Rangers GM Stepping Down

[keenan87]

I appreciated the opportunity but I just feel like this league is set up on failure for anyone who is a new GM and hasn't been here for years. That is just my opinion though and I wish everyone on here the best. I would have loved to start a discussion on my observations but everyone seems to be content here so I am sure that is just me.

Go Rangers!

[Swayze11]

Well, take care. Instead of throwing up your hands and quitting, there are much better ways to handle this.

[devo22]

no idea what this is actually about, but take care I guess. I actually thought you had a very good start as a new GM making quite a few trades from the get-go, so too bad.

[JiriHrdina]

We rejected a deal so i suspect it is about this. A few comments
- If you aren't happy with the league then it is entirely your choice to leave. No hard feelings
- I agree that you had been doing a great job so far.
- I don't agree that new GMs can't succeed and we've seen that many times. It takes patience though.
- Seems like new GMs either get through about 6 months and stick with it, or leave after a few months. It is about 50/50. I thought you were in it for the long haul.
- We are always looking to improve but we aren't looking to blow up the league or doing something like a re-draft.

Anyways best of luck.

[SportsJunky]

Take care man. Sorry to see you go.

[edguy]

Originally Posted by keenan87

I appreciated the opportunity but I just feel like this league is set up on failure for anyone who is a new GM and hasn't been here for years. That is just my opinion though and I wish everyone on here the best. I would have loved to start a discussion on my observations but everyone seems to be content here so I am sure that is just me.

Go Rangers!

I am just new here yesterday so maybe I am to new to comment but it's really seeming this way from my perspective as well. I am going to specifically comment on the trades since that's the one experience I have here, For those who weren't involved I made a deal with another GM, it didn't take to long to negotiate as I feel he came out and offered a fair deal right out of the gates. The deal was not accepted for various reasons, in the email the reason was quality over quantity, and then the other GM involved was told by a commissioner that it was because I was too new and didn't get advice on the trade. First why would I ask for advice on a trade from another GM in the league if I don't feel like I need help? Second I feel as though it was a fair trade and wouldn't hurt the integrity of the league (which a commissioner has since told me it wasn't a bad deal he just thinks i could do better). I understand they are just trying to help but there are better ways to handle it, review new guys trades sure, but before just rejecting it talk to them and explain why you think it's a bad deal, but if they still want to make the trade accept it!

[JiriHrdina]

Out with my family but will reply later to correct some misinformation on the above

[devo22]

We've all had deals rejected when we were new GMs and probably all of us were pretty pissed because of it ... I certainly remember that I was. But guess what, today I'm pretty happy that the league looked over my shoulder at the beginning of my GM career. For example, draft picks certainly have a different value in this league than in the real NHL and it's more than okay to get some feedback on that when you're a new GM. If anything, the league tries to protect new GMs, not disadvantage that.

Also, asking another GM for an opinion is never a bad idea and not a sign of weakness or anything. Especially as a new GM, getting a second opinion can be very helpful. Heck, even veteran GMs go that route every now and then.

And finally, a rejected deal doesn't have to be the end of the road for that particular deal. I definitely remember re-negotiating at least one deal that was rejected when I was a new GM and one another when I was dealing with a new guy.

[Slava]

First of all, it's too bad you're leaving Akash. I think you were doing well and we always had good talks. So best of luck and I hope you reconsider.

Second though, these rules are important for both the good of the new GMs and the league. We can't have franchises decimated because new GMs don't know the values in the CPHL, and then those franchises are completely stuck. So while a new GM thinks that it's a good deal, you have to trust that the rest of the league and the team of commissioners are a good judge of value in general.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by devo22

We've all had deals rejected when we were new GMs and probably all of us were pretty pissed because of it ... I certainly remember that I was. But guess what, today I'm pretty happy that the league looked over my shoulder at the beginning of my GM career. For example, draft picks certainly have a different value in this league than in the real NHL and it's more than okay to get some feedback on that when you're a new GM. If anything, the league tries to protect new GMs, not disadvantage that.

Also, asking another GM for an opinion is never a bad idea and not a sign of weakness or anything. Especially as a new GM, getting a second opinion can be very helpful. Heck, even veteran GMs go that route every now and then.

And finally, a rejected deal doesn't have to be the end of the road for that particular deal. I definitely remember re-negotiating at least one deal that was rejected when I was a new GM and one another when I was dealing with a new guy.

I don't mind getting my deals rejected but why is there no consistency? The Roman Josi deal was the worst deal I have encountered in a very long time and it was approved because Sanheim is an "amazing prospect". That is pretty subjective and even some of the veteran GMs and commisioner has told me it was a horrible deal.

As for my deal, "it wasn't a bad deal, you could have done better" is not a very good response. If it isn't a bad deal, let new gms have fun and make trades. Let them learn from their mistakes, cause no one wants their hands being held by veteran GMs.

For a league that is having an incredibly tough time retaining GMs, if a huge Sens fan comes in and gets some of his favourite players in a deal, let him have fun rather than trying to make deals for him. (Especially if the deal wasn't a "bad deal").

[Swayze11]

Post your deals that were rejected and I bet 80% of the league will know exactly why it was rejected. The deals that get rejected the most are quantity for quality. A few 4 line projects does not equal a 2nd line player.

NHL value is different from CPHL value so that's why the commish team asks you to ask for other opinions. Every vet GM in this league still asks other GMs their opinions on deals.

I started in this league with Colby Armstrong, Christobal Huet, Marek Malik and Martin Straka as my best players. My top prospect was Tyler Kennedy. Now I have Stamkos, Letang, Carlson, Spezza just to name a few. It takes time to build up a team. The coyotes were a laughing stock and now they are a power house. It's all about how much time and effort you want to put into it, clearly you didn't want to put in the effort, which is fine.. Some people don't want to.

[SportsJunky]

I'm starting to think keenan87 didn't like the Josi deal...

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by keenan87

For a league that is having an incredibly tough time retaining GMs, if a huge Sens fan comes in and gets some of his favourite players in a deal, let him have fun rather than trying to make deals for him. (Especially if the deal wasn't a "bad deal").

Honestly, the GM turnover *is* the #1 reason why early deals should be reviewed - at least IMO.

There's no way to rewind the league if a new GM destroys their team and quits. Then the next GM that comes in gets a decimated team, which probably isn't too much fun.


Sorry to see you go. Appreciated that you came to me with trade ideas, sorry I was never in the mood to deal.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I started in this league with Colby Armstrong, Christobal Huet, Marek Malik and Martin Straka as my best players. My top prospect was Tyler Kennedy. Now I have Stamkos, Letang, Carlson, Spezza just to name a few.

lol

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

lol

lol

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Honestly, the GM turnover *is* the #1 reason why early deals should be reviewed - at least IMO.

There's no way to rewind the league if a new GM destroys their team and quits. Then the next GM that comes in gets a decimated team, which probably isn't too much fun.


Sorry to see you go. Appreciated that you came to me with trade ideas, sorry I was never in the mood to deal.

I completely agree with you on that aspect. When I came in, I had one of the worst teams in the league. Half the teams are already decimated so why not start fresh? You guys spent the time to build your teams and I respect that but at this point, it isn't even fair. If you can do it once, why not do it twice? I know 8 years is a long time but true leadership needs to understand when to make the sacrifice. I can understand if 2-3 teams were decimated but this is almost half the league (no disrespect to anyone).

Swayze, it took you a bunch of years to get to where you are at and that's great. Are you really expecting half the league to also put in 5 years to make this league fair again?

I respect and appreciate all of the effort that goes on in running this league and believe me because I had my own league for a bunch of years. I just feel like it is too late at this point to worry about new gms decimating teama when half of them are #### anyway.

[Swayze11]

Post the deal that was rejected, I'm guessing it was quantity for quality.

[keenan87]

Cody Ceci (Young Top 4 Dman)
2nd Round 2017
Phil Grabaur (playing in the NHL)
Andreas Englund (selected 40th overall a year ago)

For

Jaden Schwartz (Top 6 forward)

Ceci is younger and a top 4 dman on the Sens and Englund is a solid Sens prospect (I have had offers on him).

I knew I needed to add to Ceci and hence I did. Keep in mind Schwartz is also out until March and Should take a huge hit this season (although a solid player).

Canucks needed defense and is a huge Sens fan. Could have done better? I don't know, it's easy for someone to come out and say that now. Bad deal? According to one commisioner when reading the post above, it was not.

[Swayze11]

looks like quantity for quality to me.

Ceci is a top 4 - agreed
2nd is too far away
John Scott also plays in the NHL. Holtby isnt losing his spot anytime soon.
decent prospect

Schwartz has potential to be a top 3 forward.

I see minor tweaks to this deal to get it done. Make it a 2016 2nd, offer a better prospect than Englund and it likely gets approved. Instead you want to throw your hands up and quit. Minor tweaks is all it takes when deals get rejected. I remember a deal I had rejected this off season. I added a 2nd round pick to the deal - approved.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

looks like quantity for quality to me.

Ceci is a top 4 - agreed
2nd is too far away
John Scott also plays in the NHL. Holtby isnt losing his spot anytime soon.
decent prospect

Schwartz has potential to be a top 3 forward.

I see minor tweaks to this deal to get it done. Make it a 2016 2nd, offer a better prospect than Englund and it likely gets approved. Instead you want to throw your hands up and quit. Minor tweaks is all it takes when deals get rejected. I remember a deal I had rejected this off season. I added a 2nd round pick to the deal - approved.

Dude, you are telling me that making it a 2016 2nd will make it fair but not 2017? That is actually quite ridiculous. A deal needing "minor tweaks" should not be rejected. Especially when a relatively new GM is making a deal with a new GM. Maybe have a quick chat with a new GM. If this was not a clear ripoff, it should be approved.

Also, if you are talking potential.. Ceci can totally be a top pairing defensemen eventually just like Schwartz can become a top line guy. Ceci is 21 years old

Instead I get told that one of the major factors is because Canucks made a trade too quick on his first day. Too much hand holding and might as well have the veteran gms make the deals for us? (keep in mind, this is not Canucks GMs first league either). Instead you lose both the Canucks GM and me.

Anyway, no use arguing and I apologize for the disruption.

Cheers!