseman for what amounts to losing a spare for a bottom-6 forward, bottom-4 defenseman? Sorry, that doesn't fly, and if anyone tries to do that trade, it'll be up for veto.
This trade doesn't make any sense. You're asking us to give up our franchise player AND a top-6 forward/top-4 defenseman for what amounts to losing a spare for a bottom-6 forward, bottom-4 defenseman? Sorry, that doesn't fly, and if anyone tries to do that trade, it'll be up for veto.
How about I just let the other 39 GMs negotiate my trades for me, then, as apparently I'm either always giving too much or too little? I'm not trying to be a Pronger over this, but vetos are meant for deals that would imply collusion or otherwise undermine the process- not ones you just don't like. In that case, I'm going to veto every deal because one team will always have a greater advantage, however slight.
Trading brings out the worst in posters. The bickering about them instead of the appreciative and informative discussions about players and the history of hockey. The whole thing becomes a petty, selfish exercise overly obsessed on competiveness and winning in the playoffs when team building is supposed to be beside the point, the playoffs a fun offshoot instead of the point of it all, the draft about thinking through the history of the game, seeking to appreciate to the proper degree various contributors. A trade-free draft (or at least a trade-free conference to show the relative saneness and difference) was going to be the first step on the road to returning to the History board as a subforum there. Trading just shows the ATD subforum belongs where it is, with the games forum and all the jostling gamesmanship that goes on in fantasy competition. Oh well. So be it. 59% of us wanted it this way. We get what we deserve.
How about I just let the other 39 GMs negotiate my trades for me, then, as apparently I'm either always giving too much or too little? I'm not trying to be a Pronger over this, but vetos are meant for deals that would imply collusion or otherwise undermine the process- not ones you just don't like. In that case, I'm going to veto every deal because one team will always have a greater advantage, however slight.
oh, come on, don't be like that. It's not that the advantage is "slight", it was quickly apparent to the first three people to comment on it, that it's very much in your favour, and no wonder you'd also be open to doing it!
If the 5th and 8th were switched around, it would be a pretty fair deal, IMO. Six rounds out of the 1st, for 3 later, and 14 much later.
