DET/WAS

[jamesredwings]

D Dmitri. Orlov (62 consistency), Nicklas Backstrom (77) + Nikolai Zherdev (50) + Los Angeles' 2011 first rounder to Detroit

for Pavel Datsyuk (80)+ Ricard Blidstrand (74) to Washington

Gives me a 3rd first round pick and 3 young guys to fill my lineup. Orlov is only 19 and has some potential, Backstrom is good, Zherdev is what he is.

[CapsGM]

To Detroit:
F Nicklas Backstrom (77)
D Dmitri Orlov (62)
F Nikolai Zherdev (50)
Los Angeles' first round pick in 2011 (19th overall)

To Washington:
F Pavel Datsyuk (77)
D Ricard Blidstrand (74)

I really need some veteran starpower to play with AO. As one of the top centers in the game, Datsyuk fills that role perfectly. Backstrom is the main piece going back. Losing his superb playmaking ability and his great contract sucks, but the playoffs revealed my team's true colours and a shake-up was necessary.

Zherdev isn't just "what he is", he's a solid two-way winger that can contribute 60 points (when he feels like it).

[Virtual Jarmo]

Ruling coming shortly. Much deliberation ongoing.

[Virtual Jarmo]

After a lot of deliberation over the last few days, the Committee has voted to reject this proposed deal by 2/3 Committee vote.

I might as well post our reasoning here rather than do the whole PM thing because it took us so long to decide on this trade. At the end of the day, there were three sticking points to this deal. One was the inclusion of Zherdev as a salary dump and another was the inclusion of Blidstrand. The other was somewhat unrelated to the players in this specific deal but highly relevant to the overall value of Pavel Datsyuk.

First, Nik Zherdev. Zherdev is clearly in here for salary purposes. Despite his 78 OF, he posted just 42 points in 75 games (over $113,000 per point). Regardless of where he was playing, his CON is clearly a contributing factor to his underachieving. To the Committee, this is a clear case of a GM attempting to get out of a horrible contract without giving the GM anything in return for taking on the contract and the unpredictable nature of Zherdev.

Second, Ricard Blidstrand. Blidstrand's inclusion is, in large part, the deal breaker. Considering the apparent strength of this year's draft, Blidstrand is roughly equal to the 19th pick that is included in this deal. Blidstrand projects to 59 OF 77 DF, with an above average CON. His value is on par with that first round pick. With his significantly higher CON and much better HI, as EHM is driven by the HI stat, that makes Blidstrand superior to Orlov and why these two were not compared value-wise.

Which then makes the trade Backstrom + Zherdev + Orlov for Pavel Datsyuk, one of the best two-way players in the game.

Comparatively, for the third point, we also looked at the Henrik Zetterberg deal. While Anaheim might have slightly overpaid for Zetterberg, the Perry + ANA 1st (10th overall) + Sbisa return was a very solid package for Zetterberg. Datsyuk is every bit as good of a player as Zetterberg. If you compare the two returns, they aren't even close. If we equate Backstrom and Perry, in no way is the 10th pick + Sbisa even close to the 19th pick + Orlov. In summation, the value is not there for Datsyuk, so we came to the decision to reject this trade.

As per the Rulebook, the two parties can attempt to re-work the trade with the same core one more time.

Please keep any further discussion to private message.

[jamesredwings]

Ok we will rework deal. Thanks for explanation because it helps alot on reworking the deal

[CapsGM]

We'll try it again.

To Detroit:
F Nicklas Backstrom (77)
D Dmitri Orlov (62)
F Nikolai Zherdev (50)
Los Angeles' first round pick in 2011 (19th overall)
Columbus' second round pick in 2011 (58th overall)

To Washington:
F Pavel Datsyuk (77)
Detroit's fifth round pick in 2011 (121st overall)

We felt it was best to drop Blidstrand entirely from the trade due to the Committee's emphasis on his inclusion. The swap of the new picks adds value to the deal as well as giving Detroit an added asset for now having to cover Zherdev's contract.

[jamesredwings]

Accepted. Again Backstrom is a good young player and the rest deepens the talent on my very weak team

[Montreal Canadiens]

In which that team gets even weaker by moving Datsyuk lol.

[jamesredwings]

Thanks now I feel much better

[GoJetsGo]

Thanks now I feel much better

It's not meant to be mean, even if it comes off that way.

For Zetterberg, you got Perry, #10 and Sbisa.
For Kovalchuk, I received.. Colborne, (#15) Forbort, and (#30) Campbell

Backstrom's a nice start, but 19, a late second, and a 60 consistency defenseman doesn't quite match up.

[Penguin]

Give James a chance to try things out. The trade on paper is not that bad at all... Backstrom and a 1st.

[Jets GM]

Ya and come on guys, posting in trade threads that dont involve your team is being a punk.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I know I shouldn't, but I found it quite ironic.

He was stating his team is "very weak".....if that's the case....then you would want to keep your best player and one of the top 5 players in the game but....

It's like if I said my goaltending sucks and my NHL starting goalie is Tobais Stephan because I elected to deal away Price and Halak.

[Jets GM]

His best player who will be 35 when his new best player Adam Larsson is 20. He's getting a guy with the playmaking ability of Gretzky and is 23 y/o, so he's going to improve DEF over the next few seasons still. I would say even Backstrom + 1st for Dats is fair, no one was in such an uproar when Dave buttraped MIN so hard. That MIN/CAR is a lot more unfair as the second trade proposed here imo. The Committee is obv super fair and will make the best decision, but to go out of your way and post in a trade thread criticizing another GM for how he's running his team (especially a new GM in times where good GM's are scarce in EHM land) is bad etiquette and a bitch move.

[SharksGM]

I actually wish someone had commented on the various trades MIN made because he lost every single one of them (including Burns) and that team is just awful now. I'd rather have people show "bad form" by commenting on trades than just let novice GMs get ripped off and create perennial basement dwellers. Yes, the committee is there to prevent outright larceny, but they can't and shouldn't be tasked with rejecting every slightly inbalanced trade.

Beyond that it would be nice if GMs took posting their reasoning a little more seriously and justified things like why a trade involving one of the top players in the league needs to also include offloading one of the worst contracts in the league as well. It's pretty telling when in the first two posts Zherdev is alternately described as "is what he is" and "a solid two-way winger".

[CapsGM]

I'd like to clear up some (what I think are) misconceptions about Zherdev. No one will probably listen or care, but honey badger don't give a shit.

How much is he actually overpaid by? IRL in 2009 he was awarded $3.9M in arbitration. I'm not sure if he was awarded a one or two year contract, but if the Rangers accepted (yeah, yeah, there's a reason why NYR walked away), his contract would have been up by now. He's currently at 78OF/74DF = 76OA (I think in the fastsim his attributes may add to 77, which puts him in a higher bracket). With the new EHEC financial policy (and he would still be eligible as an 27-and-under contract rather than an EHEC arbitration award if he wasn't signed for five more years), he would receive a 25% raise in base salary ($3.9M * 1.25 = $4.875M). With skating and endurance over 80 and a less-than-65 devaluation for consistency, he would receive a net of $100K in bonuses, bringing his salary to $4.975M > the $4.75M he's receiving now. Going by his 2009 qualifying offer of $3.25M, he would make $4.16M under our system. Maybe the GM would walk away from paying Zherdev $4M and he'd become a UFA. In that case, I'd probably be the one bidding his salary up to $4.75M. Is it a big deal that he's overpaid by $.5M-$1M? The biggest issue with his current contract is that he's signed for another four years, but it's not like he's making Gomez/Drury/Campbell money.

To acquire Datsyuk, Zherdev has to go to make the money work. Otherwise I'd have to cut $10M this off-season rather than $5M. What are my other options? I'm obviously not moving the $5M of Jokinen or Green because they have much greater trade value. The next (and only other viable) option for salary balance would have been to include Komisarek ($4.5M for two more years), but he forms a vital part of my defensive core and allows Green and Markov to better use their offensive abilities (thinly veiled brag about having two 80+OF defensemen).

Finally - Zherdev's CON and his stats these last two seasons. My team as a whole was pretty average offensively this year. Check out my team stats and you'll notice my best forwards having mediocre seasons aside from Olli Jokinen. Milan Hejduk posted 49 points, Nicklas Backstrom had 46 (down 30 from last year {Committee, I hope that doesn't affect your value of him}). AO had enormous struggles by his standards throughout the season and couldn't crack 70 points (21 less than last year). Backstrom and Hejduk had slightly more PP time and often played on the top line with Jokinen and Ovechkin, while Zherdev's linemates were most often Jarret Stoll and Brian Boyle (although Backstrom was centering him for the first quarter of the season - ironically, they both produced at a much higher pace during that time).

Zherdev's production was quite consistent with my other complementary forwards (as in, not Ovechkin), and I expected less offense considering my emphasis on defensive responsibility from the entire team this year. I ran NZT/H&G/H&G/NZT most of the year, occasionally having the top line on passing plays. With his above average defensive abilities, Zherdev was versatile enough to play on any of those lines, the powerplay, and the penalty kill, while producing at a similar clip as the "consistent" forwards and maintaining a solid +15. If I employed a more offensive strategy like I did in 2010, or if Zherdev is given more ice time and plays a bigger offensive role in James' system next year, I don't see why he couldn't keep up the 20 goals/60 points he posted in EHEC last year (and the two years before that, but what happens IRL doesn't exactly transfer to EHM).

[Virtual Jarmo]

To Justin's point, yeah, the Koivu deal was terrible, but the Burns deal was way worse. Fact is, those are two screw-ups by us and they are brought up for comparison purposes every single time that a trade gets posted. Every day I look at EHEC and regret both of those trades. Both were oversights on the Committee's part. There's no way around it. They're both extremely lopsided and both were mistakes.

To Dan's point, I agree. Especially in a trade like this where you have a rebuilding team like Detroit trading away his best player and adding on mediocre parts like Zherdev and Orlov. It may be unfair to compare this to the Zetterberg deal like I did in the original rejection, but that's a baseline. Also, like Tommy pointed out, the Kovalchuk deal. This trade is under different circumstances and there's a good chance that DET can use that 19th pick to move up in the Draft. These are things that we cannot 100% consider when deliberating, but how much credence we give it when evaluating the trade is unclear. That's one of the issues of ruling on trades.

The whole thing about Zherdev is trying to figure out what value we assign to a bad contract. In the NHL, a Zherdev-esque contract might get unloaded for a 4th round pick. With EHM, how do we establish what he is worth in a league with a new financial policy and a TBD Salary Cap. Also, with so many people adopting H&G and NZT lines like Tim described, the value of a player like Zherdev is down. I know I'm going to put restrictions in place on H&G, but at what point do I force teams to open up the game and limit NZT? I can't necessarily do that. I could have used the 90-90-10-10 H&G/NZT/H&G/NZT in the playoffs but I felt it was wrong to do that as the Commissioner.

On some level, I'm fucking tired of trying to compensate for everything EHM sucks at. On another level, I'm fucking tired of EHM being inadequate and I'd feel like I was doing a disservice to the league and what we stand for if I didn't try everything in my power to compensate for what EHM can't do. Some of you have said that enough is enough, but everyday something else comes up. I think that's what sets the league apart- the fact that the Committee and I have been willing to put in the time and effort to change things.

But, with trades and player value, there's so much objectivity that it's to the point where unless it's a blatant rip-off, how can we reject it?

[Jets GM]

Since its acknowledged those two deals were accepted in a different time for the league in terms of criteria for a deal to be acceptable, then going forward maybe switching to a PM system rather then posting trades on the boards would be a good idea. Avoiding threads like these, where GM's are criticized after working hard to come to an agreement and rejected deals are kept in private. Adam imo is right, trades that can look lopsided or unfair now can look different in seasons down the road. Getting a deal rejected is really not fun and I think the Committee does a great job of avoiding it at all costs.

When it comes to new (or any) GM being taken advantage of in a trade, at some level isn't that what making trades is all about? IIRC, when Brian Burke was asked about the Phaneuf trade with CGY (talk about lopsided) if he thought he was getting the better side of it after it was announced. "Of course I do, thats what this about. Both guys are on other ends of the phone thinking 'I can't believe he's giving player X up for player Y" and then you get the find out who was right." I think EHEC has a friendly competitive atmosphere with some real camaraderie between long time GM's, but still competitive is the keyword. Were all trying to win, I don't think I have ever made a trade where I knew I was getting the worst of it in all aspects (current, future, $ etc.). That's why I find it in bad taste to post in a trade thread, trying to create negative feedback and get a deal rejected.

[Montreal Canadiens]

In certain circumstances I have completely made trades knowing I was getting the "short" end of the stick. The Markov deal comes to mind for me. There's been a few in other leagues as well. I wasn't trying to say he wasn't getting full value for Datsyuk....but was just weird the way he was explaining.

For the record, I think I did say something about both MIN deals. Koivu and Burns. But what's done is done, can't be perfect.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Handling trades via PM and simply having them announced isn't a terrible idea. I'm trying to think of negatives to it. I'm sure I'll come up with some, but definitely something to consider. It is definitely a bit embarrassing to have a trade rejected, especially if you are a GM who has had multiple ones rejected.

What would suck for me is keeping track of them without them posted on the boards.

[jamesredwings]

For what it's worth, I think you are doing a fine job. Wouldn't trade you or the committee (except for another #1 draft pick... )

I don't mind the posting (hey I love controversy!). It's being done with respect. People are just voicing their opinion.

I was getting bored before this happened

[Penguin]

90-90-10-10 wouldn't work well!

Gooooooooo Pens Gooooooo

[Virtual Jarmo]

90-90-10-10 wouldn't work well!

Gooooooooo Pens Gooooooo

Won Tampa the Cup last year.

[Penguin]

90-90-10-10 wouldn't work well!

Gooooooooo Pens Gooooooo

Won Tampa the Cup last year.

[Virtual Jarmo]

To clarify, this trade is still under discussion.

The major point of contention has been this. Based on the rumblings I have heard from other GMs, and James (DET) himself, there are some questions about which direction Detroit is going in. The hardest part for us as Committee is finding a way to rule on a trade where the GM's philosophy is not clear. Zetterberg was traded at the deadline. Datsyuk trade is pending. But then, James makes the move for Elias and then I hear some of the other things that I have heard. The unclear philosophy dictates our impressions of the trade.

Value is objective. Taking futures has more value to a rebuilding team, but it appears Detroit is not rebuilding. That, therefore, changes the value of what they get in a package. This is why it's always been said that you cannot rebuild and contend at the same time.

I know that our job is to judge based on the players in the trade and if the trade is even in that respect. But, like I said, value is objective. In this case, it's not clear cut in the slightest.

In this case, the trade has very little in the form of futures, which it why it will ultimately be accepted, though with some apprehension.

I know that some people can criticize us for being too critical of a trade or trying to have too much influence over the game. But, we want to get things right. The aforementioned MIN trades were learning curves for us. Those trades are brought up all the time and thrown in our faces. And rightly so.

The overall point is probably this, we need a better explanation as to why you are making a trade. We want your perspective. Not having to make sense of a trade on our own goes a long way in getting it approved.

[jamesredwings]

Ok here is the explanation

Elias was a temporary move to quote commissionner <I still have to put a team on the ice> until first overall and 10th overall pick can play (especially since Datsyuk is going to leave eventually). Mirko H. and D Teubert could go one on one in that trade or close.

Therefore I moved down by gaving up 2nd round and got 3rd + Elias in return. Why is everyone saying that trade is bad? With the draft being just ok, I think this is another good move for Detroit. Come trading deadline, Elias he could be moved for a 2012 pick.

Now for Dats : Zets for Correy Perry, D Luca Sbisa and 1st round Ana 2011 pick will not happen with Dats.

Backstrom is young (25), with a great contract (super value $$$) and will be a good fit with Perry on 1st line with Elias until 1st overall pick can squeeze in. 19th overall pick is good. Orlov is either a very good AHL player or a 3rd line D with powerplay potential.

I will give you Zherdev but I would take his offense on the second line since I have no second line. I wish his contract was lower with 4 years left but Was wouldn't do the deal without him. That would be my only regret.

I'd love to trade Umberger, Mcdonald, Mckee, Murray for late draft picks to make way for younger guys and free cap space too to absorb Zherdev.

Future :
Backstrom - Elias - Perry
10th overall - 1st overall - Zherdev
Backlund - Emmerton - 19th overall
4th liners - Helm , etc

Sbisa-Mitchell
Grant - Boynton
Poti - Orlov/Teubert/Mckee/too many good D's

Reminder :

To Detroit:
F Nicklas Backstrom (77)
D Dmitri Orlov (62)
F Nikolai Zherdev (50)
Los Angeles' first round pick in 2011 (19th overall)
Columbus' second round pick in 2011 (58th overall)

To Washington:
F Pavel Datsyuk (77)
Detroit's fifth round pick in 2011 (121st overall)

Hope this helps

[Virtual Jarmo]

So there is a method to the madness...

Thanks for the explanation, James.

[jamesredwings]

Soory i put Backlund as LW but I meant tarasenko

[Femur]

i am posting in someone else's trade thread, and you can't stop me. go hawks go!

[Virtual Jarmo]

After this gigantic shitshow, this trade has been approved by 2/3 Committee vote.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Inputted.