vcrguy Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 I've never understood the concept of "you can't trade within your division". Why not? If you make a good trade and get the better deal, you've made yourself stronger and the other team weaker; that's a good thing, right? If my next door neighbor continually wanted to trade me two loonies for a fiver dollar bill I'd answer the door every single time he knocked. The only reason for not trading within the division is if you're not confident you're getting the better end of the deal (insert any MG trade as an example here except for the Chris Higgins trade), and if so, then you need to step back and re-think if you should be making the trade in the first place. I mean, if Edmonton said they would give us Hall, Eberle, RNH and the Russian for Schneider, would we say "no", we can't because you're in our division. I know that's an extreme but its an example of why that analogy makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canuckrazy Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 That's different. You're taking away all their potential superstars NOW. then they have no near future.. if we'd done the schneider trade, they'd have all their current young talents along with a great goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Because the division team will get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IIlIlIIllIlIIIlIl Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Because. In the trade with Edmonton, we would only be making them stronger without taking back one of their big 4 or a player like Gagner.. Gillis recognized this and didn't bite on a deal short of overpayment with them. Wouldn't it suck to have to face Schneider with all of the players they have now? That would be a nightmare... However, if Edmonton had bit on the Top prospect + 7th + Roster player or whatever the asking price was, I wouldn't have cared... Edmonton was likely pissed because they offered the 7th overall and the Nucks took the 9th.. Much rather lose two spaces in the draft then give Edmonton what they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 If you hate your neighbour and his house is flooding would you sell him the only water-pump in the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 If you hate your neighbour and his house is flooding would you sell him the only water-pump in the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted July 1, 2013 Author Share Posted July 1, 2013 If you hate your neighbour and his house is flooding would you sell him the only water-pump in the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted July 1, 2013 Author Share Posted July 1, 2013 Because. In the trade with Edmonton, we would only be making them stronger without taking back one of their big 4 or a player like Gagner.. Gillis recognized this and didn't bite on a deal short of overpayment with them. Wouldn't it suck to have to face Schneider with all of the players they have now? That would be a nightmare... However, if Edmonton had bit on the Top prospect + 7th + Roster player or whatever the asking price was, I wouldn't have cared... Edmonton was likely pissed because they offered the 7th overall and the Nucks took the 9th.. Much rather lose two spaces in the draft then give Edmonton what they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 No, but I'd sell it to him for twice what I paid for it...............oh wait...........I can't because he's my neighbor. You see, it doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 What if our neighbour already drowned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted July 1, 2013 Author Share Posted July 1, 2013 you'd rather give it to your nephew for free than sell it at twice the price to the inbred, redneck next door who kicks your dog unnecessarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCNeil Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Its a silly concept, because we have to play him more often if he is an oiler instead of a devil. I think its better to take the best deal, and have a better team on the ice, for the 76 games we aren't playing the oilers. Its not like they can't get themselves a good goalie any other way. Scneids might help them get a point or 2 more off the Canucks in the season series. But the better trade we made, might get 6-7 more points in the other 76 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Trading within the division is bad because you get worse and a team you have to play 6 times a year gets better. It is a lot better to trade to the opposite conference because instead of having to face this team (which is now better) 6 times, you only have to face them 2 times with the schedule next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I always thought it was a little overrated. It's not like making the playoffs in the NHL is hard, over half the league makes the playoffs. This year 4 teams in the NE division made the playoffs. Last year 4 teams in the ATL division made the playoffs. The year before 4 teams in the Pacific made it. Once your in your division means nothing you have to worry about other teams too. In addition I feel like it's avoiding the big picture. Instead of focusing on what's best for your team it becomes a game where you would rather do as much as you can to hold back a rival even at the expense of holding back your own team. In many cases that rival isn't even your biggest threat and you don't gain on the true leagues powerhouses. Not to mention that rival could still just go acquire someone else and possibly come away giving up much less than they offered. If a division rival made me the strongest offer I would take it because I would be confident that I was building the best team in the NHL and not trying to win by holding back other teams. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The reality in my opinion is that the object of a trade is not necessarily to "win" the deal. You're just trying to make your team better and so is the other guy, and generally the point of a trade is that both teams believe that the players involved will accomplish that for both teams. So technically there shouldn't be any impediment to trading within your division if this is the case. The unwritten rule of not trading within the same division comes into play simply because the GM's involved in the deal don't want the player they traded away to come back to haunt them 5 or 6 times per year. That would just cause them grief, having to continually answer questions from fans and local media alike. The easy solution is to simply ship the player to the other conference, where up until this past season they would play the other team at most once per season. Basically out of site out of mind means less potential headaches for the GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost of Tom Joad Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 vcrguy, your argument is a bit of an oversimplification of the situation. But let me put it this way: imagine if EDM improves significantly with the addition of Schneider and as a result, ends up making the playoffs over the Canucks next season? Can you imagine the furor in this city then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.