ALL CAPS
Minor League Grinder
Season 21!
Posts: 274
|
Post by ALL CAPS on Feb 28, 2017 19:54:21 GMT -5
When I see high picks moved it really troubles me that we aren't taking the sim realistically enough. Could you imagine the reaction of fans and media if a draft pick was traded for cash? I think the owner would be ripped a new one. If a GM does a good job, they will build up their bank account, but hard to stock your organization when a team sells off potential prospects for cash. Imagine in the NHL that someone would trade Peter Budaj for Ben Bishop? Oh wait... that did happen. I think it's safe to say that there's a deal few of us can understand - but it made sense to the GM's involved at the time. Truth be told, trades happen all the time in the NHL for "Future considerations" and/or "conditional picks" which often amount to nothing. So what is worse - trading something for nothing (e.g. Picks for considerations) or something for something else (picks for cash)? There are too many people coming at this issue from a narrow lens and that is likely because it's not an issue that directly impacts their team. However, if we limit the ability of the GM to manage his team, we ultimate come to a place where the GM goes in auto-pilot. You go too far down that road and you really don't need human GM control (at a certain extreme point). Why place unnecessary controls on GM's? Rather, if you don't want to trade cash for picks then dont. Period. Also, if someone makes a stupid trade like the #1 overall pick for $1 - we are all still protected by the fact that the trade would be vetoed by the league office. What more protection do we need?
|
|
|
Post by CoyotesGM on Feb 28, 2017 20:13:04 GMT -5
I do agree that we should follow suit with the NHL for not trading cash for picks. One of the reasons I do advocate for it is because our league deals with Cash and the Salary Cap as going hand in hand. Due to the limited number of ways to bring cash into our teams, I feel that trading it as an asset makes it possible for teams to make runs and continue to retool as opposed to straight up selling their squad.
|
|
|
Post by avalanchegm on Feb 28, 2017 21:00:27 GMT -5
Thanks, Nate for the explanation on the compensatory picks in the past. That does shed some light.
As to Ron's point, I actually have traded a pick before for cash and I'd do it again: [2011-07-06 11:50] - From Minnesota Wild to Colorado Avalanche : $200,000. [2011-07-06 11:50] - From Colorado Avalanche to Minnesota Wild : Y:2011-RND:7-LAK. I traded an asset and acquired an asset. I was happy with that trade then and I have no issue with it now. If anyone wants my 7th this year, I would trade it for more than I did in 2011. I'll sort offers on ICQ this weekend.
If a trade of cash for picks looks bad, who does it look bad on? Are we being judged by media? Fans? Ownership? If such were the case, why are GMs not pressured to be fired for missing the playoffs five years running and overspending in the NsHL? Or to the GM selling off every single asset for picks and prospects to do a "torched earth" rebuild that would put the Leafs to shame? Because it's a SIM, and yes, we are doing the best we can to follow the NHL, I think we all have to realize there's a give and take here. But if we can all agree the occasional cash for picks trades are the most important issue we're facing in the NsHL, then sure, let's make sure we deal with it so we don't "look bad."
I agree with Dave's point; we shouldn't have teams without picks in the draft. That is not realistic to the NHL, if we want to follow as closely to the letter as possible. Perhaps we should also prevent teams from having the absurd amount of 7th round picks, as he suggests. Or maybe we should also prevent teams from constantly having multiple top 90 picks every year. That's actually far less realistic to me than trading picks for cash. I can't remember the last time an NHL team had 3 first round picks, had traded 2 others, and also picked 8 more times in the top 3 rounds...year after year after year.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Feb 28, 2017 22:11:24 GMT -5
I can't see fans in a knowledgeable hockey market accepting a pick for cash deal. I know in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and the majority of others the fans and media would be calling for people's heads. The league wouldn't allow it.
I know the SIM isn't the NHL, but I can't remember the last time a pick for cash trade was done.
The NHL wouldn't allow it. If memory serves they have something like Major League Baseball where a trade can be killed for what's good for baseball. Put in place by the league for Charles Finley when he was selling off his stars. (Probably got that story wrong) lol.
As for teams having no picks in a draft .. I hate it, but that is at least possible and has happened under extreme circumstances like when the Blues had nobody at the draft when they were going bankrupt or something.
As for teams like mine that stockpile picks, what would you like me to do? I get offered the picks in a trade and take them I guess some GM's don't value them as much as I do.
|
|
SJSharks
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 472
|
Post by SJSharks on Feb 28, 2017 23:24:56 GMT -5
I didn't pay for any of those 7th rounders. Those were all in deals, thank you very much.
|
|
WildGM
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 210
|
Post by WildGM on Mar 1, 2017 18:23:45 GMT -5
How is this picks for cash even an issue...it doesnt make any sense.
Ron you seem to be the only person with a hard exception to this...and I havent heard a single (not one) logical reason as to why. As pointed out. The number of times this has happened directly for picks makes this a non important topic what so ever.
As a gm if you want to deal picks for cash thats 100% up to you. They are tradeable assets. Which I will remind everyone that there are limits on cash that can be dealt and a board that can veto any trade (in the event of some true nonsense).
For the prospect creation whiners. We just lowered the rfa age to be more realistic... by two years from what it was. And uncreated players become free agents at 26. If you leave a player on the prospect list, I mean thats up to you. Its actually a realistic way of thinking. Kids get sent back to junior an extra year or stay on the farm long after they should be brought up. After all... it is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of having a roster spot. And it is a matter of running your own team.
You certainly run the risk of losing a year of said players development.
Also, our agents have already shown they will negotiate the one or two year entry deals when applicable. And some gms have requested that in a way to be fair to their players (I did that myself as a sign of good faith - see Nikita Kucherov).
Theres nothing wrong with the pdp system...or quantity of rerates...and lets certainly not put even more restrictions on trades.
This midseason bitching session is getting out of hand. I would really encourage everyone to get to work on their own teams
If you are rolling out 1 2 2 lines and havent made an attempt to win in the past 10 games... or a move to get better in the future, none of these idiotic changes are going to help you anyways.
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Mar 1, 2017 23:13:23 GMT -5
If you are rolling out 1 2 2 lines and havent made an attempt to win in the past 10 games... or a move to get better in the future, none of these idiotic changes are going to help you anyways LOL! Terry you've been on a roll recently, but you're totally right. If you aren't going to make the effort to run your team efficiently on a daily basis (do lines, stay above cap floor, stay below cap ceiling, develop players or improve anyway possible), does it really matter if you can deal picks for cash?
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Mar 2, 2017 1:46:17 GMT -5
I see it differently and don't see this as bitching on either side of the issues. Guys are discussing things and for the most part things have been very civil with good points being raised.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Mar 2, 2017 2:42:35 GMT -5
Calm down Terrence. The gout flaring up again?
There are others who support the banishment of picks for cash. Read back before you attack!
IMHO, if we can trade picks for cash, we SHOULD be able to trade NHL Re-Rates (up to one), because as you said, it is a tradable asset. There is no difference in the two.
|
|
|
Post by The_ZeroCool on Mar 2, 2017 7:18:42 GMT -5
Don't think it is a bitchfest either, but, if a GM does not try to make their team better then why should they be given help?
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 2, 2017 13:10:22 GMT -5
Calm down Terrence. The gout flaring up again? There are others who support the banishment of picks for cash. Read back before you attack! IMHO, if we can trade picks for cash, we SHOULD be able to trade NHL Re-Rates (up to one), because as you said, it is a tradable asset. There is no difference in the two. No, an NHL re-rate is NOT an asset. It is a player development tool, along with PDPs, that are given to teams as a means to improve their roster. I don't see the need to add one, and I certainly don't want to see some teams with one and others with three. Each and every team in the NsHL should have equal access to NHL re-rates and PDPs in my opinion. Perhaps we could simplify the cash portion of trades. As has been pointed out, the NHL no longer allows cash to be in a trade. I do feel teams in the NsHL should be able to trade cash if they so desire. That said, how about cash simply can't be the only asset a team is giving up in a trade? This way a player (or future player in the form of draft picks) must be included from both sides to complete a trade.
|
|
|
Post by NJDevilsGM on Mar 2, 2017 17:37:51 GMT -5
It is an asset. It is a tool to improve your team, it is therefore an asset. It is a non-tradeable asset, and that's fine, but it is an asset.
If the reasoning behind it being non-tradeable is because NHL teams don't do it, which seems to be the overall trend from what i'm reading, then I say do away with cash for picks trades as well for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Mar 2, 2017 19:05:50 GMT -5
WRONG. We are taking the word assets here and interpreting/spinning it for our own benefit. Player Development "Tools" (PDP's and NHL Rerates) as outlined in the NsHL Constitution were created from the onset by the League's founding fathers to be used as a tool to builder players from within despite how that player was acquired. They were NEVER intended to be property, possessions or belongings like cash, draft picks, players or coaches. Nate, Mark and Mike can confirm this in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Mar 2, 2017 19:15:53 GMT -5
This discussion actually has changed my opinion on trading cash for draft picks. I was against it, and the reason was because I got tired of seeing financially weak teams with non-existent prospect pools trade draft picks for cash. Every time I went to the transactions page I could not believe what I was seeing. Essentially, a poorly run, weak organization was becoming worse by trading any semblance of hope, or future for a temporary fix to potentially keep them from going bankrupt (although this does not work).
It's a poor practice, BUT we should not hold the majority of good GM's in this League responsible for the egregious acts of others. It's a savvy tool that many good GM's could exploit for the right reasons. For instance, say I have made the picks I wanted through rounds 1-6 of the draft, I am satisfied, and I have to leave. There is no one left that interests me in round 7 so I trade that pick to a team for $150,000 with the intent to use that money as a SB to re-sign one of my core players. To me, this is good practice, in good faith. On the flip side, I like taking stabs in the dark, I like players late in the draft, I am financially sound and have some extra cash to try and move for picks to try and draft these players. Again, a savvy move by successful teams.
I'm not going to sugar coat things. Do we need to restrict what the majority of GM's can do, to correct the issue that some of the bad GM's do? The underlining theme throughout this whole discussion is protecting bad teams from becoming worse because of poor decisions by their GM.
|
|
|
Post by NJDevilsGM on Mar 2, 2017 19:21:42 GMT -5
So then we're debating wording. sub out asset for tool, same difference. It's an 'asset' 'tool' 'item' whatever that benefits your team. The debate is if it should be tradeable. I'm fine if it is or isn't for the record. But if it isn't and because we're mirroring the NHL is the only reason then that standard should go for picks for cash type deals as well shouldn't it?
I personally think it's great we try to mirror the NHL but we should also accept the fact we can't do so within the sim as it is now. We can't trade cap space for example as was pointed out earlier in the thread, something NHL teams can effectively do when they retain salary in a trade. Maybe we should note what we can't mirror and discuss options to find an alternative.
|
|