Buds Board Keepers League

Can we vetoed a deal cause this would be the one. Adding a 1st to the deal like it’s a mid pick is just wrong.



Veto this junk ASAP.

Booboo (hawks) wroteCOLON ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 4:06 pm

Arian The Insider wroteCOLON ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:36 pm It costs around a 2nd round pick for a backup, I'd be surprised if anyone was asking for this much

Be surprised, be very surprised.

Anyone want to admit they asked for more than this for a goalie? You should call them out Booboo it will take some heat off if there are people commenting that wanted more than this for their asset.

This is arguably the highest price ever paid for a goalie in BBKL so I get the outrage that it's not a top tier goalie. You could say that it cost more for Sorokin which should obviously be the case, but depends on how you compare Wright to Kyrou and I think Wright is going to be a lot more valuable in this league. Other factor is Askarov vs a pick that has the potential to be really high, if that pick lands first overall I think UPL costs more than Sorokin. I don't know why pick protection wasn't included, throw top 5 protection on this and it would help and there is a 0% chance Mik is saying he won't trade UPL even if the pick is protected.

TheNudge wroteCOLON ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:34 am Can we vetoed a deal cause this would be the one. Adding a 1st to the deal like it’s a mid pick is just wrong.



Veto this junk ASAP.

While the odds seem to be in Mik's favor to win the deal based on what most of us believe Shane Wright will develop into and it's too early to tell how good that 1st round pick will be next year...vetoing a deal based on assumptions is a tricky proposition.

This isn't quite trading Connor McDavid for a backup goalie, a third pair defenseman and a checking line center. When you deal with futures, you're going off projections or expectations rather than using a player's career up until now.

Vetoing the deal would be to say we're assuming all of these projections will come true. If Booboo keeps those assets and doesn't make this deal...he'd be the one hoping those assets turn out well...which again, is not a guarantee. Building and/or rebuilding rests on a lot of good fortune and good decision-making involving prospects and draft picks. Just because you make a lot of picks, mean you're guaranteed to get better or have success.

It's one trade. He makes a couple good trades and it's a wash. Big whoop.

if im offered only one of these two pieces for UPL, i'd take it and run.. i mean.. one is a potential top 5 pick next year and another is a 1st overall pick in our league last year.. i doubt i can easily acquire any of these asset..

oh... and the offseason just started, what if buffalo signs or trade for a starter? u never know. It is always better to make decisions on goalies when more certainties..

but im not a competent GM so what can i say.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:44 am

TheNudge wroteCOLON ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:34 am Can we vetoed a deal cause this would be the one. Adding a 1st to the deal like it’s a mid pick is just wrong.



Veto this junk ASAP.

While the odds seem to be in Mik's favor to win the deal based on what most of us believe Shane Wright will develop into and it's too early to tell how good that 1st round pick will be next year...vetoing a deal based on assumptions is a tricky proposition.

This isn't quite trading Connor McDavid for a backup goalie, a third pair defenseman and a checking line center. When you deal with futures, you're going off projections or expectations rather than using a player's career up until now.

Vetoing the deal would be to say we're assuming all of these projections will come true. If Booboo keeps those assets and doesn't make this deal...he'd be the one hoping those assets turn out well...which again, is not a guarantee. Building and/or rebuilding rests on a lot of good fortune and good decision-making involving prospects and draft picks. Just because you make a lot of picks, mean you're guaranteed to get better or have success.

I don't even think Wright will even be all that good, and this trade would still be awful for UPL+Dorofeyev. Even if you believe Wright isn't going to be much more than a decent all situations 2nd line center, a career sub .900 sv% goalie at both the NHL and AHL level and a B prospect should not net Wright let alone throwing another likely top 5 pick on top. That's how bad this trade is. Mik is already winning this trade without the pick and is getting a top 5 pick on top for free for shits and giggles.

I agree if that's the precedent that you want to set that no trade should ever be vetoed bc it cant get much worse than this including if someone were to say trade McDavid and Matthews for peanuts and just bounce from the league. There's not much difference in my mind.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:52 am

Shoalzie wroteCOLON ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:44 am

TheNudge wroteCOLON ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:34 am Can we vetoed a deal cause this would be the one. Adding a 1st to the deal like it’s a mid pick is just wrong.



Veto this junk ASAP.

While the odds seem to be in Mik's favor to win the deal based on what most of us believe Shane Wright will develop into and it's too early to tell how good that 1st round pick will be next year...vetoing a deal based on assumptions is a tricky proposition.

This isn't quite trading Connor McDavid for a backup goalie, a third pair defenseman and a checking line center. When you deal with futures, you're going off projections or expectations rather than using a player's career up until now.

Vetoing the deal would be to say we're assuming all of these projections will come true. If Booboo keeps those assets and doesn't make this deal...he'd be the one hoping those assets turn out well...which again, is not a guarantee. Building and/or rebuilding rests on a lot of good fortune and good decision-making involving prospects and draft picks. Just because you make a lot of picks, mean you're guaranteed to get better or have success.

I don't even think Wright will even be all that good, and this trade would still be awful for UPL+Dorofeyev. Even if you believe Wright isn't going to be much more than a decent all situations 2nd line center, a career sub .900 sv% goalie at both the NHL and AHL level and a B prospect should not net Wright let alone throwing another likely top 5 pick on top. That's how bad this trade is. Mik is already winning this trade without the pick and is getting a top 5 pick on top for free for shits and giggles.

I agree if that's the precedent that you want to set that no trade should ever be vetoed bc it cant get much worse than this including if someone were to say trade McDavid and Matthews for peanuts and just bounce from the league. There's not much difference in my mind.

I've stayed quiet and watched this develop, but I have to agree with Casper here. Having a member of the CC (whether they say they are looking to be replaced or not) make a trade like this and then say "sorry, we don't veto here because they were both consenting adults" sets a bad precedent. You should want to protect the lower teams from stuff like this.

There is winning a trade, and then there is this.

This was the first league of this kind that I've been a part of and one of things you can learn is to take some losses in trades to figure out what works and what doesn't. Learn how to properly gauge and value these kinds of assets. Up until then, I did mostly redraft leagues or leagues with a small keeper element. I was a bit out of my depth with the "dynasty" format.

In my second or third year, the CC threw me out of the league when it perceived that I made bad trades and I was a bad fit for the league. It was done very abruptly but I was granted permission to continue and obviously I'm still here and now I'm the admin of the league. You can debate if you think I'm that much better of a GM than I was back then but yeah, a league of this format takes some learning. Through all of that...none of the trades I made, good or bad, were vetoed. You deal with the consequences.

You need to let things play out...and especially with this trade whether you see it working or you don't. Booboo probably needs to talk to other GMs with future deals of this magnitude for a second opinion but as far as I'm concerned, he's been a good GM up to this point. If he's comfortable with this trade, then he's got to live with the good or the bad that comes from it.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:52 am

Shoalzie wroteCOLON ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:44 am

TheNudge wroteCOLON ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:34 am Can we vetoed a deal cause this would be the one. Adding a 1st to the deal like it’s a mid pick is just wrong.



Veto this junk ASAP.

While the odds seem to be in Mik's favor to win the deal based on what most of us believe Shane Wright will develop into and it's too early to tell how good that 1st round pick will be next year...vetoing a deal based on assumptions is a tricky proposition.

This isn't quite trading Connor McDavid for a backup goalie, a third pair defenseman and a checking line center. When you deal with futures, you're going off projections or expectations rather than using a player's career up until now.

Vetoing the deal would be to say we're assuming all of these projections will come true. If Booboo keeps those assets and doesn't make this deal...he'd be the one hoping those assets turn out well...which again, is not a guarantee. Building and/or rebuilding rests on a lot of good fortune and good decision-making involving prospects and draft picks. Just because you make a lot of picks, mean you're guaranteed to get better or have success.

I don't even think Wright will even be all that good, and this trade would still be awful for UPL+Dorofeyev. Even if you believe Wright isn't going to be much more than a decent all situations 2nd line center, a career sub .900 sv% goalie at both the NHL and AHL level and a B prospect should not net Wright let alone throwing another likely top 5 pick on top. That's how bad this trade is. Mik is already winning this trade without the pick and is getting a top 5 pick on top for free for shits and giggles.

I agree if that's the precedent that you want to set that no trade should ever be vetoed bc it cant get much worse than this including if someone were to say trade McDavid and Matthews for peanuts and just bounce from the league. There's not much difference in my mind.

Pretty much agree with this.
If this isn't veto worthy, then what is?
Where do we draw the line?
The value is not even remotely close.
I still can't believe someone would accept this..

"Veteran" GMs in this league could very easily take advantage of less experienced GMs if they sense a weakness or see an opportunity to easily win a deal. I think part of joining a league of this size is you need to learn about each GM and figure out their tendencies. Some guys value their assets higher than others.

Anyone who has worked with Mik on deals should know that he doesn't budge in the value department. We all value our assets differently.

If you think his price is too high...don't make the deal.
If you're okay with it...then good luck.

After it "played out", one of my all-time worst trades was (then prospect) Jake Guentzel for Jordan Nolan...

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?t=13145

I gave up a prospect that I liked but didn't overvalue because I needed GP.

In hindsight, it's one of those trades I never forgive myself for making but when it was first done, I didn't think much of it at all. It seemed harmless and even if Guentzel makes the NHL, what are the odds he becomes a guy with two 40 goal seasons?

Well, that's how it goes sometimes. You win some, you lose some.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:47 am "Veteran" GMs in this league could very easily take advantage of less experienced GMs if they sense a weakness or see an opportunity to easily win a deal. I think part of joining a league of this size is you need to learn about each GM and figure out their tendencies. Some guys value their assets higher than others.

Anyone who has worked with Mik on deals should know that he doesn't budge in the value department. We all value our assets differently.

If you think his price is too high...don't make the deal.
If you're okay with it...then good luck.

Understanding that my opinion means little anymore, I'm going to give it anyways...

If you want to keep this league active and enjoyable, making sure trades like this that heavily favour one team over another has to be a priority. There are several comments here like "this is the worst I've ever seen", which should be a huge red flag. When you can instantly take the two pieces you receive and trade them for better than what you gave up, that should be a red flag.

If you want to remove the burden from the CC deciding, put any supposed lopsided trade to a league vote and if it's decidedly against the trade, then veto it. Call it the GM challenge. If another manager believes a trade is lopsided, and the league votes it down by x % points (say you need 75% or higher to veto a trade) then he can challenge another trade for a period of time. If not, he loses the right to challenge for x amount of time.

There is definitely a learning curve when joining a league like this, when I came in I was gung-ho to make trades but quickly realized I had very little understanding of value so just watched from afar in my first year. I'm still relatively new so I don't know the history as most of you do - how long has Booboo been in the league? I suppose this opens the door to discussion on whether we implement a time frame where trades made by a new GM can be vetoed if egregious, as a means to protect newer GMs - or designate a supervisor veteran GM for each new GM for a longer period of time.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 11:20 am After it "played out", one of my all-time worst trades was (then prospect) Jake Guentzel for Jordan Nolan...

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?t=13145

I gave up a prospect that I liked but didn't overvalue because I needed GP.

In hindsight, it's one of those trades I never forgive myself for making but when it was first done, I didn't think much of it at all. It seemed harmless and even if Guentzel makes the NHL, what are the odds he becomes a guy with two 40 goal seasons?

Well, that's how it goes sometimes. You win some, you lose some.

fwiw that thread was hilarious it seems

If we want to talk about how much you should spend on a goalie...check how Kareem acquired Andrei Vasilevskiy:

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?t=8737

Mike gets Franzen when he only plays parts of two more seasons before concussions did in his career.

Vasilevskiy comes into the NHL in 2014 and we all know how that's going.
Plus, he gets Adam Pelech who was still with Erie at the time goes on to become a steady NHL defenseman.
The player taken with that Phoenix 1st round pick, Darnell Nurse...granted, not by Vancouver.

Trades can go a lot of different directions whether you perceive it as good or bad.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 11:20 am After it "played out", one of my all-time worst trades was (then prospect) Jake Guentzel for Jordan Nolan...

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?t=13145

I gave up a prospect that I liked but didn't overvalue because I needed GP.

In hindsight, it's one of those trades I never forgive myself for making but when it was first done, I didn't think much of it at all. It seemed harmless and even if Guentzel makes the NHL, what are the odds he becomes a guy with two 40 goal seasons?

Well, that's how it goes sometimes. You win some, you lose some.

Scott, you keep doing these comparative trades as if any of these trades are even in the same realm as how lopsided this deal is. You also have to look at a trade in a vacuum at the time it was made. The end result ended up being far worse than even the perceived value at the time. It's also worth noting by this point you had been in the league for quite a while.

It's also kind of noteworthy that most people knew that trade would end badly for you even at the time it was done.

It's a free market. Unless there is clear corruption a trade shouldn't be vetoed. If anything, like shoalzie said, if you want to protect weak teams, a GM who is too weak needs to be removed, or given a long term trade buddy (who people trust) to help teach the GM valuation...

Booboo had been pretty consistent in his first year until this trade. There are other gms (who I could identify, but wont) who in the past year or two, maybe havent made one really bad deal, but who through quite a few smaller bad deals managed to essentially dismantle their teams. We also have GMs here who have been consistently in the bottom 6-7 teams for the 10 years ive been in the league... meaning they also must consistently lose many small deals that add up.

So imo, unless people think there is corruption going on between kyuss and booboo (I dont), I think the deal should stand. If booboo were to make a couple more deals this terrible then you gotta think about removal, but I also think he will learn from all our shit comments lol. But we've seen how some of our GMs haven't learned so you never know...

If any current gm wants me to leave let me know privately.

Booboo (hawks) wroteCOLON ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 2:24 pm If any current gm wants me to leave let me know privately.

You are not the problem. Nobody would ask you to leave over this.

DApolloS wroteCOLON ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:02 pm

Booboo (hawks) wroteCOLON ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 2:24 pm If any current gm wants me to leave let me know privately.

You are not the problem. Nobody would ask you to leave over this.

Second this. We've all made suspect trades - this may take the cake wrt to this league since I've joined... but nonetheless, you're entitled tto your own opinion and valuation. Wish I made a move similar to this with Nolan Patrick when I had the chance but I was too stubborn.
In the future, if you want a second opinion on valuations, always happy to comment.