|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 11:57:27 GMT -5
The only reason I like this is because of Puljujarvi and Mete's ages compared to Gio downgrading. I'll accept this only because this is probably a similar deal we'd see irl. Ages don't make much of a difference in this one due Gio's good contract... Not a single one of those players will ever touch 90 overall, let alone 88, and no combination of them equals that in this deal. This isn't a deal you would see IRL, especially since there's retainment on a $1M contract. 😂😂 I knew you were out to lunch on a lot of this, man... But shit, paying retainment on a $1M? 🤨 Are you daft? Dude, Leafs got a draft pick irl to retain like 400k off of Lehner's contract in the CHI-VGK trade. Gio is old and will retire soon, giving back full price for a 91 will harm any team. 3 years from now, Mete and Puljujarvi could be 85s while Gio is retired. That holds value for any team that isn't looking to push for a cup. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 12:03:33 GMT -5
You guys are being way to harsh on the rejects. I personally find it frustrating when stuff is getting denied, and then the GM is stuck with the player because everyone thinks they should’ve found better value. Who is going to give up multiple young players for a player like Gio? You can say he should be worth it, but that’s barely less than what I’ve been offered for DD. Let the guy make some moves. Adding Puljujarvi makes it an accept for me.
And EDM GM, get over the salary retention. It happens IRL, and I’m sure other GMs get butt hurt too, but shit goes on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:08:27 GMT -5
Ages don't make much of a difference in this one due Gio's good contract... Not a single one of those players will ever touch 90 overall, let alone 88, and no combination of them equals that in this deal. This isn't a deal you would see IRL, especially since there's retainment on a $1M contract. 😂😂 I knew you were out to lunch on a lot of this, man... But shit, paying retainment on a $1M? 🤨 Are you daft? Dude, Leafs got a draft pick irl to retain like 400k off of Lehner's contract in the CHI-VGK trade. Gio is old and will retire soon, giving back full price for a 91 will harm any team. 3 years from now, Mete and Puljujarvi could be 85s while Gio is retired. That holds value for any team that isn't looking to push for a cup. Him being old and retiring soon holds absolutely no weight due to his contract only being 2 seasons in length from now and not likely to retire during that time due to his overall being that high. I honestly don't give a shit what dumbass Dubas did or how they managed to get a pick out of a deal that didn't involve them at all. 😂😂 By that assessment, what you're saying is that, in theory, I could go to teams and give them a pick to take on my irl retainments (which we can't do btw), and you would accept that. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Greg on Jul 31, 2020 12:10:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:25:01 GMT -5
You guys are being way to harsh on the rejects. I personally find it frustrating when stuff is getting denied, and then the GM is stuck with the player because everyone thinks they should’ve found better value. Who is going to give up multiple young players for a player like Gio? You can say he should be worth it, but that’s barely less than what I’ve been offered for DD. Let the guy make some moves. Adding Puljujarvi makes it an accept for me. And EDM GM, get over the salary retention. It happens IRL, and I’m sure other GMs get butt hurt too, but shit goes on. It happens in IRL but not in nearly every trade under the sun, and not for players making piddly salaries like Jankowski either. Gio's age, in this instance, is completely irrelevant and utter silliness when he won't be lower than an 88 by the time the contract is up. Just throwing a shitload of young punks doesn't make up for that. Sorry, but it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:29:43 GMT -5
Dude, Leafs got a draft pick irl to retain like 400k off of Lehner's contract in the CHI-VGK trade. Gio is old and will retire soon, giving back full price for a 91 will harm any team. 3 years from now, Mete and Puljujarvi could be 85s while Gio is retired. That holds value for any team that isn't looking to push for a cup. Him being old and retiring soon holds absolutely no weight due to his contract only being 2 seasons in length from now and not likely to retire during that time due to his overall being that high. I honestly don't give a shit what dumbass Dubas did or how they managed to get a pick out of a deal that didn't involve them at all. 😂😂 By that assessment, what you're saying is that, in theory, I could go to teams and give them a pick to take on my irl retainments (which we can't do btw), and you would accept that. Dude, why would somebody pay an arm and a leg for a player that won't be around in 3 seasons? It has nothing to do with his contract, it has to do with him not being an asset to anybody in 3 seasons because he's no longer in the league. Also, no that wouldn't be allowed because you can't trade retainments. But I would accept a deal where a team is retaining for an asset. Cap space is sometimes more valuable than players themselves depending on how badly a team needs cap space. So yeah, as a rebuilding team I'd be taking on loads of cap space to gain more prospects and picks and do that every time that I am rebuilding. If I'm not using the cap then why would I not trade that space for assets? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 12:31:30 GMT -5
You guys are being way to harsh on the rejects. I personally find it frustrating when stuff is getting denied, and then the GM is stuck with the player because everyone thinks they should’ve found better value. Who is going to give up multiple young players for a player like Gio? You can say he should be worth it, but that’s barely less than what I’ve been offered for DD. Let the guy make some moves. Adding Puljujarvi makes it an accept for me. And EDM GM, get over the salary retention. It happens IRL, and I’m sure other GMs get butt hurt too, but shit goes on. It happens in IRL but not in nearly every trade under the sun, and not for players making piddly salaries like Jankowski either. Gio's age, in this instance, is completely irrelevant and utter silliness when he won't be lower than an 88 by the time the contract is up. Just throwing a shitload of young punks doesn't make up for that. Sorry, but it doesn't. It’s only happening in a lot of trades right now because teams still have that option up to 3. Some of these GMs won’t be able to retain more contracts until 22. AGE ALWAYS MATTERS! It’s the difference between losing a player to UFA or RFA. This is a 2 year rental on player |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:33:13 GMT -5
Him being old and retiring soon holds absolutely no weight due to his contract only being 2 seasons in length from now and not likely to retire during that time due to his overall being that high. I honestly don't give a shit what dumbass Dubas did or how they managed to get a pick out of a deal that didn't involve them at all. 😂😂 By that assessment, what you're saying is that, in theory, I could go to teams and give them a pick to take on my irl retainments (which we can't do btw), and you would accept that. Dude, why would somebody pay an arm and a leg for a player that won't be around in 3 seasons? It has nothing to do with his contract, it has to do with him not being an asset to anybody in 3 seasons because he's no longer in the league. Also, no that wouldn't be allowed because you can't trade retainments. But I would accept a deal where a team is retaining for an asset. Cap space is sometimes more valuable than players themselves depending on how badly a team needs cap space. So yeah, as a rebuilding team I'd be taking on loads of cap space to gain more prospects and picks and do that every time that I am rebuilding. If I'm not using the cap then why would I not trade that space for assets? But you're also saying that Dubas retaining salary on Lehner was fine, even though the trade was between CHI & VGK? 🤨 Do you even realize how backwards you sound? |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:35:12 GMT -5
It happens in IRL but not in nearly every trade under the sun, and not for players making piddly salaries like Jankowski either. Gio's age, in this instance, is completely irrelevant and utter silliness when he won't be lower than an 88 by the time the contract is up. Just throwing a shitload of young punks doesn't make up for that. Sorry, but it doesn't. It’s only happening in a lot of trades right now because teams still have that option up to 3. Some of these GMs won’t be able to retain more contracts until 22. AGE ALWAYS MATTERS! It’s the difference between losing a player to UFA or RFA. This is a 2 year rental on player It doesn't matter here when there's only 2 years left on his contract and there's no danger of him dropping below an 88 in that time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 12:37:22 GMT -5
Dude, why would somebody pay an arm and a leg for a player that won't be around in 3 seasons? It has nothing to do with his contract, it has to do with him not being an asset to anybody in 3 seasons because he's no longer in the league. Also, no that wouldn't be allowed because you can't trade retainments. But I would accept a deal where a team is retaining for an asset. Cap space is sometimes more valuable than players themselves depending on how badly a team needs cap space. So yeah, as a rebuilding team I'd be taking on loads of cap space to gain more prospects and picks and do that every time that I am rebuilding. If I'm not using the cap then why would I not trade that space for assets? But you're also saying that Dubas retaining salary on Lehner was fine, even though the trade was between CHI & VGK? 🤨 Do you even realize how backwards you sound? Dude, I feel like you’re confusing outright trading a previous retention, which has never been allowed, and multiple teams retaining on the same contract. I’m pretty sure the deal you’re talking about was a 3 way deal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 12:38:43 GMT -5
It’s only happening in a lot of trades right now because teams still have that option up to 3. Some of these GMs won’t be able to retain more contracts until 22. AGE ALWAYS MATTERS! It’s the difference between losing a player to UFA or RFA. This is a 2 year rental on player It doesn't matter here when there's only 2 years left on his contract and there's no danger of him dropping below an 88 in that time. But it does matter because he’s getting back assets that are guaranteed to be around longer if he wants. Do you watch hockey irl or just PlayStation? Just asking  |
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:40:57 GMT -5
Dude, why would somebody pay an arm and a leg for a player that won't be around in 3 seasons? It has nothing to do with his contract, it has to do with him not being an asset to anybody in 3 seasons because he's no longer in the league. Also, no that wouldn't be allowed because you can't trade retainments. But I would accept a deal where a team is retaining for an asset. Cap space is sometimes more valuable than players themselves depending on how badly a team needs cap space. So yeah, as a rebuilding team I'd be taking on loads of cap space to gain more prospects and picks and do that every time that I am rebuilding. If I'm not using the cap then why would I not trade that space for assets? But you're also saying that Dubas retaining salary on Lehner was fine, even though the trade was between CHI & VGK? 🤨 Do you even realize how backwards you sound? Do you not understand how that deal worked? Chicago traded Lehner to Toronto for Dzierkals (a player the Leafs didn't care about). Leafs then traded Lehner to Vegas with salary retained for a 5th. Vegas then traded Subban, Slava Demin and a 2nd to Chicago for Dzierkals. |
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:42:29 GMT -5
Kruze, do you understand the laws of diminishing returns?
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:45:34 GMT -5
It doesn't matter here when there's only 2 years left on his contract and there's no danger of him dropping below an 88 in that time. But it does matter because he’s getting back assets that are guaranteed to be around longer if he wants. Do you watch hockey irl or just PlayStation? Just asking It doesn't matter because he's still going to be an elite player at the end of the contract, playing time that is. Calgary should be getting at least 1 guaranteed 86, upfront, then with some spare parts, picks/prospects you add in. And I've probably been watching hockey longer than you've been alive, kid. So, don't even go there. 🙄 😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:47:35 GMT -5
But it does matter because he’s getting back assets that are guaranteed to be around longer if he wants. Do you watch hockey irl or just PlayStation? Just asking It doesn't matter because he's still going to be an elite player at the end of the contract, playing time that is. Calgary should be getting at least 1 guaranteed 86, upfront, then with some spare parts, picks/prospects you add in. And I've probably been watching hockey longer than you've been alive, kid. So, don't even go there. 🙄 😂😂 FOR 2 YEARS. Why would somebody move an 86 with 15 years left for somebody with 2? What sense does that make? |
|
