Fantasy hockey pet peeve

[Bubba55]

I don't mind this at all, it's pretty much standard operating procedure and as has already been discussed with good reason and to good effect, provided the explanation is realistic and factual and the other GM is looking to craft a trade that is potentially mutually beneficial to both teams. However, what I do mind is when I get a detailed trade analysis which clearly demonstrates how the guys' I'm being asked to move are crap and what is coming back is gold. Right. Unfortunately, I see lots of those, an awful lot of GM's feel they have win a trade big time or just not go there, mutually beneficial is not on their radar. It's just the way it is I guess, owners over value their assets and under value the other guys assets to try and manipulate you into making a good trade for them and a bad trade for you. It's just part of the game.

[audiopile]

IF you do it without insulting them its fine. At least some thought is put into the deal by the offering GM. It's when the OGM is crossing the line and telling me what is good for my team (how to raise my children) that I take get irked.

"I put this offer together because I need a RW and you look short on D" is perfectly acceptable.
"You should trade me player XXX because it will help your team finish lower and you will get a better draft pick" is not an acceptable reason and frankly that is annoying.

A fine line but if you can stay just on your side it can work out great.

But is it necessary to provide explanation? If the offer suits both parties it should speak for itself.

[Fighting_Emu]

My pet peeve is similar- there are certain gms who feel like they HAVE to say something disparaging about the player they're asking about- like if you knew they were high on them you'd decide not to trade them lol! If you're interested in a guy- dont lead with all your concerns/criticisms. If we get to the haggling phase then sure- you can mention there shortcomings but I can't stand when a pitch basically reads : "The player you drafted/picked up/traded for is not just chopped liver hes worse than chopped liver cause if he were on the same plate as chopped liver I think id rather eat the chopped liver BUT im willing to do you a favor and take him off your hands..." If there's one thing I can't stand its people being disingenuous. You don't have to show your whole hand and say you're interested in overpaying- but cmon is it really so hard to lead with "I like so and so- I'm interested in adding the to my team- what would that look like for you?" I'm literally at the point where if an offer includes a disparaging remark in it I dont even respond anymore. Again if we get to the point where we're haggling and you can I dont know- manage some class? And say this player has shortcomings or issues without shooting all over them- thats one thing- but going forward if the ask suits on my asset- then im out. I don't need any favors from disingenuous owners lmao!!

There's a knuckle head on these bards who just did that like three times. So when he did his usual spiel asking abut Hutson he made sure he listed all his flaws too. All I did was write "Yep I guess he does have flaws" and he used that as a segue to tell me that he'll be lucky of hes a future gostisbehere and that although he was gonna offer Schneider AND Peterka that is was probably an overpay. Thankfully one final note informed me and I quote "Its not that Hutson bad its just that these guys will make it and Hutson probably wont"- ok... thanks bud... I'll take all of "that" under advisement... He literally also said and this is a quote too "Its not like he's gonna be the next makar"... ok? He probably won't... but he might? Even if he falls short the fact that they're talking about him in that vein must mean something positive. I'm not going to sit here and say who Hutson is at the end of the day- but the fact that maybe he COULD be at makars level someday is not only being discussed- its literally the EXACT reason you're asking about him haha!!

Scam artists will tell you exactly what they're thinking- you just need to know how to listen properly...

[Invictus]

"I put this offer together because I need a RW and you look short on D" is perfectly acceptable.

"You should trade me player XXX because it will help your team finish lower and you will get a better draft pick" is not an acceptable reason and frankly that is annoying.

Yup I like this.
Telling me I should do something is not going to get me started on the right foot.

First one explains why they are proposing the trade and what they need. Let's me come to my own conclusions.

[Fighting_Emu]

IF you do it without insulting them its fine. At least some thought is put into the deal by the offering GM. It's when the OGM is crossing the line and telling me what is good for my team (how to raise my children) that I take get irked.

"I put this offer together because I need a RW and you look short on D" is perfectly acceptable.
"You should trade me player XXX because it will help your team finish lower and you will get a better draft pick" is not an acceptable reason and frankly that is annoying.

A fine line but if you can stay just on your side it can work out great.

But is it necessary to provide explanation? If the offer suits both parties it should speak for itself.

Beautiful! You can cite team needs as well without being a dick or a know it all about it. Saying you "look" short on D is a nice touch because it doesn't read like a know it all and it actually invites dialogue which is absolutely a good thing if you're initiating a legit trade negotiation.

Had it read "I need a rw and your D is embarassing"- thats a different story- unless it your uncle Dave and his defense actually is embarassimg- but thats a pretty specific scenario- I digress...

Here's my advice:

A) Be respectful in your opening pitch to both the team and of the asset you're targeting. You're opening should be pretty light and if you can try and save the more aggressive tactics for when you're actually at the negotiating stage.

B) If you're going to be critical of a team situation or a player- do it in a way that doesn't put them on the defensive and actually invites dialogue. "If it were me I think I'd be worried about my keeper D situation" sounds a lot more conducive to further discussion then "Your keeper D are terrible and you're screwed next year"

C- Read the room. This takes nuance and discretion and so will not be everybody's forte BUT you can get a lot out of what a gm is saying in their responses, their tone, their interest level- even from how they drafted. There is a lot of info ripe for the taking if you have eyes to read it

[Fighting_Emu]

I don't mind this at all, it's pretty much standard operating procedure and as has already been discussed with good reason and to good effect, provided the explanation is realistic and factual and the other GM is looking to craft a trade that is potentially mutually beneficial to both teams. However, what I do mind is when I get a detailed trade analysis which clearly demonstrates how the guys' I'm being asked to move are crap and what is coming back is gold. Right. Unfortunately, I see lots of those, an awful lot of GM's feel they have win a trade big time or just not go there, mutually beneficial is not on their radar. It's just the way it is I guess, owners over value their assets and under value the other guys assets to try and manipulate you into making a good trade for them and a bad trade for you. It's just part of the game.

1000% and far too often thats the case... The problem is that it may have been effective once with a casual in a work league 10 years ago and they're gonna insist on using the same tactic til they hang up their fantasy skates lmao! Good grief Charlie brown...