Stamkos and Tyler Johnson FOR Draisaitl and Sam Bennett - VETO??

[Instant Karma]

Everyone agrees there is no collusion and we do not have rules dealing for potentially unbalanced traded.

Well, there you are.

[junyab]

Even in "real" hockey, teams that are not in playoff contention sell their better players in hopes of returning younger prospects to refresh their roster and go for it in a couple years. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I can see your point if Stamkos was just a "better" player, and not one of the "best" in the league, and 25yr old was in fact, "old".

[rataylor22]

I can see your point if Stamkos was just a "better" player, and not one of the "best" in the league, and 25yr old was in fact, "old".

Again, look at his stats and production over the last year and a half. It's no longer an accurate description to say he's one of the best in the league. You're basing that on his name, not how he has produced. Eventually, stats matter.

[Axeman33]

Again, look at his stats and production over the last year and a half. It's no longer an accurate description to say he's one of the best in the league. You're basing that on his name, not how he has produced. Eventually, stats matter.

But it's the name that gives him the value in trades. I don't disagree with you that his numbers have slipped but he still has excellent value in keeper leagues simply based on the name.

[junyab]

Again, look at his stats and production over the last year and a half. It's no longer an accurate description to say he's one of the best in the league. You're basing that on his name, not how he has produced. Eventually, stats matter.

You could say the same thing about Crosby, no?

[rataylor22]

You could say the same thing about Crosby, no?

30 games vs. 100 games. So no. Also, look at Crosby's trade value a season and a half ago vs. where it is now. So Crosby's trade value has changed quite a bit since the start of last season. Is Crosby still considered one of the best in the game? Sure he is. Will he be if he continues to produce this way for the next 70-75 games? No, nor should he be. Stamkos is 75 games ahead of Crosby in terms of depressed production. So no, Stamkos is not and should not be considered one of the best fantasy assets in the league any longer. If you can sell high on that name, good for you. But an owner shouldn't be punished for getting "production value" instead of "name value", which is what is happening here. Simply put, Stamkos is no longer elite. And Crosby may be trending that way.

[Axeman33]

30 games vs. 100 games. So no. Also, look at Crosby's trade value a season and a half ago vs. where it is now. So Crosby's trade value has changed quite a bit since the start of last season. Is Crosby still considered one of the best in the game? Sure he is. Will he be if he continues to produce this way for the next 70-75 games? No, nor should he be. Stamkos is 75 games ahead of Crosby in terms of depressed production. So no, Stamkos is not and should not be considered one of the best fantasy assets in the league any longer. If you can sell high on that name, good for you. But an owner shouldn't be punished for getting "production value" instead of "name value", which is what is happening here. Simply put, Stamkos is no longer elite. And Crosby may be trending that way.

Again, I am not saying you are completely wrong but it's a very small window of production for Draisaitl and Bennett to compare to Stamkos and Johnson, even if Stamkos appears to be on the decline, to be hedging this kind of return.

[rataylor22]

Again, I am not saying you are completely wrong but it's a very small window of production for Draisaitl and Bennett to compare to Stamkos and Johnson, even if Stamkos appears to be on the decline, to be hedging this kind of return.

I've said nothing about the return. Just that saying Stamkos should return value like one of the best players in the league is inaccurate, because there is a large sample size of games to say he's not that anymore. I've never argued Draisatl and Bennett have done enough to currently prove they are on the same level as Stamkos and Johnson, I'm saying treating Stamkos like a top 5 player instead of a top 20 player just because his name is Stamkos is valuing based on name and history, not current production, and it's unfair to punish an owner for valuing a player based on his current production.

I've said many times, this trade should not be vetoed because of the managers history of trading in the league. The fact that people can debate this is a fair return (it's not like I'm the only one saying it) unequivocally proves this is not a vetoable trade. Add to that the manager has been in the league for 20 years with no history of questionable trades, both managers are happy with the return and feel it was a fair trade, and the entire league feels there was no collusion, there are zero grounds to reasonably veto this trade. Therefore, if the trade is vetoed, the ONLY logical assumption is that the commissioner is looking out only for HIS OWN personal interest and has ZERO consideration for the integrity of the league, as the whole league agrees the INTEGRITY of the league has not been compromised, and it is not FAIR nor the DUTY of the commissioner or any individual league member to determine how a specific owner should value his own players.