[Discussion] Expansion Draft, Cap and Proposed Trades.

[TheGuardian_]

A lot of trade ideas posted here either ignore the expansion draft rules or simply those rules are forgotten.

 

Some trade ideas don't think about the cap or, that while money can't be traded, salaries can be manipulated and bad contracts taken on and buried. Signing bonuses can not be retained, so a big signing bonus reduces or eliminates some players from being traded.

 

Some trade ideas don't consider internal caps, rivalries, ownership pressure and in the states the value of winning even one season within a division or conference.

 

Some teams have their "core" of veterans that no rookie is going to bump, like it used to be on the Canucks in 2009 to 2013.

 

At the trade deadline some teams will be on the edge of either making the playoffs or feel they could be real contenders and will over pay if the right bait is dangled.

 

 

[Sygvard]

I mean, most of the trade ideas being kicked around here are spitballing interesting possibilities for fun. Its pretty rare that we see something that TRULY looks viable. Most viable trades just aren't all that fun to talk about; they leave both sides feeling vaguely underwhelmed.

 

I agree that we can all definitely do a better job at taking cap into account. Some of the cap swaps we see are just silly. But once you start trying to factor in rivalries, and professional relationships between the GM's I think you are wading in a little deep for most forum chats. 

[babych]

What in the blue hell is the point of this thread?

 

Unfortunately I've used my minus for the day - see you tomorrow.

[VanGnome]

5 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

A lot of trade ideas posted here either ignore the expansion draft rules or simply those rules are forgotten.

 

Some trade ideas don't think about the cap or, that while money can't be traded, salaries can be manipulated and bad contracts taken on and buried. Signing bonuses can not be retained, so a big signing bonus reduces or eliminates some players from being traded.

 

Some trade ideas don't consider internal caps, rivalries, ownership pressure and in the states the value of winning even one season within a division or conference.

 

Some teams have their "core" of veterans that no rookie is going to bump, like it used to be on the Canucks in 2009 to 2013.

 

At the trade deadline some teams will be on the edge of either making the playoffs or feel they could be real contenders and will over pay if the right bait is dangled.

 

 

 

[elvis15]

4 hours ago, babych said:

What in the blue hell is the point of this thread?

 

Unfortunately I've used my minus for the day - see you tomorrow.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Just a thread to say other threads are bad?

[MJDDawg]

I think Guardian and BuzzFeed were separated at birth.

[luckylager]

I should know better. Why would the guardian ever make a thread that wasn't a complete waste of time?

 

You'll never win the minus battle, clutch is so far in the lead there's no way you'll catch him.

 

Apparently I've used my neg for the day... I don't remember that but fine. 

[cripplereh]

I have to say that deals can be done so Vegas does not take a play a team wants as the Florida Panthers did and got more for not taking players and so on,so do not worry about the expansion draft as you can play lets make a deal!

[babych]

16 hours ago, elvis15 said:

Yeah, I don't get it either. Just a thread to say other threads are bad?

 

Apparently... I love/hate how Guardian keeps talking like he (or she) is so much smarter than everyone else but then makes these ridiculous threads. I mean c'mon, why would anyone make a thread in the Proposals forum and not actually suggest a proposal?

 

smh

[TheGuardian_]

Have you read some of the proposals?

 

A lot of them are like Benning suggested them, without thought to the cap or what can happen in June.

 

The Nucks already have 8 of 10 "protected" players with clause contracts, They will still have these in June and two don't expire until July.

This will affect any trade ideas.

While I totally understand that any thoughts here a "fantasy", an effort to introduce a little more thought isn't so bad.

 

Most of my "negative" votes came due to suggesting the Sedins be traded and my July post where I outlined stuff for this season. The "gang" didn't like the idea that the team would be crappy and hence the votes.

 

But the only people that seem to think those negative votes matter are the ones that give them out, if anything more people read what I post now just to see what is so bad, so keep it up. And those in the "gang" that don't contribute to the content of a post are tagged and reported, as per forum rules. The "gang" seems to think they can "bully" me out of the forum, fat chance. Anyone remember Neil MacCrae?

 

[babych]

13 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Have you read some of the proposals?

 

A lot of them are like Benning suggested them, without thought to the cap or what can happen in June.

 

The Nucks already have 8 of 10 "protected" players with clause contracts, They will still have these in June and two don't expire until July.

This will affect any trade ideas.

While I totally understand that any thoughts here a "fantasy", an effort to introduce a little more thought isn't so bad.

 

Most of my "negative" votes came due to suggesting the Sedins be traded and my July post where I outlined stuff for this season. The "gang" didn't like the idea that the team would be crappy and hence the votes.

 

But the only people that seem to think those negative votes matter are the ones that give them out, if anything more people read what I post now just to see what is so bad, so keep it up. And those in the "gang" that don't contribute to the content of a post are tagged and reported, as per forum rules. The "gang" seems to think they can "bully" me out of the forum, fat chance. Anyone remember Neil MacCrae?

 

 

Hey look, I agree with you that proposals are often not well thought out. I think the point here is why make a thread stating that? I can see replying to an existing proposal with what you stated, or even blogging it but I think the negative reps here are coming from the fact that you started a thread in the proposal forum that didn't actually contain a proposal.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[TheGuardian_]

I guess another thing is the idea of whether or not the proposed move is just to benefit this year or along the lines of a long term idea, ...what will the team look like in 4 years? Rebuild or re-tool?

[PhillipBlunt]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 10:22 AM, TheGuardian_ said:

Have you read some of the proposals?

 

A lot of them are like Benning suggested them, without thought to the cap or what can happen in June.

 

The Nucks already have 8 of 10 "protected" players with clause contracts, They will still have these in June and two don't expire until July.

This will affect any trade ideas.

While I totally understand that any thoughts here a "fantasy", an effort to introduce a little more thought isn't so bad.

 

Most of my "negative" votes came due to suggesting the Sedins be traded and my July post where I outlined stuff for this season. The "gang" didn't like the idea that the team would be crappy and hence the votes.

 

But the only people that seem to think those negative votes matter are the ones that give them out, if anything more people read what I post now just to see what is so bad, so keep it up. And those in the "gang" that don't contribute to the content of a post are tagged and reported, as per forum rules. The "gang" seems to think they can "bully" me out of the forum, fat chance. Anyone remember Neil MacCrae?

 

You received down votes because of your awesome proposal, LaGuardia. No one wants to bully you out of the forum. What fun would that be?

 

Thanks Neil, or Tony G.

[luckylager]

I got pulled back to thread, mainly because I saw it hadn't been locked up yet.

 

@TheGuardian_, you didn't propose anything, you imposed your opinion that the majority of people making proposals on CDC are inferior to your all mighty analytical powers. That might be true, there are a lot of bad proposals, but you try to make a point by being passive aggressive and whiney. That's why I negged you.

 

Your proposal to trade the twins was brutal and earned you a rep, it seems even the mods are out to get you by not locking this non proposal, crybaby rant. I suggest you get over it. You made a terrible thread or twelve, big deal. Move on. I'm willing to give everyone a 15th chance on CDC

[stuman491]

On 11/19/2016 at 10:40 AM, babych said:

 

Hey look, I agree with you that proposals are often not well thought out. I think the point here is why make a thread stating that? I can see replying to an existing proposal with what you stated, or even blogging it but I think the negative reps here are coming from the fact that you started a thread in the proposal forum that didn't actually contain a proposal.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

I come to this forum to read proposals both ridiculous and realistic.  Its fun. 

@TheGuardian_ Make a proposal that takes into account all of the things you laid out.  I don' think you proposed anything.  

[TheGuardian_]

I proposed that SOME thought be used in some of the trade ideas. I know that is against many of the respondent's here, especially as I didn't actually name a trade or deal.

Stating something like the team should trade the Sedins and Sutter to Pittsburgh for Malkin or Crosby might be entertaining I guess, but really it is an EA sports thing and so wrong at so many levels.

You know at the beginning of the year some "experts" picked the Nucks to end up with 65 points and the backlash on this forum was huge, now, with almost a quarter of the season done it looks like my prediction might more correct.

[elvis15]

12 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

I proposed that SOME thought be used in some of the trade ideas. I know that is against many of the respondent's here, especially as I didn't actually name a trade or deal.

Stating something like the team should trade the Sedins and Sutter to Pittsburgh for Malkin or Crosby might be entertaining I guess, but really it is an EA sports thing and so wrong at so many levels.

You know at the beginning of the year some "experts" picked the Nucks to end up with 65 points and the backlash on this forum was huge, now, with almost a quarter of the season done it looks like my prediction might more correct.

And we're proposing you use SOME thought to not create a thread to talk about other threads. Seems simple enough that many here have grasped it, yet it's avoided your understanding (much like the understanding of a good proposal for the posters your complaining about).