tanguay/stlouis for b.richards/markov++

[ultrawhiteness]

this went down in my league, and although i\'m perfectly fine with it, there is a lot of bellyaching going on from other teams and they want me to put it to a vote. neither team is in contention, and the one trading the richards side has too many quality guys to keep.

b. richards, a. markov, gionta, s. bernier, huet

for

tanguay, st. louis

likely richards, markov, bernier, and huet become keepers for the team thats getting them.

like i said, i think it\'s fair given some circumstantial and positional factors, just curious as to way other folks think

[Crazynuck]

b. richards, a. markov, gionta, s. bernier, huet



for



tanguay, st. louis


St.Louis > B.Richards
Tanguay > gionta + bernier

markov and huet as a throw in, just doesn\'t make sense to me.
This is a bad trade but if collusion is not involved then you can\'t complain.

The other GM might have a hard one for St.Louis and Tanguay.
Also he may be strong on D and can afford to drop Markov.

I just picked up Pronger for Gomez cause the other GM was stacked at D and needed some forwards.

I would need to know the whole back story to comment fully on this trade but from first look the GM that got the St.Louis side got rocked.

[ultrawhiteness]

fair enough, his team was:

LW: S.Kozlov, Frolov, Blake, Ladd, VanRiemsdyk
C: Lecavalier, B.Richards, M.Richards, Cammalleri, S.Koivu, Turris
RW: Havlat, Penner, Bernier, Gionta, Murray, Bertuzzi
D: Markov, Jovanovski, Staal, Kronwall, Hickey
G: Price, Khabibulin, Huet

So stacked at center, going with Price as only G keeper, and i assume planning on keeping one of Hickey or Staal, if not both (possibly foolish).

[Crazynuck]

I understand he made the trade to improve his wingers cause of his depth at C.
But why Markov.... he is not that strong especially with Staal(the guy is not offensive at all)

[ultrawhiteness]

i would agree with you there. if it was me i\'d hold onto markov and let everyone else on that defense go, but he drafted those young guys and i would guess that he\'s sort of attached to them now

he could be like me and not value dmen very highly.

[Crazynuck]

u see thats the back story i was looking for.
if he drafted them I understand his attachment and the deal makes sense even though its kinda lopsided.
Deals like this happen.

[ultrawhiteness]

haha, you don\'t want me getting carried away with backstories, i would end up with posts 5 pages long and somehow bring eddie van halen and ross rebagliati into it.

as league commish, i don\'t mind these lopsided deals if it means that it brings some parity to our keeper lists. i\'m looking at the long term health of our league, which means haivng everyone competitive. hopefully once everyone can field a respectable 11-player keeper list we can expand to 15, 17, and beyond.

which is also why i\'m about to break the bank to snag malkin

[rumrunner]

I understand the desire to have some balance and parity within the league but this deal could set a bad precident.

A.Markov is easily a top 10 D (currently 3rd this year) and as Crazynuck pointed out... Staal is not an offensive defensemen.

I get the positional thing, it is always a trade off, but even if you take Markov out of the deal I still think it is a slight overpay, but much closer, and much easier to overlook.

When a bunch of GMs start bellyaching, you have to take it to a vote, it is the responsible thing to do.

[Crazynuck]

We have a majority vote system in our league.
I don\'t think this trade is that lopsided to bring in a vote.
The back story rules out collusion

[ultrawhiteness]

someone asked for a vote. 12 team league, the two guys involved obviously don\'t vote. so far have 6 against vetoing and only 1 for. that trade is going through.

[Crazynuck]

and so it should as it is not collusion.
ppl are attached to certain players and will overpay.
Look at all the posts on here about ppl overpaying for Radulov and Crosby for future gain.
I don\'t see the gain but the other GM must