Originally Posted by gfunkb7

I strongly disagree on a few things:
1) Justifying an offer doesn't mean the offer is a bad one in the first place. If you place higher value of a player only because of his name, my JOB, in order to the trade done, is to extract the plus-value on name and generate the real value. If the other GM accepts right off the bat, that means my offer would have been too low. It's the basics of negotiations - each party trying to close the gap. If the majority of you would say it's not even close, then yes, I shall recraft the trade. It seems like this trade has place to interpretation, though.

2) When you look at the facts, his team is not in good posture. Therefore, I put myself in the other GM's shoes and ask myself:"is it worth giving up Ovechkin, lose couple of 1st rounders but improving two other keepers (while also receiving D. Sedin) in exchange of not having to go under complete rebuild and have my chances of competing sooner than 3 years from now and perhaps making playoffs as soon as this year?"

3) You're making it seem like I'm pointing a gun to his head to accept the deal. I have yet to discuss this deal with him, even though I sent the offer. My perception of his team is that he should rebuild but opted to have a compete-now strategy. I've never insinuated that he should run his team whatever way. I'm simply pondering on what type of offer to send considering what his plans seems to be, for him.

Statistically speaking, I doubt Ovechkin is worth my top three (pick three out of five). You wanna place value on a name, like most people would do? Fine, but I'm crunching numbers and it's not worth it.