Does This Owner Have The Right To Be Pissed?

[garethbush]

So in my keeper league there's now a rule where each trade has a 48 hour window afterward where the league has the option to vote on a veto of the trade, provided the majority of the league votes it unreasonably lopsided with an explanation attached to your vote.

This is a 12 team multi-cat keeper league (details in sig).

The trade was:

Nicklas Backstrom
Alex Goligoski
2nd round prospect/FA pick (Tarasenko & Grigorenko were my 2nd rounders this past year)

for

Michael Ryder
Brandon Sutter

Unsurprisingly the league wanted to overturn it, and the owner who was to trade Backstrom actually cancelled the trade himself during the 48 hour period due to Ryder being dealt. The other owner is livid, and says the 48 hour period is BS.

Does he have a right to be pissed? Help settle an argument.

[rjfisher83]

Seems like the Backstrom/Goligoski side is the better side BY FAR. If that owner didn't cancel it, I'm sure your league would have vetoed it (and I don't disagree).

The guy that was going to get Backstrom is just mad because he didn't pull off a the steal he was about to get.

[garethbush]

He's actually trying to justify Ryder as being a fair exchange for Backstrom since the other owner needed goals. Does he have the right to be pissed about the 48 hour period? He thinks the other owner pulled out due to people saying he got ripped off, though the other owner actually pulled out because he thinks Ryder won't produce in Montreal.

[metaldude26]

I don't believe in vetoes unless there is obvious collusion but with that said if it's in the league rules there's no changing it until after the season. He has every right to be upset but he doesn't have a leg to stand on to actually have this case overturned.

[subcrazy]

If its in the rules then its ok but if the rule was made just for this deal and is just now in place, then its not ok. The whole point of a deal is to get the best bang for your buck and if the other owner is dumb enough to go for it, great for you.

You can't just have a kid then cancel it. Mistakes/accidents are made you deal with it. Not the greatest thing to compare it too but how u supposed to learn if u get a buffer. Just like schools these days you cant fail till grade 10.

He has a right to be pissed only if the rule was just brought in if the rule was there then no.

[TK12555]

He's got every right to be pissed. Even in trades where you rip the guy off, you struggle for hours on end to convince the guy to take your deal. When GM A "one trading backstrom" heard the outrage at the deal he mucked up on, he found an alternative reason for backing out of the deal, which is bs.

You make the bed, you lie in it. The fact that he backed out of the deal is pathetic.

[garethbush]

Originally Posted by subcrazy

If its in the rules then its ok but if the rule was made just for this deal and is just now in place, then its not ok.

The rule was in place at the start of the season.

[subcrazy]

Originally Posted by garethbush

The rule was in place at the start of the season.

Then no he shouldnt be mad, he signed up for it.

And imo I think vetos are dumb, why even have a league if ppl can run the team for you if they dont like something you did.

[rjfisher83]

Originally Posted by garethbush

He's actually trying to justify Ryder as being a fair exchange for Backstrom since the other owner needed goals. Does he have the right to be pissed about the 48 hour period? He thinks the other owner pulled out due to people saying he got ripped off, though the other owner actually pulled out because he thinks Ryder won't produce in Montreal.

The 48-hour period is in your rules, he needs to learn to deal with that.

I don't like the fact the Backstrom owner cancelled the deal because of Ryder being traded. That is not fair, in my opinion. Also, that is not the intent of your league's 48-hour rule. The intent is to allow the league to vote on the trade, not to make sure the players traded remain in an optimal situation and allow for buyer's remorse.

I would allow the trade to go through (disallow the Backstrom owner cancelling it) and then give the league it's 48 hours to review it and decide if it's veto worthy.

[dongjohnson]

I have to begin by saying, the LM has a DUTY to veto trades where it can seriously harm, e.g. long term handicap a franchise. Would this have handicapped his franchise long term? It depends. However since it was already a written rule anyway, tell him to go fk himself. One person scoring a moral victory that may result in having to terminate a franchise eventually, no, not cool.