PLEASE comment on Hertl VS Giroux!!!

[Daddio]

Don't you see something wrong with vetoing a deal that was done in good faith?

Exactly. The only thing the committee and veto really accomplished was to alienate two of your owners. They should demand everyone else's trades from now to whenever this league ultimately blows up, (it's off to a good start in that direction precisely because of this IMO), be similarly challenged.

[horrorfan]

Exactly. The only thing the committee and veto really accomplished was to alienate two of your owners. They should demand everyone else's trades from now to whenever this league ultimately blows up, (it's off to a good start in that direction precisely because of this IMO), be similarly challenged.

Yep.

trades like that cannot happen for the teams and league well being

Vetoing deals in good faith (regardless on how one-sided it's perceived) does far more damage then letting these deals happen. If you don't like those deals, then either boot those 'inexperienced' managers out, educate them or find another league.

Not that I would ever be in a league with a trade committee but if I were and this happened, you'd be looking for another manager because I'd be out in a hurry. Especially if I were involved in that deal.

[agoodburn]

I agree with the majority. It's a terrible terrible deal, but if both parties made the deal in good faith then I don't think you can veto it. If I was the Giroux and Hertl owners I would be demanding a better trade offer for my guy from anyone who wanted it vetoed.
Is the trade committee going to veto trades after say a month or even 2 years if the players in them didn't produce/develop as expected?

[HockeyHippie]

I'm one for never vetoing a trade, I mean NEVER but ya wow that is way to one sided. Almost like the guys little brother got a hold of his account. Also there is no guilt in fantasy hockey lol, If I could do that I would make fun of the guy I ripped off FOREVER.

This is my position as well. I have only vetoed 1 trade in my 6+ years as a Commish, and it was blatantly a "integrity of the league" scenario.

In this case, it's a horrible, horrible trade, but I wouldn't veto it. I know this sounds ridiculous, but unless the person acquiring Hertl is age 14 or under and just doesn't know any better (and then I would veto it), they should be mercilessly ripped for such a horrible deal, but I would hope GM's learn from this kind of thing and become better.

[HockeyHippie]

If there is no collusion, then the trade should stand. It's that simple.

If you feel you must take action, chuck the GM - not the trade.

Again, my position exactly.

[HockeyHippie]

Exactly. The only thing the committee and veto really accomplished was to alienate two of your owners. They should demand everyone else's trades from now to whenever this league ultimately blows up, (it's off to a good start in that direction precisely because of this IMO), be similarly challenged.

Exactly my point.

my position is "You can't veto stupid."

[Reuben]

I'd usually side with the group that says you shouldn't veto trades unless there's collusion...but I'm willing to make an exception in this case.

Given it's the first year of the league, and knowing the mentality we had in the first year of our league, it's not a bad thing to tell a GM that a deal isn't worth it.

The first few weeks, months in a keeper league can be a really new and bizarre thing for a lot of guys. Sometimes it's just the thrill of being able to trade guys for the first time..sometimes it's the simple misunderstanding that a keeper league is far different than a one-year league.

This is a pretty bad trade. And no matter what the mentality was (ie-the one GM really, really thinks Hertl is the real deal), it's just not a strong deal whatsoever.

Part of me says to let the Giroux GM learn the hard way, but a bigger part of me says to learn him by telling him why it's been nixed.

In two weeks, when Giroux is back scoring and Hertl has cooled off, maybe you can re-visit with the GM why it wasn't a solid trade offer.

[fungchen3]

This is a keeper league right?

Would anyone be in favor of a veto if the deal was:

Grioux for MacKinnon

Giroux for Drouin

Giroux for Yakupov

Giroux for Barkov

or better yet...

Giroux for McDavid (in a league where anyone is open for draft)?

I think some people are missing the whole point here.

[Reuben]

What point am I missing?

Your point is that you think Hertl is a legit 65-70pt guy. That's fine.

Your point is that sometimes its okay to throw a decent guy away on a full-on, could-be-awesome prospect. I get that.

But Giroux, despite a slow start, has a 90pt season under his belt already and is a legit PPG guy.

Comparing Hertl, right now, to MacKinnon, Drouin, Yakupov, Barkov (all top-2 picks) or McDavid (arguably the next great one) is ridiculous.

Why don't you go with Giroux for Monahan. He's got four goals in five games. Would you be okay with that?

Giroux is a top-10 player being traded for a guy who's a good prospect having a hot streak. I think, given the league is two weeks old, that its okay to veto this and explain why. If the guy wants to do the deal (or something similar) in a month, so be it.

If this is a league that's 3,4,8 years old...well, then you need to consider getting a new GM. But in a new league, these kind of deals get proposed. And it's okay to explain why they shouldn't happen.

I don't like Yahoo having these "no-cut lists", but there's a reason they do. Some players shouldn't be moved for nothing (or close to nothing). And that's what this deal is.

And look, Fungchen. I agree with much of what you said earlier in the thread.

I LOVE being the guy who takes a chance on young bucks. I've done my share of dumb deals to get those guys...and a lot of the time, it hasn't worked out. So I'm okay with that. But this is a touch above and beyond, given who Giroux is and the fact Hertl is four games into his career.

[fungchen3]

What point am I missing?

Well, the first point that a fantasy hockey league shouldn't be a dictatorship where a "committee" gets to veto deals they don't personally like, even though there was no foul play. These vetoed deals always strike me as a few grumpy, jealous owners who are upset that they didn't draft a kid like Hertl and now have the opportunity to deal him for a more proven asset during a hot streak (in a fair, meaning no collusion, deal).

The next one is, if you are going to veto "proven vs. prospect" deals, it shouldn't matter if the prospect is MacKinnon, Drouin, Monahan or Hertl. I mean, what PROOF do we have that Hertl won't end up every bit as good as the other guys? Draft position? Let's not forget that Giroux was drafted 22nd overall.

The final point that keeps getting overlooked is that this is a keeper league. If an owner wants to trade for a prospect because he thinks he will be a future star, why shouldn't he be able to build his team the way he wishes? Because you (or, in this case, a committee) say so? What happens if Giroux already had his "career year" and is a steady 74-80 point guy from now on and Hertl ends up the next Pavel Datsyuk or Martin St. Louis? Does the committee just offer the Giroux owner an apology and say "oopsie!"?

To me, this boils down to control - nothing more, nothing less. And not in a good way.

[Reuben]

Well, the first point that a fantasy hockey league shouldn't be a dictatorship where a "committee" gets to veto deals they don't personally like, even though there was no foul play. These vetoed deals always strike me as a few grumpy, jealous owners who are upset that they didn't draft a kid like Hertl and now have the opportunity to deal him for a more proven asset during a hot streak (in a fair, meaning no collusion, deal).

The next one is, if you are going to veto "proven vs. prospect" deals, it shouldn't matter if the prospect is MacKinnon, Drouin, Monahan or Hertl. I mean, what PROOF do we have that Hertl won't end up every bit as good as the other guys? Draft position? Let's not forget that Giroux was drafted 22nd overall.

The final point that keeps getting overlooked is that this is a keeper league. If an owner wants to trade for a prospect because he thinks he will be a future star, why shouldn't he be able to build his team the way he wishes? Because you (or, in this case, a committee) say so? What happens if Giroux already had his "career year" and is a steady 74-80 point guy from now on and Hertl ends up the next Pavel Datsyuk or Martin St. Louis? Does the committee just offer the Giroux owner an apology and say "oopsie!"?

To me, this boils down to control - nothing more, nothing less. And not in a good way.

That's fair enough.

My point is more that in the early stages of a keeper league, some guys simply do not clue in to how valuable certain types of players are vs how potentially valuable others are.

This is all second-nature to you, me, most of the guys on the forum because we've been in keeper pools for years. But some guys getting into these things - and this is two weeks into this particular keeper - have no clue.

That's more the point I'm making. If this happens in one of my leagues or your leagues - screw it, the trade goes ahead. The Giroux GM should know better.

But in the first two weeks of a keeper league, I can't help thinking that the Giroux owner is still coming to grips with how valuable a young PPG player like Giroux is. That's the only reason why I can think of why you'd make this deal.

Because you're still learning that there are actually only a dozen (or so) PPG guys a year....and only 25-30 that hit 70pts (or whatever the numbers are).

Four years ago, when we started our points-only league, I figured a 60pt guy was a dime-a-dozen. They're not.

I figured 70pt guys were fairly common. They're not.

I was a hockey fan. But I wasn't a fantasy hockey guy - and there's a difference.

In the early stages of a keeper, I think you're better off telling the GM(s) involved in a trade like this - "Look, there are 10 guys a year who are 80pt guys. There are maybe, what, 20 guys total in the league right now who have had 90+ point seasons at some stage...and Giroux is one of them. As a result - and you get this one warning - we're overturning the trade. But you've been warned. If you make another trade like this, it goes ahead."

But that's just me. I can imagine a lot of other guys would disagree.

And, as I said, I'm not a fan of overruling trades. But in the early, early stages of a keeper - and a trade like this - I don't think it's a bad thing.

And yes, I get your point that Hertl could actually be the next great mid-first-round pick. And, yes, if the trade is overruled (and it has been), you run that risk as the commissioner.

But I think it's more likely that this is simply a slighly naive new GM dangling an ice-cold vet for the hot new thing.

[als_revenge]

In the early stages of a keeper, I think you're better off telling the GM(s) involved in a trade like this - "Look, there are 10 guys a year who are 80pt guys. There are maybe, what, 20 guys total in the league right now who have had 90+ point seasons at some stage...and Giroux is one of them. As a result - and you get this one warning - we're overturning the trade. But you've been warned. If you make another trade like this, it goes ahead."

I'm not sure how that makes any sense. Because the OP has already said that even after the trade was veto'ed, the Giroux owner was disappointed. Even after being "enlightened" by the veto'ers, he still wanted Hertl.

[Thejem]

I subscribe to the theory that only a deal where there is collusion is one that should be nixed.
Incompetence doesn't = collusion. Him being in the league is the problem, an owner has the right to do what he wants as long as he's not trying to screw the league in any way.

[Reuben]

I'm not sure how that makes any sense. Because the OP has already said that even after the trade was veto'ed, the Giroux owner was disappointed. Even after being "enlightened" by the veto'ers, he still wanted Hertl.

Of course he'd be disappointed. He wanted the trade to go thru. He thinks Hertl is the real thing. And another goal tonight probably makes him think Hertl remains the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But that might change in two weeks time.

I'm not expecting most guys to agree with me on this. And, as I've said in the thread, I'm not a fan of vetoing trades.

But honestly, in this case (brand new league with brand new GMs) I think vetoing isn't a bad thing.

[Mattp913]

Of course he'd be disappointed. He wanted the trade to go thru. He thinks Hertl is the real thing. And another goal tonight probably makes him think Hertl remains the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But that might change in two weeks time.

I'm not expecting most guys to agree with me on this. And, as I've said in the thread, I'm not a fan of vetoing trades.

But honestly, in this case (brand new league with brand new GMs) I think vetoing isn't a bad thing.

What if Giroux sustains a career ending injury in a few weeks? Would you still be in favor of this veto? Is that fair to the Giroux owner that tried to trade him for Hertl? The point is that no one knows what's going to happen and people that veto trades are saying they know for sure that it's way one sided. But no one actually knows how it's going to turn out for sure...it's just based on people's opinion. So the Giroux owner has a "wrong" opinion.