Malkin for...NOTHING!

[Diamond Joe]

BrianSTC wrote:

repenttokyo wrote:

would you play in a league where trades were vetoed bc someone thought they weren\'t \'fair\'? i would quit that league in a second.

I\'ve been a commish for a few years now, and I think the most memorable veto I had to make was when a dude traded some satellite equipment for fantasy players.

If you read my first post, I stated that I wouldn\'t veto this trade.

However, that doesn\'t mean I can\'t express my opinion that it is still a dumb trade!

If any of these goalies become starters, they are all AT LEAST two years away. So if he can\'t win without goaltending...he is going to continue to lose for the next two years.

I think it was a panic trade and as such, a bad trade.

Diamond Joe, what would you have given up for Malkin out of curiousity?

Man I have no idea where to start. I think a year ago, maybe a bit more I almost got Malkin with Vanek + but I cannot remember what else, I think I was too scared to pull the trigger! At this point though they had posted identical totals. It depends if Malkin was getting LW or not I\'d say...he\'d hold even more value then.

[doulos]

This is so interesting because it proves what I strongly believe about hockey pools and what I am surprised people still continually forget. I even forget this at times and am guilty of making what appear to be good trades but in fact really do a number on my team.

Here\'s a fantasy hockey fact:

You can win a fantasy hockey league without Crosby, Ovechkin or Malkin but you CANNOT win a fantasy hockey league without great goaltending.

Now. There are always exceptions to every rule but almost every time you see a team win a fantasy hockey league that has goaltending scoring included, that team has great goaltenders.

Even Dobber was not able to win the expert league last year when he drafted Sid the Kid first overall because he did not have the goaltending to compete for the crown.

What this GM is doing is using one of the league\'s best players to potentially set him up to have dominant goaltending stats down the road. These are the kinds of deals that smart GMs HAVE to make if they want to win. They are not popular (as can be seen from this thread) and they are not common, but they are the kinds of deals that are made with a long term plan in mind. It sounds like this GM can afford to trade Malkin and got the best goaltending available to him - it sounds like no one else would have been willing to give him any better in net. If that is indeed the case (which someone from within the league is stating could very well be true) then this IS the best deal possible to fit the GM\'s needs.

Goaltending wins fantasy hockey leagues time and time again and it is often worth it to trade high quality forwards or defense to get that position filled. There is only 1 starting goaltender per team, there are WAY more quality F and D on every team.

[Pm4n3y]

Come on guys, Rask is only 1 year away and Lehtonen is going to be injured in the first game, which gives him 2 starters. Please give me Malkin now!

[VintageVibe]

doulos wrote:

This is so interesting because it proves what I strongly believe about hockey pools and what I am surprised people still continually forget. I even forget this at times and am guilty of making what appear to be good trades but in fact really do a number on my team.

Here\'s a fantasy hockey fact:

You can win a fantasy hockey league without Crosby, Ovechkin or Malkin but you CANNOT win a fantasy hockey league without great goaltending.

Now. There are always exceptions to every rule but almost every time you see a team win a fantasy hockey league that has goaltending scoring included, that team has great goaltenders.

Even Dobber was not able to win the expert league last year when he drafted Sid the Kid first overall because he did not have the goaltending to compete for the crown.

What this GM is doing is using one of the league\'s best players to potentially set him up to have dominant goaltending stats down the road. These are the kinds of deals that smart GMs HAVE to make if they want to win. They are not popular (as can be seen from this thread) and they are not common, but they are the kinds of deals that are made with a long term plan in mind. It sounds like this GM can afford to trade Malkin and got the best goaltending available to him - it sounds like no one else would have been willing to give him any better in net. If that is indeed the case (which someone from within the league is stating could very well be true) then this IS the best deal possible to fit the GM\'s needs.

Goaltending wins fantasy hockey leagues time and time again and it is often worth it to trade high quality forwards or defense to get that position filled. There is only 1 starting goaltender per team, there are WAY more quality F and D on every team.

Damn Duolos! You sure know how to transfer your thoughts into writing. I wish I could\'ve explained it as well as that. +1 once I reload. Pretty much sums it up. Although; dangerous to voice an opinion that is NOT FOR the Crosby/Ovy/Malkin side on this site :unsure: .

[BrianSTC]

doulos, ben,

Malkin could have at least have gotten him a starter. He is a proven 110 - 125 point sniper.

Prospects are way, way, way too overrated...

The best course of action would have been to wait.

Why would you rush deal to trade Malkin? Let it be known that he is available...and then sit back and wait for THE RIGHT DEAL.

Obvious, there were GMs that didn\'t even know Malkin was available, otherwise people would not be angry that they didn\'t get in on the bidding.

The goaltenders that he did get, aren\'t going to help him this year anyway. So why deal Malkin in a panic?

I picked up Osgood up off the waiver wire...which proves that you can solidify your goaltending without selling the farm.

And remember this is coming from a GM who HAS GREAT GOALTENDING

[hagarty]

First off...karma to doulos

to further demonstrate why this trade was good for him...perhaps I should list his players. how bout just his top 6? ready?
dasyuk, malkin
Zetterberg, rolston,
Iggy, Hossa

bench includes players like, stamkos, holmstrom, franzen, jason blake, legwand, smyth.....
this guy is not short on firepower here...
as for great goaltending winning...this guy finished 6th overall in the league last year...but won the playoffs. With no goaltending, he still managed to win...but barely...by shelving these future goalies..or potential goalies...or whastever you might think they are...he gives himself a shot at competing in the future...
legace and toskala aren\'t gonna cut it.

To put things in perspective...I honestly expect to finish top 4 in the same league....and my team is in my sig. if his trade gets him goalies that step up...I won\'t expect to win the league....EVER

[doulos]

At the very least I think we have proven that GMs can disagree widely even on a trade like this, so it clearly should not be subject to a veto.

[shallowfrozenwater]

the best comment in this whole thread was the

Malkin for nothing

and the chicks for free.

now i\'m going to go back and give that guy a +1


as for my opinion i find it irritating when guys veto inconsistently. i always argue that you only veto in cases of collusion and everything else goes past and i play fantasy in every major sport with the same group of guys. this past baseball season i made a stupid trade and i maintained that it was dumb after the fact but guys refused to veto because i was a top player and they wanted to hurt my chances at winning. interesting that guys wouldnt veto a bad deal because it was to their advantage but they\'ll easily veto a deal that has no collusion attached. we truly are an imperfect and inconsistent species.
i wouldn\'t veto this, and i wouldn\'t kick him out of the league; i\'d only kick myself in the butt for not getting to him first in order to land Malkin in a deal like this one.

[smoothfun]

no veto and no booting him out!he gets brierre 80+ and 3 top prospect goalies of which at least 1 should pan out , now what\'s a #1 above average goalie worth in most leagues?lets say turco or bryzgalov value or somewhere in between at least.now if another one does well he\'s got some prime real estate to sell or trade!with a stacked team this guy can afford to over-pay for potential future elite tenders and who\'s to say that malkin does\'nt get homesick and high tail it to the khl , contract or no contract.i would\'nt make this trade but that\'s the fun of managing your team.last year eary in the season we had a gm trade guigere + a 1st and 2nd rnd picks for price and change , many thought this trade was lop-sided and veto worthy but lo and behold look at price now , giggy and a couple 1sts would\'nt get him back i\'m sure!

[Diamond Joe]

Good points, I\'d have to say on the surface this deal is wack...BUT it has the potential to be a good one if 1 or 2 of these goalies either plays sooner than we think/turns out to be a good starter.

[mister_mcgoo]

I\'ll reiterate my original point first: any way you slice or dice it this is a BAD trade. Many people (starting with doulos I believe) have made the excellent point that you often need to do lopsided trades to get something you need on your team. I couldn\'t agree more, and from my experience its usually in situations like this that you\'ll get lopsided trades like this (that and pure idiocy of course :laugh: ) But I\'ve never been in a position where I was dealing a top 3 player and couldn\'t get a quality starting goalie back. I think if the manager had taken the time to work the room so to speak he could have secured much much more. I would have targeted the 2nd and 3rd place guys from last year, guys with depth at goalie that need some firepower.

Also, as many have noted prospects are just that, prospects, raw untapped potential. I pointed this out in a different thread but when you think about it, there are over 200 players drafted every year and only 690 slots on the pro rosters, that means most of these prospects that we drool over are never going to make it. I would argue that this is even more pronounced for goalies.

Finally, I\'d like to add another wrinkle to this debate. Someone said something to the effect that the other managers were refusing to trade with this guy because sending a good goalie his way would ensure him the title. Thats a type of behavior I try to discourage in my leagues because it amounts to a form of collusion in and off itself because you have a group of managers colluding together to ensure that another guy doesn\'t win and thats just as unfair...it doesn\'t work that way in the NHL, and I don\'t like to see it in my leagues either. So yes, certainly make this guy pay through the nose for some goaltending but when you start getting into managers agreeing to NOT trade a starter to him for a guy like Malkin I think that sets an ugly precedent.

[Diamond Joe]

mister_mcgoo wrote:

I\'ll reiterate my original point first: any way you slice or dice it this is a BAD trade. Many people (starting with doulos I believe) have made the excellent point that you often need to do lopsided trades to get something you need on your team. I couldn\'t agree more, and from my experience its usually in situations like this that you\'ll get lopsided trades like this (that and pure idiocy of course :laugh: ) But I\'ve never been in a position where I was dealing a top 3 player and couldn\'t get a quality starting goalie back. I think if the manager had taken the time to work the room so to speak he could have secured much much more. I would have targeted the 2nd and 3rd place guys from last year, guys with depth at goalie that need some firepower.

Also, as many have noted prospects are just that, prospects, raw untapped potential. I pointed this out in a different thread but when you think about it, there are over 200 players drafted every year and only 690 slots on the pro rosters, that means most of these prospects that we drool over are never going to make it. I would argue that this is even more pronounced for goalies.

Finally, I\'d like to add another wrinkle to this debate. Someone said something to the effect that the other managers were refusing to trade with this guy because sending a good goalie his way would ensure him the title. Thats a type of behavior I try to discourage in my leagues because it amounts to a form of collusion in and off itself because you have a group of managers colluding together to ensure that another guy doesn\'t win and thats just as unfair...it doesn\'t work that way in the NHL, and I don\'t like to see it in my leagues either. So yes, certainly make this guy pay through the nose for some goaltending but when you start getting into managers agreeing to NOT trade a starter to him for a guy like Malkin I think that sets an ugly precedent.

How does one say \"hey...don\'t NOT trade with him?\" haha. It\'s not for THAT reason that managers avoid him, I can confirm...it gets annoying because trades start taking forever and go nowhere.

[BrianSTC]

mister_mcgoo wrote:

I\'ll reiterate my original point first: any way you slice or dice it this is a BAD trade. Many people (starting with doulos I believe) have made the excellent point that you often need to do lopsided trades to get something you need on your team. I couldn\'t agree more, and from my experience its usually in situations like this that you\'ll get lopsided trades like this (that and pure idiocy of course :laugh: ) But I\'ve never been in a position where I was dealing a top 3 player and couldn\'t get a quality starting goalie back. I think if the manager had taken the time to work the room so to speak he could have secured much much more. I would have targeted the 2nd and 3rd place guys from last year, guys with depth at goalie that need some firepower.

Also, as many have noted prospects are just that, prospects, raw untapped potential. I pointed this out in a different thread but when you think about it, there are over 200 players drafted every year and only 690 slots on the pro rosters, that means most of these prospects that we drool over are never going to make it. I would argue that this is even more pronounced for goalies.

Finally, I\'d like to add another wrinkle to this debate. Someone said something to the effect that the other managers were refusing to trade with this guy because sending a good goalie his way would ensure him the title. Thats a type of behavior I try to discourage in my leagues because it amounts to a form of collusion in and off itself because you have a group of managers colluding together to ensure that another guy doesn\'t win and thats just as unfair...it doesn\'t work that way in the NHL, and I don\'t like to see it in my leagues either. So yes, certainly make this guy pay through the nose for some goaltending but when you start getting into managers agreeing to NOT trade a starter to him for a guy like Malkin I think that sets an ugly precedent.

Here, Here

I couldn\'t agree more.

You can put lipstick on a bad trade, but it is still a pig of a trade..

[Dakkster]

So we should call the trade Sarah Palin?