PLEASE comment on Hertl VS Giroux!!!

[Axeman33]

Moral to the story: sometimes the gambles pay off and sometimes they don't. The Giroux owner is being seduced by the shiny toy - let him reap the rewards or learn the hard way.

You mean to tell me, that if you were in this league and you saw this trade go down, it would be ok with you?

A trade like this is simply bad business for any league. I am normally not one for veto's myself (as mentioned by someone else earlier) and I agree that sometimes a GM has to learn the hard way but this is a lesson best learned from the veto here and then explaining to him why this trade is bad.

This league has a trade committee for this exact reason right here.

[Mattp913]

I actually thought this was a joke but if someone wants to take a gamble on Hertl being the next Jagr then that is his problem. I wouldnt veto it but Hertl will likely never put up the points that Giroux has already proven he can put up.

[als_revenge]

If you veto the trade, you are basically saying one GM in your league is completely incompetant.

And the veto will do nothing to change that.

Either you accept his level of competance and let him manage his team, or you boot him.

I personally find the very notion of a "trade committee" to be utterly ridiculous.

[fungchen3]

You mean to tell me, that if you were in this league and you saw this trade go down, it would be ok with you?

That seriously depends on the league. I tend to play in leagues with a good circle of guys whom I trust and know have the right intentions. Some of us make bizarre/risky deals when those "gut hunches" are strong. Throughout my years I've seen awful deals go down and some that shocked the pants off of me because they turned out completely different than I expected.

In my main league this summer, one GM traded the Sedin twins for Kyle Turris and the pick to take Nathan MacKinnon. Some GMs were shaking their heads yet I had no issue with it as commissioner. I've never vetoed a deal in my league... and there have been some doozies.

But if the league was full of people who previously displayed shady intentions or the like, it would be a different story. So it honestly depends on the makeup of the league and the motivations behind the deal. If the Giroux owner is a solid dude who just happens to be a Sharks fan or is legitimately giddy about landing the flavor of the month, who would I be to ruin his fun in an attempt to "protect him from himself?" If the Giroux owner is shady or has a track record of poisoning the league, then, yes, I would have a beef.

A trade like this is simply bad business for any league.

I disagree. Policing rosters is worse for any league IMO. I once traded a young Duncan Keith for a 38 year old Rob Blake. The elder statesman was decent for that last hurrah and Keith emerged into a fantasy force on the blue line and remains one. That same GM was on the other end of trading Pavel Datsyuk for Milan Hejduk and still regrets it to this day.

Let's be honest, Giroux is not Crosby, Stamkos or Malkin (and I'm a Giroux and Flyers fan). Would people be flipping out if the GM traded Giroux for Couture? I sure as hell wouldn't... and I think Hertl could be just as good as Couture.

This league has a trade committee for this exact reason right here.

Quite honestly, any league with a "trade committee" seems to me like a league that shouldn't exist to begin with. I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't trust the GMs in your league to deal with the best intentions, why invite them to play in the first place... or have the league to begin with? I don't know, maybe it's me.

[als_revenge]

Quite honestly, any league with a "trade committee" seems to me like a league that shouldn't exist to begin with. I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't trust the GMs in your league to deal with the best intentions, why invite them to play in the first place... or have the league to begin with? I don't know, maybe it's me.

I'd rep this, but I have to spread it around first, apparently.

What's next, a bunch of trade sub-committees? lol

[fungchen3]

I usually agree with you 99% of the time fungchen, but you're really out to lunch on this one

Likewise, haha.

No, I get it. Like I said, not a deal I would make as a Giroux owner, but not veto worthy. Maybe it's because I'm a Hertl fan to begin with and have been spreading the love all summer. I'm a believer in him. I actually drafted him last year in my league but, due to a numbers game, I had to let him go. So, not only do I believe in Hertl now, I believed in him last season. For anyone who has followed the kid, he improved a lot last season. He was described as "dominant" vs. men the same way Barkov was being hyped up. Then he arrives in San Jose and was lights out in camp and preseason... now ends up hitting pay dirt with Thornton / Burns. Hertl could end up having a flakey rookie year like Tarasenko did last year or a great one like Kopitar had in 2006-07.

[horrorfan]

If you veto the trade, you are basically saying one GM in your league is completely incompetant.

And the veto will do nothing to change that.

Either you accept his level of competance and let him manage his team, or you boot him.

I personally find the very notion of a "trade committee" to be utterly ridiculous.

Agree. I hate vetoes, even for perceived 'bad' trades, because it takes the managing out of your managers. Veto this deal and you might as well take the keys to his team and tell him to take a back seat. Vetoes cause more harm than letting these deals go because it could lead to a snowball effect and more judgement calls being vetoed in the future. I wouldn't want to be part of a league like that.

If you really don't trust him, then you have two options: get him out of the league or educate him. We don't know the level of knowledge - he could just be impatient and trigger happy - so all it could take is to let him know that (perceived) rash/impatient decisions like this could lead him to last place. The risk could somehow pay off, but given that it's really early in the season it could backfire big time. Education can really help some people too, as long as they appreciate the advice and want (and feel the need) to learn.

And yeah, a trade committee? No way in freaking hell would I ever participate in a league where other managers (or even third parties - yeah Yahoo, I'm talking to you) should be allowed to tell trading partners how to manage their own teams.

[Axeman33]

Quite honestly, any league with a "trade committee" seems to me like a league that shouldn't exist to begin with. I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't trust the GMs in your league to deal with the best intentions, why invite them to play in the first place... or have the league to begin with? I don't know, maybe it's me.

I absolutely agree with this statement right here 100%, but this league does in fact have a trade committee so that can't be ignored.

I am in 6 different keeper leagues with varying levels of fantasy hockey knowledge. My favorite league is easily the UHL (with a large group of knowledgeable Dobberites) and there is no trade committee there. That's probably one of the reasons I love that league so much. There's a high level of hockey knowledge in that league and I think the chances of seeing a deal like this even being offered is pretty damn slim. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see metaldude26 or praba try.

[Bass56]

If your league doesn't realize why Hertl (a rookie on a hot streak) is not worth Giroux (a proven ppg+ player), then you should probably reconsider participating in this league.

Absolutely ridiculous.

My thinking exactly!

[havanablast21]

Well, I am going to comment here only because you seem to want people to comment and I won't mince my words.

This type of trade really shows the calibre and general fantasy knowledge of "some" of your GMs in your league. First off, the GM who was trying to fleece the other guy should know better. You can't blame him for wanting to make this deal but he has to feel a fair amount of guilt in doing it. The GM who was giving away Giroux also shows the amount of hockey knowledge he possesses when it comes to fantasy hockey.

That trade is brutal with a capital B! I have heard of selling high but this is ridiculous.

You really shouldn't need comments from this site to justify your actions.

Agreed. No comment necessary. And if it's requested...Axeman says it best. I'm sure he would be open to you quoting him as a SME

[Laendarian]

If you veto the trade, you are basically saying one GM in your league is completely incompetant.

And the veto will do nothing to change that.

Either you accept his level of competance and let him manage his team, or you boot him.

I personally find the very notion of a "trade committee" to be utterly ridiculous.

haha this is a fun thread, bringing out the best in everyone

I think Al here is where I stand as well, I am 100% behind the motto that there should never be a veto unless there is collusion.

Having said that I'll reiterate a point that a few other members have already made, and that being that if I was in a league where a trade like this could happen I would strongly suspect that I would think I was in a league that was not up to my standards from a competitive stand point.

If you are in a beginner league where everyone is new to fantasy hockey then that deal is fine, everyone needs to learn the hard way how things play out over time and learn the value of each player.

If however (and I suspect this be the case since you are on Dobber's forums) you are in what you consider a league with fairly knowledgeable GM's, well you are definitely not.

[mmteixeira]

As others have stated above, I don't believe the league has the right to tell an owner he can or can't trade a player - unless something obviously underhanded is going on.

- Is the owner with Giroux is a Sharks fan and simply wants Hertl?
- What happens if Giroux goes down hurt this year (god forbid as a Giroux owner ) and Hertl ends up out producing him?
- Supposing a keeper league and Hertl's career takes off and Giroux's for some reason goes a different direction?
- Would we all be upset if this same owner drafted Hertl ahead of Giroux? Would we be stopping the draft to correct it?

I have always felt that fantasy owners have the right to draft and acquire whatever players they want for whatever reasons they want - it is a fantasy league after all. If they continue to make deals that hurt the league then you consider asking them to leave, or you leave for a better league. I guess I could see where trades like this could be considered more problematic if the prize pool is in the thousands of dollars, but short of that, if I want a roster that contains all all Flames and Jets players, who has the right to tell me I can't?

As long as the Giroux owner wasn't "trying to help his brother" win the league by giving him good players for nothing in return, I feel he should be allowed to acquire the players he wants...

[Rodgort]

If there is collusion veto. If the guy is an idiot it is hard to veto, unless the person getting Giroux is already looking like he will win then I see why people want it veto'd. I would not veto it, I'd hold a vote in your league if anything. Get everyone on board.

In other news, can I get the person who traded Giroux for Hertl in my league? I would like to win a lot

[mooseknuckles]

I'm wondering which side initiated the trade.. the Giroux owner or the Hertl Owner?

If the Giroux owner initiated...Shame in him!
If the Hertl owner initiated ....Good on him lol!

[bondon]

Damn you mean I can get Hertl with my Giroux? Sweet.