Iginla for Lupul, Comrie and a 5th round pick

**Gaborlick** · February 15, 2008, 9:40 AM

my brother just got rid of iginla for these guys.

It is killing me.

**andrewklassen** · February 15, 2008, 10:42 AM

This is the curse of being in fantasy pools where not everyone is knowledgeable. Sometimes you get to fleece people with these kind of deals and brag about it in these forums. Other times someone else pulls the trigger and we hear people crying on these forums \'cause some landed Iginla or Crosby for a song and dance.

People don\'t realize this, but my opinion is that in many respects it\'s worth the time to educate the GM\'s in your pool. In the long run this is better for everyone. There will be less fleecing for you, but you won\'t have to lament the idiocy of some trades that go to others either. The whole experience is improved for everyone.

**Gaborlick** · February 15, 2008, 2:14 PM

thanks for the great insight. gosh...you\'re kind of insulting...

Well I maintain that my relationship with my brother is very good and we talk regularly and talk alot oabout fantasy.

That doesn\'t effing mean he will listen to me and my reasons to not do the things he does. bah.

We put limitations on our league if any one person is getting gouged by trades and it unfairly skews the playing field.

**chiefoka** · February 15, 2008, 2:22 PM

I must agree with the other guy. Your brother got ripped.You should show him this sight.Lupul is going to be good,but not anywhere near what Iginla is worth. He should of got two 1st round picks in that deal as well.

**Maksim** · February 15, 2008, 4:11 PM

It comes down to the debate of the veto.

See if the GMs of your league are willing to apply a veto on this trade. Veto: A simple majority can cancel a trade that is considered unfair or considered \"dangerous for the equity\" in your keeper league.

The veto is a crucial debate in a league where GMs are less knowledgeable (andrew is dead right on this one). It happened in my league and two teams had to abandon their team because they got ripped by trades like these ones:

1 year ago: Spezza for Richards + Rolston + 1rst rounder
Few months ago: Kiprusoff for Fleury + Smyth + Boucher

These are extreme cases, but they exist in every league. It creates so much frustration within the group of GMs, and it can lead to complete boreness. Be aware.

**Gaborlick** · February 18, 2008, 11:56 AM

chiefoka wrote:

I must agree with the other guy. Your brother got ripped.You should show him this sight.Lupul is going to be good,but not anywhere near what Iginla is worth. He should of got two 1st round picks in that deal as well.

I agree, I was saying that I continually tell him not to make stupid trades but he still does. THere is only so much telling you can do. He has traded away his 4 top picks from last season and it kills me.

**Gaborlick** · February 18, 2008, 11:57 AM

Maksim wrote:

It comes down to the debate of the veto.

See if the GMs of your league are willing to apply a veto on this trade. Veto: A simple majority can cancel a trade that is considered unfair or considered \"dangerous for the equity\" in your keeper league.

The veto is a crucial debate in a league where GMs are less knowledgeable (andrew is dead right on this one). It happened in my league and two teams had to abandon their team because they got ripped by trades like these ones:

1 year ago: Spezza for Richards + Rolston + 1rst rounder
Few months ago: Kiprusoff for Fleury + Smyth + Boucher

These are extreme cases, but they exist in every league. It creates so much frustration within the group of GMs, and it can lead to complete boreness. Be aware.

we have veto capabiliites, but no one was biting besides me.

**Jason** · February 18, 2008, 12:00 PM

Maksim wrote:

two teams had to abandon their team because they got ripped by trades like these ones:

1 year ago: Spezza for Richards + Rolston + 1rst rounder
Few months ago: Kiprusoff for Fleury + Smyth + Boucher

Whats so unfair about either of the trades in your league?

**Maksim** · February 19, 2008, 1:15 PM

It\'s the fact that those two players (Spezza & Kipper) were properties of the two worst GMs. What they got don\'t even fit their needs: young blood, healthy guys, etc.

I mean: When you make a trade involving your best player, try to get safe values in return. Or else, it is mismanagement. Richards, Rolston or Smyth don\'t worth a lot in our league (6 forwards per team, 11 teams). Plus, Boucher & Smyth were both badly injured when the trade happened.

**andrewklassen** · February 19, 2008, 1:52 PM

Pools are a learning curve for everyone.

I\'m not a fan of the veto unless collusion is suspected [a much discussed topic from time to time]. IMO if a veto is invoked often it actually saves people from themselves which surprisingly seldom makes them smarter. Without the natural punishment of suffering through the following season with the consequences of poor trades people don\'t learn.

If your group is willing to pay each year and learn [and we\'re all learning] then tough it out. If GM\'s who make bad trades just choose to quit the league then look for a more knowledgeable pool to be involved with.

**repenttokyo** · February 19, 2008, 2:03 PM

Maksim wrote:

1 year ago: Spezza for Richards + Rolston + 1rst rounder
Few months ago: Kiprusoff for Fleury + Smyth + Boucher

These are extreme cases, but they exist in every league. It creates so much frustration within the group of GMs, and it can lead to complete boreness. Be aware.

Both of these trades look ok to me.

Goalie Post is now available for your Apple/Android devices!

Thread: Iginla for Lupul, Comrie and a 5th round pick

Thread Tools