ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Transactions => Dynasty NHL => NHL Leagues => Dynasty NHL: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: SlackJack on September 12, 2018, 12:00:04 AM
-
C Denis Malgin, $0.5m (P-18/19)
2020 1st Round Draft Pick, Vegas
For
G Mike Smith, $20m (2018-2019)
$20m Cash 2018-19
A short Russian and a far-off pick for a starter on the back-side his career. Nobody is pretending that Smith is young, but Calgary will be fun to watch this year and he's the undisputed #1. Thanks to Brian for the deal. :toast:
-
Vegas agrees I get a goalie I still has a few yrs left to build my team around and 0 cost for a draft pick and a young c
-
I need a bit more clarification on this deal. Is your plan to extend Smith next year? Smith at 35/36 years old is more of a rental IMO and if he wasn't why not sign him yourself as you had the cap?
For a team at 17th/20 teams , buying a one year rental goalie seems like putting the cart before the horse as this move alone wont get you a championship let alone into the playoffs. I would think your team needs another season or 2 before making a deal like this.
Maybe I am missing the bigger picture on this.
-
Ditto what Snug said. I don't understand the strategy behind a team that is not currently near playoff contention trading away young/future assets for an old goalie on an expiring contract (and, if Smith will be re-signed, the extension rules will require giving that old goalie a significant new contract in terms of both the number of years and salary).
-
I get a goalie I still has a few yrs left to build my team around
Just going to add-on to what the others have mentioned so far, mostly regarding the above quote.
Mike Smith will be 37 next off-season when he would have to be re-signed. His minimum re-sign will be $5.7m per year, and as per our rules that extension would have to be for a minimum of 4 years.
I'm not sure that is the best move to make for a team, as others have said, realistically don't have a shot at playoffs this year or next.
As Snug said, if Smith was valued very highly by LVG, he could have been won in FA for the same per-year price as his re-sign will be ... Without giving up young assets.
-
I need a bit more clarification on this deal. Is your plan to extend Smith next year? Smith at 35/36 years old is more of a rental IMO and if he wasn't why not sign him yourself as you had the cap?
For a team at 17th/20 teams , buying a one year rental goalie seems like putting the cart before the horse as this move alone wont get you a championship let alone into the playoffs. I would think your team needs another season or 2 before making a deal like this.
Maybe I am missing the bigger picture on this.
24 hours, no reply. I will :veto: to get the ball rolling.
-
:veto:
-
Okay boys to be clear I don't care about the trade, so sure let's veto it. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything other than a public referendum on a GM rather than any kind of trade analysis.
Brian has a history of making odd trades and isn't as competitive as the GM's who have so far deemed to comment. I'm not saying that as an indictment against anyone, but it does seem a poor rationale to judge hockey trades by.
-
Okay boys to be clear I don't care about the trade, so sure let's veto it. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything other than a public referendum on a GM rather than any kind of trade analysis.
Brian has a history of making odd trades and isn't as competitive as the GM's who have so far deemed to comment. I'm not saying that as an indictment against anyone, but it does seem a poor rationale to judge hockey trades by.
I actually think its a great rationale and probably my only rationale when I judge trades. If its two knowledgeable and competitive GM/teams I don't care if one losses and one wins. Trade committee(IMO) is there to protect "at risk franchises". The team in question is already low in terms of competitiveness so I think you will see a trade committee that is a bit more judgmental or critical in those cases. GM transaction history is also taken into account.
-
I actually think its a great rationale and probably my only rationale when I judge trades. If its two knowledgeable and competitive GM/teams I don't care if one losses and one wins. Trade committee(IMO) is there to protect "at risk franchises". The team in question is already low in terms of competitiveness so I think you will see a trade committee that is a bit more judgmental or critical in those cases. GM transaction history is also taken into account.
Fair points, but how then do we determine when a franchise is at risk? Is an "at risk franchise" something we should note publicly so that GM's know there is an entirely different rationale behind the judging of trades?
-
Fair points, but how then do we determine when a franchise is at risk? Is an "at risk franchise" something we should note publicly so that GM's know there is an entirely different rationale behind the judging of trades?
I think we can all safely have our own takes on that and implement them as we see fit. I know Snug has always operated as he states - he'll approve you trading Sid for a 3rd round pick if he knows you're going to be around to suffer the consequences of your stupidity. Others on the TC have taken a different approach, evaluating what's fair in a vacuum, without considering the teams involved. I trust everyone on the TC to make that call themselves.
-
Ok here it is I been looking for a goalie and I got yes for only maybe 2 yrs left but no one knows for sure. Its costing nothing in payroll this yr at all. This league is hard to get goalies with out paying a arm and a leg. I gave up 1st rd pick and a young player. I still got players in minors. I'm not that high on drafting minors I would rather go after players know and not have to wait for 3 to 4 yrs I'm not type to want to wait for some one. That being said its up to u guys to vote.
-
Im not on the trade comity but I have been involved in one of those deals that created a lot of conversation. so do you assume that one of the gm's dont know what he is doing? I certainly agree that trading for smith only makes sense for a playoff team but do we really know why he wants smith? does he intend to trade him for a younger goalie or some other plan? Maybe he is just trying to field a competitive team and we all know how hard it is to get a starting goalie here. Maybe the TC should talk to him about it off line to get a better feel for his motives.
-
Ok here it is I been looking for a goalie and I got yes for only maybe 2 yrs left but no one knows for sure. Its costing nothing in payroll this yr at all. This league is hard to get goalies with out paying a arm and a leg. I gave up 1st rd pick and a young player. I still got players in minors. I'm not that high on drafting minors I would rather go after players know and not have to wait for 3 to 4 yrs I'm not type to want to wait for some one. That being said its up to u guys to vote.
I get your angle as I am about the same when it comes to prospects although I think a better strategy would have been to go after a 24-28 year old current backup that maybe / could potentially win starting duties should there be an injury or poor play by the starter. Worse case scenario you paid a backup price and he stays a backup but you have him for 8-10 season. Smith is a tree falling in the woods but no one is around to hear it.
Either way, I wont get in the way of a guy trading, strategy or molding his team. I will wait to see what the other votes are at this point but if for some reason I am a swing vote I will approve.
-
:veto:
Sorry guys.