Too much to give for Sid?

[Ice Wings]

I would take the deal because lets just assume you did have a 2nd goalie who had some value. I would say you would probably not even be asking the board and take the deal. You do have a dilemma, but I don't see why (1) You can't flip Crosby for even more value. There is always someone who is willing to pay a lot for a star. Or (2) You can't make a deal for a goalie involving one or a mix of your other players.

Frankly I think the offer on the table is pretty fair and even. Richards might have an upside of near 80, but I don't see him breaking 70 without a great season. Crosby granted healthy is always an Art Ross contender. Also considering your league utilizes the F position he is that much more valuable. I would probably dangle Skinner around for a goalie if I were you. I like him and he came off a great rookie campaign, but I think you could live without him if you got that goalie you need. Maybe go after someone like Howard who did not have the best peripheral stats last season, but remains on a team that tends to win.

[subcrazy]

It would be nice to own Sid yes, but clearly goaltenders are at a premium. On top of that, just by taking Wards numbers from last year he was a 100 point producer given your format. No deal IMO

Hopefully you can land one of those three goaltenders, as goalies are very valuable in this format.

PS: Are Smith, Labarbera up for redraft? They might be decent options. Also Dekanich, Garon, and whoever the backup is in Colorado.

These types of guys can be good stop-gaps until you can find a more permanent solution.

I support this post.

[leaftodd]

This one is quite easy to me.

Sid's the best around at between 110 and 120 in your pool every year (depending on OTG).
Richards is good at between 75-85 (again depending on OTG)

So then. Do you lose more than 35-45 points by getting rid of Ward? Yes you do. You lose double that.

Age is not a factor.
Salary is not a factor.

This is simple. Its simply no.

Really you'd be much better off taking your richards and going out to try and buy a guy like Fleury or Bryzgalov or Miller.

In this pool based on last years stats D.Sedin was the best player in the league at 104+OTG. Lundy was 121. Thomas 115. Bryz 110. Price 114. Ward 100 and Kipper 104.

That's just the fast math. Bottom line is dont deal a goalie straight for a skater! AND especially dont deal a goalie + a good skater 2 for 1 for any skater unless you can find a time machine. It just doesn't make mathematical sense.

[Mr_Sausage]

Very tough.

What about a possibility of accepting Sid, turning around and trading him for the best goalie and maybe a top draft pick.

Not saying that's what I'd do Just throwing another angle out there.

[Dr. Gregg]

This sounds awkward, but I have to go with Mr. Sausage.

Actually I was just about to make this very post.

When you have a chance to grab Sid, grab him.

If goalies are a premium, move Sid for a better goalie than Ward.

Or make that the second piece of your puzzle, landing an A1 goalie.

An earlier post mentioned jumping in a time machine. And I agree.

Three seasons ago, Tim Thomas was a top-flight goalie.

Two seasons ago, he barely plays. And everyone scrambles for Rask.

Last season, right back to Thomas.

Now that's an easy one but come on, take Sid and worse case scenario, if you are desperate for a goalie, flip Sid for a goalie, plus picks, prospects...

The Doctor

[horrorfan]

I would not make the deal under the assumption that you'll get another goalie afterwards, whether or not you use Crosby as part of the package. I can understand others suggesting it, but your trading partner recognises the value of goalies by offering Crosby.

I don't see the point of going after a goalie after getting Crosby when you already have one - a good one at that!

Having Crosby on your team does not guarantee success, especially at the expense of a solid goaltender.

[CHR17]

To be honest i think you should keep Ward and therefore Richards for now. Obviously having sid would be great but Ward is a top 10 keeper goalie and i doubt they are very easy to get in your league..

[Hey Robbie]

I really want to say take Crosby, but I just can't. One nice thing about point leagues is that the gap analysis can be pretty straightforward. Look at your team now, plug in your forecasts for a year or 2, then look at your team after the trade and repeat, and then look at the team after trading for Crosby and a hypothetical trade of other players for a solid goalie, and again add up the points.

Those who say you can always trade Crosby for an even better goalie or a package with a goalie, or who say you can trade for a solid goalie using other assets (presumably worth less than the skater benefits you realize from the Crosby trade), remind me of my days coaching chess clubs. A very early stage of learning to play is the transition from the near-universal mindset of beginners that, "this move will be great, because if he doesn't see this threat then I'll win" to looking for the best move assuming your opponent makes the best response. Maybe some other GMs in your league really aren't clever and don't realize the true value of goaltending relative to skaters, but basing your strategy on their ignorance is unwise (unless you have a firm track record of their bad habits). If one could get more than Ward and Richards for Crosby, why isn't the current Crosby owner doing that trade now? There are situations where there is a good reason for this: maybe a package of Crosby and someone else on your team would be a perfect fit for some team out there who could give up a goalie, or maybe the current Crosby owner and the current source of the better deal for Crosby have a bad history and so won't come to the best deal in the market, but I haven't seen any evidence of one of these special scenarios in the thread. Presumably in addition to posting this question, the original poster has already looked into acquiring a goaltender using his current assets and failed, or else this decision would be much easier, so saying he can always go out and trade for a G is not just an unsupported guess, but actually has some good indirect evidence against it.

Yes, you might do the trade, get lucky and swindle someone out of a goalie for some other player, or maybe pick up a goalie prospect who suddenly becomes valuable out of the blue, but you probably won't. Maybe it's a risk you want to take, but it seems like too little in the reward/risk ratio department for me.

[horrorfan]

I really want to say take Crosby, but I just can't. One nice thing about point leagues is that the gap analysis can be pretty straightforward. look at your team now, plug in your forecasts for a year or 2, then look at your team after the trade and repeat, then look at the team after trading for Crosby and a hypothetical trade of other players for a solid goalie, and again add up the points.

Those that say you can always trade Crosby for an even better goalie or package with a goalie, or who say you can trade for a solid goalie using other assets (presumably worth less than the skater benefits you realize from the Crosby trade), remind me of my days coaching chess clubs. A very early stage of learning to play is the transition from the near-universal mindset of beginners that, "this move will be great, because if he doesn't see this threat then I'll win" to looking for the best move assuming your opponent makes the best response. Maybe some other GMs in your league really aren't clever and don't realize the true value of goaltending relative to skaters, but basing your strategy on their ignorance is unwise (unless you have a firm track record of their bad habits). If one could get more than Ward and Richards for Crosby, why isn't the current Crosby owner doing that trade now? There are situations where there is a good reason for this: maybe a package of Crosby and someone else on your team would make be a perfect fit for some team out there who could give up a goalie, or maybe the current Crosby owner and the current source of the better deal for Crosby have a bad history and so won't come to the best deal in the market, but I haven't seen any evidence of one of these special scenarios in the thread. Presumably in addition to posting this question, the original poster has already looked into acquiring a goaltender using his current assets and failed, or else this decision would be much easier, so saying he can always go out and trade for a G is not just an unsupported guess, but actually has some good indirect evidence against it.

Yes, you might do the trade, get lucky and and swindle someone out of a goalie for some other player, or maybe pick up a goalie prospect who suddenly becomes valuable out of the blue, but you probably won't. Maybe it's a risk you want to take, but it seems like too little in the reward/risk ratio department for me.

Well said and in total agreement.