|
Post by andypipkin on Nov 25, 2011 21:35:18 GMT -5
To Nashville
Drew Doughty
To Detroit
Brent Seabrook
Why DET does this: The emergence of Voynov gives me two great players on the same team at the same position and I greatly dislike that. This way I get basically the same player, just on a different team. Seabrook is also very consistent and if we expand our points system next year to include hits/pims, he's a beast.
|
|
|
Post by Mike (NSH) on Nov 25, 2011 21:40:59 GMT -5
Accept.
Well I had a great deal of interest and some great offers for Seabrook. In the end I wanted to continue the youth movement on the blueline. Thanks to everyone who showed interest.
|
|
|
Post by andypipkin on Nov 25, 2011 21:43:39 GMT -5
I would also like to say thank you to everyone that showed interest in Doughty, but this was a player I couldn't refuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 22:07:09 GMT -5
Okay so Bjugstad for Doughty basically. Just based on previous trade. But I guess that has nothing to do with this.
HOWEVER, no offense to either GM and I'm not trying to stir the pot, I have a SERIOUS problem with this trade. I can't see how it could possibly be put through. Even if we do expand categories, which I don't see happening. Sorry guys, hopefully commish takes my 2 cents into consideration and this gets re-worked.
|
|
|
Post by andypipkin on Nov 25, 2011 22:30:39 GMT -5
^ I'll have to look at the trade you are talking about, but I'm not sure what your problem with this trade could be.
The only thing I gave up was 3-4 years in age.
Doughty might score at .11 ppg more, but Seabrook avgs 10.1 +/- per under 100 game intervals to Doughtys + 7 per over 125 game intervals.
With how guys are in this league are, I am 99% positive a vote would favor expanding the stats catagory as we discussed it at the beginning of the league. So huge plus for me as Seabrook hits more, blocks more shots, and avgs more PIMs.
Other offers I had were good, but not #2 D man good. Or they had me giving up too much the other way.
Plus now I have flexability because I don't have 2 top dman playing at the exact same time every week.
|
|
|
Post by ianethier on Nov 26, 2011 0:55:34 GMT -5
my opinion is that this is not a good trade for Detroit, but i disagree that the trade be revoked. If Detroit feels this is what is best for his team, then so be it.
If you are mad that you missed out on Doughty, then you shuld have offered something. I would have given much more for Doughty, but i is what it is.
Why even ask for a trade to be revoked? When the Leafs traded Russ Courtnall to Montreal for John Kordic, did other teams demand the trade to be revoked...no. All hey said was "Boy, Leafs lost that trade" and left it at that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2011 0:57:11 GMT -5
The thing is, we had a chance to expand and commish didn't want to. That's not to say he won't re-consider that, but it was shut down originally. And the Kings are also a much improved team, obviously everyone knows that, but it's worth pointing out. Therefore, Doughty's +/- should go up. However, he doesn't seem to be scoring at the same rate as he used to, and who knows how much either player will improve, decline as far as scoring goes, so I'm going to cancel my protest against this deal. Sorry to jump the gun.
Just to be clear, my original thoughts were as follows:
- Doughty was taken VERY early if I remember correctly
- Seabrook was traded for Ryan Wilson and Bjugstad. The key piece being the prospect obviously, as nobody expects Ryan Wilson to keep scoring..I don't think.
*Note that player value is very high in this league as it has deep rosters.*
- Doughty had a monsterous season two years back, struggled last year but well..that was considered a struggle by all.
- Seabrook's season last year was considered his best, and didn't come close to Doughty's 2 years back.
All that being said, as I earlier mentioned, Seabrook is heating up and is an all-category beast so I guess when it's all said and done he's close to Doughty's value and therefore the trade should be processed.
EDIT: Thanks for explaining, Detroit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2011 0:59:43 GMT -5
Also, I know that previous trades mean nothing, but that was pretty solid value for the way he's performed, career highs, etc.
And no STL, I'm not mad. I'm getting pretty darn used to players being traded for less than I'd offer, however, it's my job to go out and offer. You're right.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Nov 26, 2011 13:54:26 GMT -5
There are several points that i'm not big on about this trade for Det. One of which being his banking on cats we don't have and may never have in order to receive a player who many would easily consider the lesser of the two. However, the rest of his explanation bears enough thoughtfulness for the deal to be palatable enough for me to cringe and pass the trade. If there was no commentary with this trade, i would have easily struck this down. Although GMs are free to trade, I would really like to see better quality trading when FRANCHISE caliber players are involved. Now no offense Det, but trading Crosby and Doughty even leaves bad taste in my mouth. I don't know how moving both of these guys improves your team. ? Det and Nsh, please check your inbox.
|
|
|
Post by andypipkin on Nov 26, 2011 15:57:55 GMT -5
The difference between these two guys, avg stats wise is, 82gp 33pts +10 82gp 42pts +4 Hasn't Crosby been traded twice now? I am so sick of people saying, "I would have offered this had I known he was avail." I've said many times everyone is up for trade. If you don't throw me a message tough shit. I'm not supposed to hold your hand. Scrutinize a trade all you want, but this other talk is basically "I would have beaten him up if I was there"... No you wouldn't have beaten him up and you probably would have tried to get one over one me just as everyone would. And finally had I not had one of the most injured rosters, I don't think I even managed a goalie start the first week and a half, and eventually I did and it was because I had to pick up some POS, I'd be even higher then now and still climbing(3 shutouts this week ) I'm sorry I just find this very funny that I'm being chastized and my punishment is to be given more good things ;D
|
|
|
Post by andypipkin on Nov 26, 2011 16:02:21 GMT -5
^ That wasn't supposed to come off so dickish, but anyway the thing with the Cats was just gravy for me as I felt my circumstance evened out the playing field. We were all there for the discussion and there was a majority that wanted to include more, but we all weren't sure how many we could have and wanted to get started right away.
|
|
|
Post by David (NJD) on Nov 26, 2011 18:35:37 GMT -5
Just confused. The deal is a deal but to go on that were expanding stats is weird, bc as you said we had talks about it but we didn't do it. And now that the draft is completed and we have done trades I for one would be very against expanding stats as it changes everyones position.
|
|
|
Post by spitball on Nov 26, 2011 19:37:26 GMT -5
for the record, i do not support expanding stats to include hits and blocks, next season and will vote against any attempt.
i love hits and blocks as a category. i hate the way they are tabulated - at the discretion of the home team's stat guy. at some rinks, you get credit for a hit if you as much as brush past another player ( min and dallas ) and at others ( van and nash ) you've almost got to decapitate your opponent to get credit. in buffalo, if you aren't bleeding after the puck hits you, no block.
until/unless the cat can be standardized, and we can trust the #'s, i prefer not to include them.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Nov 26, 2011 19:44:37 GMT -5
I was a big supporter of adding these stats personally, and still am, but I can understand NJ's point about switching up the rules... Also, to keep the 2:1 ratio, we would have to add a goalie stat (I assume shutouts, as I feel they should have been there from the start...)
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Nov 26, 2011 20:02:56 GMT -5
* Commish reviewed - trade passed *
|
|