|
|
Post by PralinePHX on Nov 1, 2004 3:27:28 GMT -5
I used the system to my advantage. I still had to pay to get something though im not getting Eriksson for free here  It could be argued Rangers gets Bitz for free though. Anyway since there are no rules against it I don't consider it cheating. It might be frowned upon by a lot of GMs but that doesn't bother me especially with the current state of certain teams in this league. We have allowed too many lopsided trades if you look at Edmonton or Rangers and then look at Chicago. This isn't a perfect place and it never will be. I just can't see how we would reject a deal for "cheating" when no one ever said "don't do this." |
|
|
|
Post by Jackets Oilers on Nov 1, 2004 9:05:25 GMT -5
I mentioned it last year when columbus was doing practically the same thing... picking up 3-4 waivers guys and packaging them for a Chris Drury or something Sorry...just as an aside here. Preds, why do you always bring this up!?? When I got waiver players, I got them using my own pick...in other words, you HAD your chance to get my waiver guys. I got them with my own pick. And I never did deal them right away...I usually always kept them and mayebe traded them when their stock in the real NHL increased. I never packaged them and traded them. In fact people turned down my trade offers because they knew the players where from waivers and I myself turned down deals because I knew the player offered to me was from waivers so I didnt want to give him the satisfaction. |
|
|
|
Post by thrashers on Nov 1, 2004 12:47:52 GMT -5
The reason I have a problem with this is because the teams with waiver claims in the top 5 are the ones getting screwed. Basically now anyone can go to Rangers who has the first waiver claim and ask him for someone. But what if the 2nd team wants him? They shouldn't have to bid for the player if Rangers doesn't want him. I agree with Wally, you can't have it both ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2004 15:36:43 GMT -5
The reason I have a problem with this is because the teams with waiver claims in the top 5 are the ones getting screwed. Basically now anyone can go to Rangers who has the first waiver claim and ask him for someone. But what if the 2nd team wants him? They shouldn't have to bid for the player if Rangers doesn't want him. I agree with Wally, you can't have it both ways. Personally I think bribing a team to pick up a player on waivers is alright. First off it would only occur during extreme circumstances when valuable players are made available (J.S. Aubin or Loui Eriksson). Guys like that aren't available very often. If I wanted to pick up Joe Blow who I have an easy shot at getting why would I tell Rangers to claim him when I can get him for free? I had to pay a price to get Eriksson. Bitz wasn't close to my least valuable player but I still had to deal him to get someone that Rangers got for free. Hopefully you guys understand what im trying to say here. I can't see this ever being a very common problem because GMs aren't always going to want to "pay" another GM for a player when there is a possibility that player could fall to their waiver position. Most of the time I get the players I want because their value isn't very high. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2004 15:39:05 GMT -5
In other news The New York Islanders and the Los Angelas Kings agreed on a trade. To Kings: Todd Marchant and Isles 2nd round pick in 05 To Islanders: Sean Burke Approved by Chicago Kings robs Islanders here big time. Im surprised this was even approved  |
|
|
|
Post by pens&preds on Nov 1, 2004 16:04:56 GMT -5
In other news Kings robs Islanders here big time. Im surprised this was even approved Yeah, Kings got a steal. |
|
|
|
Post by redwingsgm on Nov 1, 2004 16:39:13 GMT -5
The New York Islanders and the Los Angelas Kings agreed on a trade. To Kings: Todd Marchant and Isles 2nd round pick in 05 To Islanders: Sean Burke Approved by Chicago I don't understand this at all. Isles already has Dipietro and Huet which is a good young goaltending duo. Why get an aging Burke and trade a solid center? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2004 17:18:47 GMT -5
I don't understand this at all. Isles already has Dipietro and Huet which is a good young goaltending duo. Why get an aging Burke and trade a solid center? More importantly a 2nd round pick in a deep draft. I think Marchant is equal to Burke value-wise as is but to add a 2nd in the deal makes it way in Kings favor. |
|
|
|
Post by pens&preds on Nov 1, 2004 17:21:21 GMT -5
I don't understand this at all. Isles already has Dipietro and Huet which is a good young goaltending duo. Why get an aging Burke and trade a solid center? Cause he's trading me Dipietro for Mclenan |
|
|
|
Post by IslanderDuck on Nov 1, 2004 17:36:04 GMT -5
The reason I did this trade is that Marchant had no points in 8 games with a -2 rating for the Isles. And how Dipietro was playing so far this season I thought that it wouldn't hurt to get a veteran goalie to take the pressure off of the 2 younger goalies. I don't think that Dipietro and Huet can get me into the playoffs alone so I thought that I would make a move now before it was too late.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Nov 1, 2004 18:05:13 GMT -5
The reason I did this trade is that Marchant had no points in 8 games with a -2 rating for the Isles. And how Dipietro was playing so far this season I thought that it wouldn't hurt to get a veteran goalie to take the pressure off of the 2 younger goalies. I don't think that Dipietro and Huet can get me into the playoffs alone so I thought that I would make a move now before it was too late. I'd agree that you got beat in this deal, but I can see why you did the deal ... if you can make the playoffs, Burke would probably be your best option to start b/c of his EX and LD. Marchant doesn't do anything for me either. You've had a tough sked so far ... things'll get easier. |
|
|
|
Post by Canucks Rangers 94ever on Nov 9, 2004 8:12:07 GMT -5
I think after these last few trades made i now have a better team balance. with the addition of martin i have an allround guy, and i feel i have improved my d significantly. While i have given up belanger and kraft i feel a better all around balance because i have players who can step up and fill the void left by kraft. The main reason i decided to let go of kraft was because of the added defense, but also because im pretty deep at centre and he just wasnt producing the points.
But i might be wrong, what do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Nov 9, 2004 16:27:44 GMT -5
But i might be wrong, what do you guys think? I like the deal for you. |
|
|
|
Post by flamesgm on Nov 9, 2004 16:41:49 GMT -5
mara and morris are gonna kick ass
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Nov 12, 2004 16:54:50 GMT -5
To the St. Louis Blues:
Mike Morris
To the Pittsburgh Penguins:
Robert Earl
Did you get earl off waivers?
|
|
It could be argued Rangers gets Bitz for free though. Anyway since there are no rules against it I don't consider it cheating. It might be frowned upon by a lot of GMs but that doesn't bother me especially with the current state of certain teams in this league. We have allowed too many lopsided trades if you look at Edmonton or Rangers and then look at Chicago. This isn't a perfect place and it never will be. I just can't see how we would reject a deal for "cheating" when no one ever said "don't do this."
