|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:51:34 GMT -5
Kruze, do you understand the laws of diminishing returns? If there was a case of actual diminishing returns here, then yes I would... But Gio's still going to be an elite player for those 2 full seasons he has left. MTL should be giving up at least 1 86 player upfront, then you add the fillers, and none of this crap of paying half of a $1M contract... 🙄 $500K-$600K savings is literally nothing. It's just uninventive and lazy.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:52:40 GMT -5
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? I didn't say anything about a 15 year contract, did I? 🤨 Wow... You sure like putting words in my mouth. 😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 12:53:07 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. 🙄 😂😂 But maybe he wants MULTIPLE YOUNGER players? Is the trade reject for when you don’t like it, or when you wouldn’t have done it? Or is it for when someone is getting an unfair advantage over the league as a WHOLE? Because I think that needs to be cleared up, at least for me personally. This deal may not be what you would’ve wanted, but is it getting an unfair advantage? I’d say no. I personally think it’s strange the deals that end up with this many pages And dude, chances are I’m older than you
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 12:58:39 GMT -5
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. 🙄 😂😂 But maybe he wants MULTIPLE YOUNGER players? Is the trade reject for when you don’t like it, or when you wouldn’t have done it? Or is it for when someone is getting an unfair advantage over the league as a WHOLE? Because I think that needs to be cleared up, at least for me personally. This deal may not be what you would’ve wanted, but is it getting an unfair advantage? I’d say no. I personally think it’s strange the deals that end up with this many pages And dude, chances are I’m older than you It's never mattered if I would do it or not. I reject trades that I don't feel are fair either to a team or to the league as a whole. And I'm almost the oldest guy on the site dude. So I highly doubt that you're older than me. 😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 13:01:25 GMT -5
Take Jankowski out of it and look at the deal. Are you kidding me right now? Now you’re saying putting him just kills the deal? LOL
I’m 36
|
|
|
Post by Old Greg on Jul 31, 2020 13:05:14 GMT -5
Take Jankowski out of it and look at the deal. Are you kidding me right now? Now you’re saying putting him just kills the deal? LOL I’m 36 Yes! Now I’m the 5th oldest here I think lol. Cook Kruze Snag then you then me.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 13:06:50 GMT -5
Take Jankowski out of it and look at the deal. Are you kidding me right now? Now you’re saying putting him just kills the deal? LOL I’m 36 Yes! Now I’m the 5th oldest here I think lol. Cook Kruze Snag then you then me. I'm 3rd, I think... Snaggs is a year older than me. I'm 41.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 13:10:56 GMT -5
I suddenly feel a little younger
|
|
|
Post by Old Greg on Jul 31, 2020 13:13:40 GMT -5
Yes! Now I’m the 5th oldest here I think lol. Cook Kruze Snag then you then me. I'm 3rd, I think... Snaggs is a year older than me. I'm 41. Should have known Snaggs is a lot more mature and not in the fetish way
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 13:16:27 GMT -5
FOR 2 YEARS. Why would somebody move an 86 with 15 years left for somebody with 2? What sense does that make? I didn't say anything about a 15 year contract, did I? 🤨 Wow... You sure like putting words in my mouth. 😂😂 My point is Puljujarvi and Mete still have 15 years in them and have room to grow. Gio has two years left. As a rebuilding team which would they rather?
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 13:17:38 GMT -5
I'm 3rd, I think... Snaggs is a year older than me. I'm 41. Should have known Snaggs is a lot more mature Not according to his wife... 😜😂😂
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 13:18:35 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about a 15 year contract, did I? 🤨 Wow... You sure like putting words in my mouth. 😂😂 My point is Puljujarvi and Mete still have 15 years in them and have room to grow. Gio has two years left. As a rebuilding team which would they rather? At least 1 86 overall player for a 91.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 13:28:05 GMT -5
My point is Puljujarvi and Mete still have 15 years in them and have room to grow. Gio has two years left. As a rebuilding team which would they rather? At least 1 86 overall player for a 91. I don’t think that’s a fair precedent to set. Or a rule you’d really want to enforce. Maybe dude doesn’t want any of his 86s? Maybe guy wants to fill multiple holes?
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 13:46:27 GMT -5
At least 1 86 overall player for a 91. I don’t think that’s a fair precedent to set. Or a rule you’d really want to enforce. Maybe dude doesn’t want any of his 86s? Maybe guy wants to fill multiple holes? In this case it is when you have an older player on a short term deal that's still going to be elite for the duration of that contract. You can still fill multiple positions and still retain a player's value when it's a situation like Gio's, whether he's 36 or 26, he's still an elite player that deserves better return than just a shitload of paltry 82s & 83s that won't even touch the threshold of 88 without MPUs. This literally also to do with the inherent notion that ALL veterans are completely useless to the point of folks even undervaluing elite players that are over 27. This is also why the "mandatory downgrades" are complete and total BS too, especially with cases like Good here, who's an elite player, on good contract, and folks are already valuing him as if he'll retire before this season is even out. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 14:16:39 GMT -5
My point is Puljujarvi and Mete still have 15 years in them and have room to grow. Gio has two years left. As a rebuilding team which would they rather? At least 1 86 overall player for a 91. Okay, I'm gonna explain the laws of diminishing returns. Gio at age 27 irl would be at his technical highest point of value. After that, his value slowly diminishes, as does the return for him. At age 36, his value is nowhere close to what it was when he was 27, it has depreciated every year since then. At age 37, his value will be lower than it was at 36, even if he is still a 91 (which is not possible with how downgrades work). At age 38 his value will be lower than it was at 37, etc etc until he retires and his value has now depreciated to 0. Meanwhile, the value of Mete and Puljujarvi most likely have appreciated over those years and are still appreciating or at least being stagnant while Gio's value is at that point, 0.
|
|