Some advice for a league commish please

[optimus_rhyme]

Hey everyone,

So I'm commish in a keeper - stats are:
G A +/- PP
GS W GAA Sv%

Keep as many as you want for $5.
11 team league
Roster spots are:
3 c, 3 rw, 3 lw, 4 d, 2 G, 4 bench

So there has been an argument to veto a trade. A similar form of the trade has been veto'd twice already. After that I told the managers I would allow it if Team B sent over a first rounder and this is the trade they just came up with:
Team A in last place
couture benn plekanec, vanek, clowe schenn and a 16th

for

Team B in 6th
grabovski, zajac, van riemsdyk, saku koivu, carter, holtby, and a fifth.

Many managers have stated collusion for the reason to veto possibly because both managers are brothers. Of the 11 managers in the league, 7 have asked for it to be veto'd/

Any advice/help is welcome.

[Axeman33]

Any time these types of deals happen, you are always going to have people yapping. You as the commish have to do whats best for the leagues longevity. Its obvious that your league isnt afraid to veto deals so what I would do is get both GMs to explain their reasoning for making the deal. After you hear from both, do what you think is best for the league. As it stands right now, you are already in a position to fail and are going to piss someone off, whether its the masses who are yapping because they dont like the deal, or the brothers who are making the deal.

I am never one for vetoing a deal, but if you feel collusion is going on then I cant see why you wouldnt shit-can this one, just like you have previous deals.

[Kofax]

I agree with axeman, in that I never like to veto a deal.

In our league, all trades are open to discussion. If 2 managers object, the trade is put to a vote and majority rules. In my league, with 7 managers asking to veto, we would not allow the trade.

We have had a few lopsided trades where a few managers voiced their displeasure and we had a vote. I argued heavily that the trade was terrible, but should be allowed because both managers thought they were doing what's best for their team. I think the most vetos we recieved was 3 or 4 out of 11, so they passed.

As some persepective, the one guy who we thought was getting jobbed ended up winning the league last year, while the other guy seems to have a stacked team on paper, but has never pushed past 3rd. So you never know. You have to put personal biases aside and play the game.

The fact that they are brothers and this is a money league makes it difficult. I think you do what Axeman suggested and get each of them to state their case as to why they are making this trade and why it will better their team. If Team A can't give you a reasonable response, you have to veto.

[Gaborlick]

IMO there is no real reason not to do the trade, It looks ok to me, even in a keeper. you have to let them do it.

I don't know why Team A would make the trade, but that's up to him I guess.


We setup trade judges, three judges, one acts as a commissioner. These judges are voted by the GM's before each season. They make all trade decisions if 2 or more complaints about a trade are presented.

[gainerama]

On paper the trade is somewhat explainable but everyone knows there's something going on since there's no incentive for Team A to accept that offer unless that GM is a complete moron or plans on quitting the league. You could squash that deal or you can risk having the other 7 managers quit the league at the end of the year. It's a tough call and there's no real way to make everyone happy with this one. Normally I would never veto a deal without clear proof of collusion but the imbalance that this deal will create in your league will probably choke any type of parity going forward. If I was one of the other managers, I would probably quit the league myself if this went through.