Panthers deal for review

[Jiri Hrdina]

12-8 yes now

[Jiri Hrdina]

I wonder if moving forward, before we start voting if we should ask the new GMs to post their rationale for a deal. Hear their thoughts before we vote - as has happened here. might be a positive addition to the process.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd love that!

[Goffie]

I am ok with a yes on this, both GMs seem to be happy with what they are acquiring.

[Cambam8]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I wonder if moving forward, before we start voting if we should ask the new GMs to post their rationale for a deal. Hear their thoughts before we vote - as has happened here. might be a positive addition to the process.

I agree , nice added touch

[savardandjokinen]

Switch me to yes

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I wonder if moving forward, before we start voting if we should ask the new GMs to post their rationale for a deal. Hear their thoughts before we vote - as has happened here. might be a positive addition to the process.

100%. The primary goal should be understanding the thought process and providing insights based on how league values work. Secondary is the result of the trade and making sure a new GM isn't getting their asset base negatively impacted too much based on not understanding the value in the league.

[Hanna Sniper]

If we need to hear the new guys thoughts then we are not voting honestly and fairly IMO

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

If we need to hear the new guys thoughts then we are not voting honestly and fairly IMO

I think we are voting with more information, which is a good thing.

Again, I think objectives are:

1) Understand the thought process so we can provide feedback on that to make sure they understand overall value in CPHL

2) Make sure the assets being moved don't have a significant negative impact to the value base of the organization. Ie) not getting hosed

Both of these can be achieved with a new GM posting their thoughts...in fact I think it makes the voting even better.

[Hanna Sniper]

If are voting to protect the teams best interest while the new guy gets settled and not be overwhelmed from sharks circling. If we need the thoughts of the new guy then the deal really isn’t good/bad enough that it shouldn’t be blocked from happening

If a new GM has the greatest reasoning but as a veteran you see it as something that the GM needs to get familiar with the league before making. Then he can make that deal later. We shouldn’t need a new GM to convince us a deal is good. Either it is or not, and if you’re borderline the you shouldn’t really be vetoing the deal anyways

[MJK]

We seem to have this debate at least once a year. I completely agree if the deal is ‘close’ or involves a bunch of average players it shouldn’t be shot down. Like Pat said, the intention is not to let the new guy win every deal, the original intention around making all new deals a vote was to protect nooobs from being raked over the coals (the good old days.)

Everyone will have a different opinion on RFA vs UFA value but when it’s relatively close as is, just let it pass.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Everyone has different definitions of "close" though which is where the subjectivity comes in.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Either way with people switching their vote, this one passes.