The trade makes little sense to me but the team who is supposed to be receiving Pronger in the deal is very upset that I vetoed it. I feel justified though because there is obviously a reason Pronger is rated 24 and Naslund is rated 110. Naslund is old and the back end of his career, Prongers probably going to do better in every category except for goals and he plays defense which makes him more valuable considering there are several wingers who will put up similar numbers to Naslund but only 1 or 2 defenseman who can match Pronger's output. The owner giving up Pronger has no hope of getting out of last place and is friends with the other owner.
2007-10-29 16:02:10 · 8 answers · asked by Shane M 2 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Pronger had one less point than Naslund last year but he also played 66 games whereas Naslund played 82.
Also the guy trying to trade Pronger has no hope of getting out of last place because he is not managing his team. He drafted Niedermayer, Straka, Forsberg and Souray and stilll has them all. The only move he made was signing in to do this trade.
2007-10-29 18:15:03 · update #1
I'd disagree with your contention that Pronger will do as well as Naslund in most categories. In each of the past two seasons, Naslund has had more points than Pronger, and the same will probably happen this year.
The problem has to do with positional value, though. Like you said, there are many wingers who could match Naslund's value, but few defensemen as valuable as Pronger. Also, the relationship between the two owners might lead one to think of collusion, which to me means an automatic veto.
I've got no problem with bad trades, but this sounds too much collusion used to prop up one team at the expense of another. I think you made the right call in vetoing the deal.
2007-10-29 16:49:03 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Naslund is improving but Pronger is a top d man.
as for some of his other players Niedermeyer is questionable, Forsburg is gone, souray will probably be back, Straka I think is back. Pronger is getting up there in years too and he does play on a kick *** team. The last part clinched it though friends with the other owner...NO trade if he gives up a scrub d man then let it go through.
2007-10-30 02:14:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course that person would be upset. Getting the 3rd ranked D-man for the 21st ranked RW is a steal. I do find it hard to believe that the owner giving up Pronger has no hope of getting out of last this early in the season. Normally I don't believe in saving owners from themselves, but if what you describe is true, it sounds like collusion and should be vetoed.
Edit: I am agreeing with you. Since you're the commish, just lock the guy out if he doesn't participate.
2007-10-29 18:00:40 · answer #3 · answered by Laying Low- Not an Ivy Leaguer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a totally uneven deal, but I don't know if you have the right to veto based on that alone. Unless you think that the two fantasy owners are conspiring to get the one guy to win or something like that. But, to a certain extent, when you join a hockey pool, you have to expect (and put up with) at least some stupidity from someone.
2007-10-30 10:03:18 · answer #4 · answered by jpaultk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a fair trade. I'm not sure I agree entirely about vetoes but it should take half the league to shut it down regardless of what you do. Just remember, what goes around. . . well you know.
2007-10-29 16:49:54 · answer #5 · answered by PuckDat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no way- keep naslund
2007-10-30 00:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by Siggy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dont. canucks are sucking this season.
2007-11-02 15:31:10 · answer #7 · answered by lacrosse hero 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!
2007-10-30 07:02:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋