What would be the minimum returns you would accept?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

those were the least I would take. I don't believe in giving assets away for less than current market value.

Conroy will get the best value he can but you'd actually not trade Hanifin and Tanev and see them walk for nothing? That means you misjudged the market and missed the opportunity out of stubbornness IMO.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Conroy will get the best value he can but you'd actually not trade Hanifin and Tanev and see them walk for nothing? That means you misjudged the market and missed the opportunity out of stubbornness IMO.

They WILL get traded. The only options now are 1) a haul, 2) market, or 3) he gives them away at a discount.

I don't see 3 happening. And I would not find it acceptable if it did.

If Conroy only got the returns that some of you are listing here, EVERYONE will be disappointed - how is that 'acceptable'?

[PuckSlap]

I the case of Hanafin, definitely a 1st plus prospect and a player of vallue.

Tanev - second rounder plus player

Markström - at least a first rounder and player in return.


I'm particularly interested in getting a return of a prospect that can play soon. Because this team will desperately need them next year

Sent from my SM-S918W using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Some of you are absolutely terrible negotiators.

As I have said before, this isn't a case of trying to sell someone a vacuum cleaner that they don't need, this is a case of both sides WANTING to deal. The deals will get done.

If you are selling your house, would you sell it for under market?

If you had 3 houses, would you sell them for under market, simply because you had 3?

If you answered yes to those questions, then you should never be in charge of negotiations

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They WILL get traded. The only options now are 1) a haul, 2) market, or 3) he gives them away at a discount.

I don't see 3 happening. And I would not find it acceptable if it did.

If Conroy only got the returns that some of you are listing here, EVERYONE will be disappointed - how is that 'acceptable'?

I guess because at the end of the day we would still be Flames fans and move on. That’s acceptance, the final stage of grief.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They WILL get traded. The only options now are 1) a haul, 2) market, or 3) he gives them away at a discount.

I don't see 3 happening. And I would not find it acceptable if it did.

If Conroy only got the returns that some of you are listing here, EVERYONE will be disappointed - how is that 'acceptable'?

I could see this line of thinking if Conroy didn't get great value on the Lindholm trade.

Fan opinions on value don't mean much and have zero bearing on what is 'acceptable' and if you are disappointed by the return then your expectations were too high.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

I still can't believe the haul Conroy got for a rental in Lindholm. Canucks must think they'll be able to re-sign him but that would be buh-bye Petterson (IMO).

I'm on train "Hanifin and Tanev are UFA's so anything is better than nothing" but Conroy has already proven me wrong and he can get more!

I agree! The only thing is I dont think the Canucks are as enamored with Lindholm as hey probably thought they'd be.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I could see this line of thinking if Conroy didn't get great value on the Lindholm trade.

Fan opinions on value don't mean much and have zero bearing on what is 'acceptable' and if you are disappointed by the return then your expectations were too high.

so we should never be disappointed with a trade return? (because our expectations were just too high?)

[kyuss275]

Tanev- 2nd
Hanifin - 1st and 2nd
Markstrom I’m only trading if we get a haul. Holtz, 1st and Casey from devils is my minimum. I still think a Markstrom/wolf tandem next year is a good thing.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Some of you are absolutely terrible negotiators.

As I have said before, this isn't a case of trying to sell someone a vacuum cleaner that they don't need, this is a case of both sides WANTING to deal. The deals will get done.

If you are selling your house, would you sell it for under market?

If you had 3 houses, would you sell them for under market, simply because you had 3?

If you answered yes to those questions, then you should never be in charge of negotiations

The house example doesn't work though unless you are on the brink of foreclosure and need to move the houses in two weeks or they are given away for free in two weeks.
There is a hard time limit and expiring assets. Sometimes holding out till the bloody end works and sometimes it doesn't.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

so we should never be disappointed with a trade return? (because our expectations were just too high?)

Specifically towards this deadline where Conroy has already shown to extract good value then yes. All of his trades have been good so far.
If fan expectations were guiding trades then Zadorov and Toffoli are still on the Flames.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

so we should never be disappointed with a trade return? (because our expectations were just too high?)

Well the market is the market.

Now if he over played his hand by waiting until the final second and ran out of chairs when the music stopped ... that's another thing altogether.

But if he has amber light warning at say 48 hours before and has two suitors for each player, and the most he can get is less than we expected I'm not sure I'd be disappointed.

The market pays what the market pays.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The house example doesn't work though unless you are on the brink of foreclosure and need to move the houses in two weeks or they are given away for free in two weeks.
There is a hard time limit and expiring assets. Sometimes holding out till the bloody end works and sometimes it doesn't.

Sometimes it doesn't - because no one was willing to pay. There are at least 10 teams interested in Tanev, and at least 4 or 5 that are seriously interested in Hanifin. The deals will get done.

Your concern would be more valid if it was a case of only one or two buyers, and Conroy on the other side, with both sides holding firm and playing chicken. That is not the case here. Conroy knows what he has in his pocket, and is working for more. This isn't a case of hoping to find a buyer.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sometimes it doesn't - because no one was willing to pay. There are at least 10 teams interested in Tanev, and at least 4 or 5 that are seriously interested in Hanifin. The deals will get done.

Your concern would be more valid if it was a case of only one or two buyers, and Conroy on the other side, with both sides holding firm and playing chicken. That is not the case here. Conroy knows what he has in his pocket, and is working for more. This isn't a case of hoping to find a buyer.

You don't know the dynamics though. Maybe there are 7-8 tire kickers on Tanev with low ball offers and Hanifin's value will really depend on if he is a pure rental or not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well the market is the market.

Now if he over played his hand by waiting until the final second and ran out of chairs when the music stopped ... that's another thing altogether.

But if he has amber light warning at say 48 hours before and has two suitors for each player, and the most he can get is less than we expected I'm not sure I'd be disappointed.

The market pays what the market pays.

Yes, 'the market is the market', and everything I have posted in this thread is consistent with that. Conversely, some of the returns posted here have been well below what the 'expected market' will be, which is what I am challenging.

While 'the market is the market' it is important to not let that become a catch phrase to forgive any and all activity. In a small and thin market where there are only a few players, those players define the market with their actions. Feaster got ####ty returns - should we excuse that as 'the market at the time'? No. He was a terrible negotiator who get less than he should have, on a consistent basis. We can't just excuse poor negotiating as 'the market'.

To be clear, I do not expect poor negotiating from Conroy. He looks to have some game in this regard, so I am not worried. However, if the returns end up as weak as some of the examples in this thread, then yes, I will be extremely disappointed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bonded

You don't know the dynamics though. Maybe there are 7-8 tire kickers on Tanev with low ball offers and Hanifin's value will really depend on if he is a pure rental or not.

No, none of us do of course. But that applies to you, and everyone else posting here, so it's an empty argument.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, 'the market is the market', and everything I have posted in this thread is consistent with that. Conversely, some of the returns posted here have been well below what the 'expected market' will be, which is what I am challenging.

While 'the market is the market' it is important to not let that become a catch phrase to forgive any and all activity. In a small and thin market where there are only a few players, those players define the market with their actions. Feaster got ####ty returns - should we excuse that as 'the market at the time'? No. He was a terrible negotiator who get less than he should have, on a consistent basis. We can't just excuse poor negotiating as 'the market'.

To be clear, I do not expect poor negotiating from Conroy. He looks to have some game in this regard, so I am not worried. However, if the returns end up as weak as some of the examples in this thread, then yes, I will be extremely disappointed.

Well it does say "minimum" return.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Well it does say "minimum" return.

It says "minimum returns you would accept"

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, 'the market is the market', and everything I have posted in this thread is consistent with that. Conversely, some of the returns posted here have been well below what the 'expected market' will be, which is what I am challenging.

While 'the market is the market' it is important to not let that become a catch phrase to forgive any and all activity. In a small and thin market where there are only a few players, those players define the market with their actions. Feaster got ####ty returns - should we excuse that as 'the market at the time'? No. He was a terrible negotiator who get less than he should have, on a consistent basis. We can't just excuse poor negotiating as 'the market'.

To be clear, I do not expect poor negotiating from Conroy. He looks to have some game in this regard, so I am not worried. However, if the returns end up as weak as some of the examples in this thread, then yes, I will be extremely disappointed.

Yeah we're on the same page.

I think a GM can screw up in a few ways though.

1) Lazy Market Discovery - doesn't know what the market it
2) Getting cute - trying to play a few suitors and losing them to other options.
3) Too tight to deadline - end up in a time crunch and have to take what you can

I don't see Conroy in the 1st camp at all (think Feaster may have been). The 2nd and 3rd issues though remain to be seen. Fine line between being firm and getting a good deal and pushing too hard and losing the bid.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, none of us do of course. But that applies to you, and everyone else posting here, so it's an empty argument.

I'll be fine with whatever Conroy gets in return because I am not worried about him missing market value though. You are drawing the line in the sand on what is disappointing basis media musings. The only way he'll screw up is if get too cute and holds on too long. Markstrom might have been a lesson on that one.