Trade Tactics...

[One87]

I find it lazy when someone approaches me and says "I want Player X what would it take to get him?". You're the one who wants him, you tell me what you'd offer.

As of yet, I have no motivation to make a deal. Usually people approach you about your stud players.

I think it's much more sensible to approach someone and say "Hey, I'm thinking about making you an offer for Player X, and it would really help me out in pulling together something compelling for you if you'd give me an idea of where you'd like to improve your roster in terms of positions, categories, needs, whatever -- with a better understanding of what you're after I think I'll be able to make you a better offer."

That's reasonable to me. But "I want Malkin, what does it take" leaves me responding with "making my team better".

I make a lot of trades. I find most GMs focus on optimizing player value; that's not my approach. I'm a "set the strategy and move pieces accordingly" kind of guy. I'm happy to "lose" deals if it makes my team better, and it's possible to do that a lot more of the time than people realize.

I hear where you're coming from. I guess if someone asked me "what would it take," I could be a little annoyed, but it would depend on who is asking. If said GM uses the "lazy" line as an ice-breaker and then is known to get down to business, fine. If he is as detailed as FHG's example and then drags his feet, I would still be annoyed.

[ericdaoust]

When someone approaches me and says that they want my player and just asks what's the price, I usually think of two things:

1) The GM does not want to offer anything fair
2) The GM hopes I rip myself off when I reply

[Pengwin7]

I think it's much more sensible to approach someone and say "Hey, I'm thinking about making you an offer for Player X, and it would really help me out in pulling together something compelling for you if you'd give me an idea of where you'd like to improve your roster in terms of positions, categories, needs, whatever -- with a better understanding of what you're after I think I'll be able to make you a better offer."

Oh come on...
You are suggesting that the other GM needs you to hold his hand to figure out what a good trade is for YOUR team.

Guys... you are overanalyzing this.
I'm in three keepers - and all of the best teams start with "I'm interested in ____". That's followed by either "is he available?" or "what would you want for him?".

It's not lazy.
It's a start to a negotiation.

I call bullshit on all of you.
If somebody comes to you asking for a player, you'll come back and tell them what you want. You know.
Do you really need to hold their hand and tell them to TRY to make you a fair offer?

Come on...
I mean COME ON!


And the BIGGER thing, all of you guys are SMART GMs.
People aren't going to win a trade with you.

You guys need to take yourself out of your own shoes.

How does the OP make a good trade for himself?
He asks what they want... so he has an upper hand.


Let me try this another way.

You have met a woman at a nice establishment.
She's interested in getting some pleasure.
Should she say:
1) I'd like some pleasure, what would you like in exchange?
or
2) I'd like some pleasure and I am offering _______.


Come ON!

[havanablast21]

Oh, and I firmly believe you HAVE to lose deals once in a while. Whether its in one of the methods above or just because you had to have someone due to injuries or due to an all in play to win the league.

OH I agree whole heartedly with this too. With every Wideman for Yakupov Trade I've made, I have the on going nightmares of those

My Hartnell and Halak
for
Your Roloson and Havlat

offers.

I know I know...I could justify it back then...but hindsight is 20/20.

I've probably Outright Stollen about 20% of my trades
(My Wideman for a They're 1st = Yakupov or my Dubinsky for his Tavares straight up)
Probably had about 60% equal offers (Kessel for Lucic and/or Hemsky for Havlat - sorry for that last one...but at the end of the day)
and outright lost 20% (see the Hartnell/Halak offer above). The more you move...the more likely you are to win/lose/break even. But it's fun...so I stay active and try to learn from my mistakes.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Pengwin, I respect the hell out of your posts, but I think the reason you don't make many trades is this:

People aren't going to win a trade with you.

Anyone who is approaching trade discussions looking for a "win" is more likely to fail in succeeding than someone looking for a win-win.

It's all well and good for me to assume I know better than another GM what his needs are, but I'm pretty likely to be wrong since perception is a huge chunk of valuation. If I think a GM's LW is weak and want to put strong LW in a package for a player of his, but he thinks his LW is just fine then I'm barking up the wrong tree from the start. How is the other GM supposed to know what I think my team needs are?

You are suggesting that the other GM needs you to hold his hand to figure out what a good trade is for YOUR team.

It's only a negotiation once interest is established from both parties. If I'm not yet interested in moving Player X, why is it on me to figure out what the other GM should offer me to make a trade happen? Why would I be interested in doing that work? If I'm making a trade proposal, I want to have an idea of what the "win criteria" are for my counterpart. If I don't have the pieces on my roster to satisfy those criteria then maybe I can go get them if I'm serious enough.

If someone comes to me sniffing for Malkin, I don't want to deal Malkin. I'm not going to go to their roster and figure out what combination of players it would take because I'm not motivated to do so. I'd respond to them with "well, Malkin is a hell of a player, but I know I've got some holes at G, LW, and D so if you could offer me serious upgrades there maybe I'd consider it."

[blayze]

Let me try this another way.

You have met a woman at a nice establishment.
She's interested in getting some pleasure.
Should she say:
1) I'd like some pleasure, what would you like in exchange?
or
2) I'd like some pleasure and I am offering _______.

Actually... the more realistic analogy is:

You have met a woman at a nice establishment.
YOU'RE interested in getting some pleasure.

Should YOU say:
1) I'd like to sleep with you, what would it take?
or
2) You buy her a few drinks, make her laugh, flash her your rolex and ask if she wants to come back to your penthouse suite (thus showing her everything YOU have to offer).

[fulcrum]

Oh come on...
You are suggesting that the other GM needs you to hold his hand to figure out what a good trade is for YOUR team.

No, I expect them to spend some time on it to spare me the ridiculous back and forth for 2 hours that goes on while he continually changes the deal and makes no ground. If a good starting point can be presented, I am in. I will talk.

But if you expect me to sit there for hours while you 'feel me out'

Good bye. I don't find that fun. its frustrating and exhausting.

[One87]

When someone approaches me and says that they want my player and just asks what's the price, I usually think of two things:

1) The GM does not want to offer anything fair
2) The GM hopes I rip myself off when I reply

LOL. Funny... There are some crafty GMs out there. Hopefully, this doesn't come across as being a smart -ss because that is mot my intent. But generally, the person asking a question (in any format) does so because they don't have the answer, and they would like to know.

[havanablast21]

Let me try this another way.

You have met a woman at a nice establishment.
She's interested in getting some pleasure.
Should she say:
1) I'd like some pleasure, what would you like in exchange?
or
2) I'd like some pleasure and I am offering _______.


Come ON!

LOL....um...Sounds like the woman you just met in this nice establishment is a hooker...um...Sorry...ESCORT.

[Pengwin7]

If someone comes to me sniffing for Malkin, I don't want to deal Malkin. I'm not going to go to their roster and figure out what combination of players it would take because I'm not motivated to do so. I'd respond to them with "well, Malkin is a hell of a player, but I know I've got some holes at G, LW, and D so if you could offer me serious upgrades there maybe I'd consider it."

Sorry... FHG, are you reading what you write?
If you have a hole at G, LW, D... why wouldn't you just get right to it and ask for what you need?

You should be sending a response back asking for a G, LW, or D that you need.

Are you really saying you do NOT do this in your own trade negotiations?
You FORCE the other guy to offer you a player?

What a waste of time. Talk about rubbing somebody the wrong way.
How many times is he going to have to offer you something that's not up to par?

Seriously... that's ridiculous.
You wouldn't just tell the guy what you want????
Really?

A negotiation is back-and-forth, from LOW-to-HIGH.

When you reply, you start HIGH.
He comes back LOW.
You meet in the middle.

What you are saying is for only him to come with the offer:
REALLY LOW,
then SORTA LOW,
then STILL LOW
then he says "Well, what the heck do you want... why don't you just tell me?"

Then you tell him.
Then he says, "No, too high... why didn't you just tell me what you wanted in the beginning?"

Negotitation: Discussion from two directions... not one.

[One87]

I totally agree with this. If I want someone from another team, I make sure I spend some time on it and look at his situation and see what he needs. This is invaluable in trading and it makes you much more approachable for the next deal. They know you spend time on them and aren't just killing time. Nothing frustrates me more than overly shrewd negotiating and someone that always wants you to the spend the time to put a deal together for him. I don't typically deal with these guys Unless I have no choice.

Credibility with your trades is the most important thing you can do. If you go for the homerun on every deal, pretty soon nobody will trade with you.

Oh, and I firmly believe you HAVE to lose deals once in a while. Whether its in one of the methods above or just because you had to have someone due to injuries or due to an all in play to win the league.

I can respect that, doing your diligence before wasting someone else's time. But have you not experienced a time or two, when you looked a GM's roster and figured out what appears to be obvious needs to you only to have the trade rejected? It does happen.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Your view is based on the assumption that we share common valuation principles and hold the players in the same value. That assumption is bunk.

No, I'm saying "don't waste my time with bs low offers that aren't going to go anywhere. If you're not prepared to step up and pay, where is my motivation to deal? Demonstrate from the start that you're serious about acquiring the player from me."

When someone approaches about a deal, I am not yet interested in dealing my player. You want Malkin, you find a way to meet my needs. I'm letting you know how you blow me away.

Again, tell me why, as an owner of Player X, I would go over to their roster, do homework on their players and figure out if I'm interested? As of yet I have no interest in dishing my player -- it is entirely incumbent on the other GM to generate that interest.

[grindin griers]

REALLY LOW,
then SORTA LOW,
then STILL LOW
then he says "Well, what the heck do you want... why don't you just tell me?"

Then you tell him.
Then he says, "No, too high... why didn't you just tell me what you wanted in the beginning?"

Negotitation: Discussion from two directions... not one.

Kind of sounds like how the CBA negotiations went

[Pengwin7]

You want Malkin, you find a way to meet my needs. I'm letting you know how you blow me away.

Your view is based on the assumption that we share common valuation principles and hold the players in the same value. That assumption is bunk.

Well... I suppose it's a difference in negotiations.
I do a lot of compromising in my life.
I don't expect somebody to figure out what I need.
I'll tell them what I need.
I get right to a solution.

[havanablast21]

I can respect that, doing your diligence before wasting someone else's time. But have you not experienced a time or two, when you looked a GM's roster and figured out what appears to be obvious needs to you only to have the trade rejected? It does happen.

True...but I'd argue that in many cases...a trade is rejected because:
A) You don't really have an attractive piece to offer him back, regardless of needs.
B) He doesn't want to part with the player you are trying to acquire period!
C) He doesn't want to deal with a particular GM (personal reasons I like to call Burke vs Lowe Factor).