Claimed: Two player system is shait

[jRuutu 2,475]

2 hours ago, Tagger said:

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not sure what you were expecting me to bring to this thread? The only post I'd actually planned on making here was telling @jRuutu that his English/Media articles have improved a lot since he first joined after a discussion I had with @Gooningitup in our LR on how it must be really tough to do media spots in a second language. 

Thanks   Yea it´s not easy, but after making the same mistakes for 40 times, I´m slowly getting there. I guess the key is to keep going, try not to write everything at once, write 150 or whatever words at one go, another 150 on the next day and finish up during weekend. 

 

 

[jRuutu 2,475]

2 minutes ago, Fire Hakstol said:

I'm not sure I'm following your logic @jRuutu. GMs can only get 1 player on their team from the "GM rule". The second player has to come naturally via draft or trade. How would it be different if Higgins drafted another player who was just as good as Jacob and sent him to Calgary?

It´s always different when there is someone else behind the player than yourself. This time the user behind the player was Higgins, not your average sim league user. Price for him and example player 1 who is controlling his/her first player will more than likely be different.

[jRuutu 2,475]

18 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

I think that is fair. I was on the side of this trade that felt that it probably should of been examined a bit more before being allowed to be. Mostly because Brovy claimed that Higgins had the leverage with Jacob, and simply gave up any negotiating power from that point on. He told me that himself when I questioned him on the deal. But it's not like @Higgins was doing anything really that shady, or not more so than any other GM has done at some point down the line. Even without two players, GM players, how they've gotten to teams, what teams have had to pay for them and just in general that whole system has been a constant work in progress. Because of that, GM's both good and bad have taken and been taken advantage of due to the rules/structures at the time.

It's tough for me to really put the blame on anything their other than circumstance. Because if we start vetoing trades because the GM makes a boneheaded move, aren't we basically preventing teams from doing what they are supposed to be doing? It's still competitive here. Bad GM mistakes are part of the process, and that defines the narrative as much as anything else imo. History has shown if you look at the franchise wins, who has the most finals appearances and Cups it's not just about quality teams as it is about quality GM's. And for that matter, luck, as several quality GM's have been on losing teams. But for the most part I'd say teams that are in bad circumstances for a more extended period of time are usually the result of an ultimately bad trade or draft decision. Or a combination. That is just how it works. 

But at the same time the league should look further,  the crazy GM and his team are not the only ones affected by the terrible deal.  Some first gen user might end up into the crazy GMs team, league is in danger of losing an active user. Free agents will sure as hell stay away from that team and the crazy GM.  In the other end the team that won the trade is staying on top for who knows how long, free agents will naturally choose the winning team instead of crazy GM and his team. 

 

Also whatever players crazy GM had in his team already are more than likely not pleased, they will leave and join other teams. Crazy Gm will eventually have to quit for whatever reason, I´m guessing that is what happened with Calgary, since brovy is not there anymore?

 

Now Calgary is moving up luckily, but also Helsinki has won few cups and are still enjoying the fruits of that trade.  I would simply say that by blocking the Calgary-Helsinki trade, VHL would be a better place now. Trade block could maybe work as a wakeup call for the GM, step up or leave if deals like that  are seriously considered.

Edited August 4, 2017 by jRuutu

[Gudnason 607]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

But at the same time the league should look further,  the crazy GM and his team are not the only ones affected by the terrible deal.  Some first gen user might end up into the crazy GMs team, league is in danger of losing an active user. Free agents will sure as hell stay away from that team and the crazy GM.  In the other end the team that won the trade is staying on top for who knows how long, free agents will naturally choose the winning team instead of crazy GM and his team. 

 

Also whatever players crazy GM had in his team already are more than likely not pleased, they will leave and join other teams. Crazy Gm will eventually have to quit for whatever reason, I´m guessing that is what happened with Calgary, since brovy is not there anymore?

 

Now Calgary is moving up luckily, but also Helsinki has won few cups and are still enjoying the fruits of that trade.  I would simply say that by blocking the Calgary-Helsinki trade, VHL would be a better place now. Could maybe work as a wakeup call for the GM, step up or leave if deals like that seriously considered.

 

Can someone retroactively veto the Felix Savard trade? Has the statute of limitations passed yet?

[jRuutu 2,475]

2 hours ago, Kyle said:

I wouldn't blame the second player project for Brovy getting absolutely bent over in a trade. If we want more balance I think we are gonna have to cut back to 8 again and keep the 2 player project.

I would love to see 8 team league!

[jRuutu 2,475]

1 minute ago, punkhippie said:

 

Can someone retroactively veto the Felix Savard trade? Has the statute of limitations passed yet?

I don´t know Easier if the trades are vetoed when they happen. Not saying you need to veto every trade and ask someone to look it over, but at least similar ones as Cal-Hel, where one team gets totally dominated could and should be forced to be done again when they happen.

[Da Trifecta 1,902]

If we are being honest, I kind of told a few GM's I wouldn't play for them. One of those was Brovy who had to figure out what to do with his pick. Then he came up with that trade making sure Calgary had a goalie because I wasn't going to play for Calgary. I even told Eagles when he traded Kai Roberts that I would no longer play for Calgary no matter who was GM. I feel as if I am the reason for him having to do that trade.

[jRuutu 2,475]

12 minutes ago, KGR said:

If we are being honest, I kind of told a few GM's I wouldn't play for them. One of those was Brovy who had to figure out what to do with his pick. Then he came up with that trade making sure Calgary had a goalie because I wasn't going to play for Calgary. I even told Eagles when he traded Kai Roberts that I would no longer play for Calgary no matter who was GM. I feel as if I am the reason for him having to do that trade.

I´m not sure if Calgary knew it at the time or had an idea what their season will end up looking like, but their S54 first round pick ended up being third overall. To be honest, trading away Black Velvet and Theo for a goalie is not at least helping if you want to make the playoffs, so you don´t have to be much of a wizard to guess that Calgary S54 1st is going to be early pick, unfortunately for Calgary, they added it into the same deal with Velvet/Theo.

 

In the s54 draft was at least 3 promising goalies,  no idea when they joined and if Calgary knew about them, but two had over 200 TPE when they were drafted, the third had just under 170 TPE.

Edited August 4, 2017 by jRuutu

[Higgins 3,618]

You are also forgetting that no other team offered a better deal for Axelsson and Black Velvet was a free agent.

[Da Trifecta 1,902]

5 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

I´m not sure if Calgary knew it at the time or had an idea what their season will end up looking like, but their S54 first round pick ended up being third overall. To be honest, trading away Black Velvet and Theo for a goalie is not at least helping if you want to make the playoffs, so you don´t have to be much of a wizard to guess that Calgary S54 1st is going to be early pick, unfortunately for Calgary, they added it into the same deal with Velvet/Theo.

 

In the s54 draft was at least 3 promising goalies,  no idea when they joined and if Calgary knew about them, but two had over 200 TPE when they were drafted, the third had just under 170 TPE.

 

Brovy knew what was going on but he didn't have to throw in the pick. I am not sure of his reasoning but to be honest I think maybe he just gave up and said the hell with it. After hearing of the backlash from the trade, he stepped down. I think that is what kind of made him slowly fade away from the league.

[boubabi 4,725]

Player 2 is a "long-term" bandaid 

[jRuutu 2,475]

1 minute ago, Higgins said:

You are also forgetting that no other team offered a better deal for Axelsson and Black Velvet was a free agent.

Was Axelsson looking for a way out or what was going on?  Black Velvet was a free agent, so his trade value was not the highest possible, buuuuut still, if Brovy wanted or needed a G, 1st round pick and Black Velvets FA rights would have been fair deal I think. Especially if Velvet was not interested in joining only Helsinki? If Velvet was going to Helsinki no matter what happens, then rights for Black Velvet alone would have been enough.

 

[Devise 4,475]

2 minutes ago, Higgins said:

You are also forgetting that no other team offered a better deal for Axelsson and Black Velvet was a free agent.

 

Now now don't completely just play that card up like that. Your right, technically Black Velvet was a free agent. However, Jacob was your GM player. The rules have since been changed so that this trade wouldn't of been able to happen. You swapped GM players same as Toast did when he traded his goalie to me. Had you not done that, had Jacob not left the team via this trade. There is no way you can free agent Black Velvet to Helsinki, as per the rules.

 

So it is a little of a shady environment. You leveraged the fact that Brovy could of been left with nothing but Axelsson with no good offers on the table and no goalie. But he really didn't leverage the fact that without him and that deal Helsinki is a much different team. Velvet was a huge get, as your original GM player was a young goalie who didn't fit some of the rest of your core. Much less Theo. It's a huge factor in the back to back championships, and one of the players acquired would of had to of taken a much more complicated road, if at all to get to Helsinki. 

[jRuutu 2,475]

6 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

Brovy knew what was going on but he didn't have to throw in the pick. I am not sure of his reasoning but to be honest I think maybe he just gave up and said the hell with it. After hearing of the backlash from the trade, he stepped down. I think that is what kind of made him slowly fade away from the league.

League stepping in could have saved a lot. Brovy gets nice little slap on the face for accepting to that deal, but in return the deal is forced to be renegotiated and a better result for all parties involved follows

[hedgehog337 3,483]

12 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

In the s54 draft was at least 3 promising goalies,

 

I think only @Kendrick probably would've signed with CAL. I think Robbie (Axelberry) had some issues with Kesler(?), Ironside to TOR in any cases. King? Maybe. But that's a ''what if'' thing, so idk. 

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

better result

 

I mean this is just inaccurate. Factually speaking Helsinki got the best result they were ever going to get period. Any renegotiation is a step down from their perspective. 

[jRuutu 2,475]

Just now, Devise said:

 

I mean this is just inaccurate. Factually speaking Helsinki got the best result they were ever going to get period. Any renegotiation is a step down from their perspective. 

Well true, for Helsinki it would be worse, but for everybody else in the league the result would be better.

[jRuutu 2,475]

1 minute ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

I think only @Kendrick probably would've signed with CAL. I think Robbie (Axelberry) had some issues with Kesler(?), Ironside to TOR in any cases. King? Maybe. But that's a ''what if'' thing, so idk. 

Could be, but guess what?  Calgary actually drafted King in the first round 9th overall, got the pick from another trade, but not sure what happened after the draft and why King is not there anymore. I reckon the earlier trade with Helsinki did not at least help in keeping King around.

 

 

[Higgins 3,618]

3 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

Now now don't completely just play that card up like that. Your right, technically Black Velvet was a free agent. However, Jacob was your GM player. The rules have since been changed so that this trade wouldn't of been able to happen. You swapped GM players same as Toast did when he traded his goalie to me. Had you not done that, had Jacob not left the team via this trade. There is no way you can free agent Black Velvet to Helsinki, as per the rules.

 

So it is a little of a shady environment. You leveraged the fact that Brovy could of been left with nothing but Axelsson with no good offers on the table and no goalie. But he really didn't leverage the fact that without him and that deal Helsinki is a much different team. Velvet was a huge get, as your original GM player was a young goalie who didn't fit some of the rest of your core. Much less Theo. It's a huge factor in the back to back championships, and one of the players acquired would of had to of taken a much more complicated road, if at all to get to Helsinki. 

 

I didn't say a free agent going to Helsinki. I would have signed with Stockholm to chase a championship to try and get 5 or 6 total, that's why Velvet left Toronto in the first place.

 

Jacob would fit the core of Helsinki perfectly. Same draft class as our current goaltender, Astrid Moon. The only older player on the team was Axelsson so if that trade didn't happen, he wouldn't be a Titan, and I just would have stayed the course and drafted John Locke instead of Franchise Cornerstone to tank for S53, and have my own lottery pick.

 

That trade was a major cross roads for Helsinki. If that trade didn't happen the Titans roster would be incredibly different, and likely just getting good now. I took an abandoned team to the playoffs in one season and a championship in two seasons, respect the hustle.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

2 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Could be, but guess what?  Calgary actually drafted King in the first round 9th overall, got the pick from another trade, but not sure what happened after the draft and why King is not there anymore. I reckon the earlier trade with Helsinki did not at least help in keeping King around.

 

 

 

Oh right, already forgot about that smh. Maybe he wasn't happy with the direction of team and then the trade happened. I don't exactly know what happened though.

[jRuutu 2,475]

Just now, hedgehog337 said:

 

Oh right, already forgot about that smh. Maybe he wasn't happy with the direction of team and then the trade happened. I don't exactly know what happened though.

Ye,  the Velvet/Theo/1st round pick trade for Helsinki did not paint an positive immediate future, also Jacob I think was already in the team as a G, so fight for playing time on top of that. But also, if Jacob was in the team already, why even pick King in the first place?

[Kendrick 4,741]

16 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

I think only @Kendrick probably would've signed with CAL. I think Robbie (Axelberry) had some issues with Kesler(?), Ironside to TOR in any cases. King? Maybe. But that's a ''what if'' thing, so idk. 

Oh I would've but Calgary had their own plan in place with the inactive at the time goalie.

[Higgins 3,618]

2 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

Oh I would've but Calgary had their own plan in place with the inactive at the time goalie.

 

[eaglesfan036 4,605]

I took Kendrick at 9 cause of the tremendous value, as most expected him to be a top pick. I then had two goalies, which ubofrtuneatly meant I had to get rid of one even though I like Higgins and Kendrick a lot and knew both would be great goalies. I decided to trade Kendrick as Higgins was already on the team, while Kendrick had only just joined so I figured it made more sense to get rid of the guy who hasn't been on team for long. I traded Kendrick to cologne for stockholms future 1st which turned into 6th overall, and also colognes 11th overall pick. So I got decent value back. My only regret is trading Kendrick to a terrible spot in cologne. I'm glad to see he's on a competing riga team now.

 

 

[jRuutu 2,475]

11 hours ago, eaglesfan036 said:

I took Kendrick at 9 cause of the tremendous value, as most expected him to be a top pick. I then had two goalies, which ubofrtuneatly meant I had to get rid of one even though I like Higgins and Kendrick a lot and knew both would be great goalies. I decided to trade Kendrick as Higgins was already on the team, while Kendrick had only just joined so I figured it made more sense to get rid of the guy who hasn't been on team for long. I traded Kendrick to cologne for stockholms future 1st which turned into 6th overall, and also colognes 11th overall pick. So I got decent value back. My only regret is trading Kendrick to a terrible spot in cologne. I'm glad to see he's on a competing riga team now.

 

 

I thought Brovy was still in charge when the draft happened   Did not take long for him to step down after the trade then?

 

Got nice value for King!