Should it be vetoed or not?

[mxpxillini35]

The keeper league was in its first year and at the end of the year we would keep 1 player for 4 years, 1 for 3, and 1 for 2. You cant rekeep a player at the end of their contract but only trade them or lose them to the draft. (See Starting a Pool Rules #2)

Goalies are a premium in this league because GP/W/SV%/SA/SV/GAA/GA/SO are the cats for goalies.

To Team A:
Gaborik (while he was just coming off injury)
Afinegenov
Sakic

To Team B:
Marty Turco and Marc Savard AFTER the season ended.
*Apparently 3 other low producers were sent over, apparently all finished in the 50pt range at the end of the season. I don\'t know if they were that good, but the basic jist was to even up the roster slots (it\'s a yahoo league). The 3 bottom tiers sent over would never be kept or hold any value to Team B.

Trade happened early-mid February maybe, but before the NHL trade deadline. Essentially Team A is in 2nd-4th (tight race) and fighting to get at least into 2nd to pick up the 2nd bye playoff spot. Team B is well out of the running and in roughly 8th-10th place at the time of the trade.

Essentially Team A gets the above mentioned players and keeps Turco and Savard until the end of the fantasy season. Turco and Savard will be sent to Team B at the end of the season so that Team B has worthwhile keepers.

Team B only had Kovalchuk as a definite keeper and Team A had a good amount of secondary keepers to choose from, with Brodeur as a solid goalie keeper.

FINALLY...the question...
Should I have vetoed this trade or not?
Is it ok to have one team send players over immediately, with another team sending the compensating players at a later date?

Thanks!

-Freddy

[Thieving Giraffe]

I think that you were right to veto. \'Future considerations\" are okay if we\'re talking draft picks, but timing player trades in the way you describe could quickly get out of hand.

[Shoeless]

:blink: I guess the question you have is that now Turco and Savard are making their way through the trade mill to finish the deal whether to veto.

Tough situation because by all standards the first action should have been vetoed simply on the basis of collusion - 3 sausages for Sakic, Gabbie and Afinogenov - not today. Now I guess 2 sausages for Turco and Savard.

To only veto the back end will certainly create an injustice for 1 of the teams - although rightly so - the other should get hit as well. But how?

Messy!

Clearly the whole deal is unethical by any fantasy hockey standards. Vetoable without question and I am very reticent to veto anything. Perhaps for the sake of the league and fair play - all the players should be returned to their original team and it made clear that such activity is not kosher and shouldn\'t happen in the future. The rest of the league has to accept some responsibility here for allowing the front end of this thing to go through. So I guess I would not make a federal case out of it and run the risk of the league falling apart.

Actually if you don\'t have much of a stake in the league you might just walk away. There are lots of leagues out there where things are played straight.

[Stannic]

mxpxillini35 wrote:

Essentially Team A gets the above mentioned players and keeps Turco and Savard until the end of the fantasy season. Turco and Savard will be sent to Team B at the end of the season so that Team B has worthwhile keepers.

Yes it should be. For the reason that there is obvious collusion there.