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

[IslanderFan]

We are in a 16 team league, full keeper league, points only (Goals=2 points, Assists=1 point). Top 8 teams make the playoffs. We are at the halfway mark in the league (40 games), and the trade would be between the 4th place team trading Draisaitl and Bennett to the the 14th place team for Stamkos and Tyler Johnson.

Owners in the league are divided on a)wether the trade is fair? and b)should it be allowed? I have my definite opinion but would like to see some completely unbiased opinions prior to mentioning which side I am on.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Very much appreciated.

[LawMan]

Unless you think the two teams are colluding (cheating) I don't see how you can stop the trade. I'm guessing the team trading away Stamkos wants to get younger. I clearly prefer the Stamkos side but you shouldn't block a trade just because you think it's lopsided. Presumably other teams are upset that a top team is getting stronger adding Stamkos and Johnson.

Does your league have a rule for dealing with potentially unbalance trades?

[IslanderFan]

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

[Wonko]

The only reason to veto a trade, imho is collusion. Owners should be allowed to administer their team as they see fit, even if, at times, these trades hurt parties who are not involved. If collusion is ruled out the trade should be processed.

[Axeman33]

Bad trade, no veto.

Let the dumbass lose his trades and learn on his own.

- - - Updated - - -

Bad trade, no veto.

Let the dumbass lose his trades and learn on his own.

[Rato]

Right now it's pretty bad, but in a couple of years it might be pretty even.

[IslanderFan]

Please vote and/or respond as this is an important issue to our league. Thanks.

[audiopile]

The team in 14th will stay there if they continue to make these kinds of deals. Bad trade now it will probably never be good. Stammer is young still and after this season ends and his contract and long term deal is done he will go back to filling the net.

No veto because of no collusion. Vetos are not a safetynet for the stupid, and that is coming from a guy that has made stupid trades, but learned from them.

[pmorrow]

Unconscionable trade but without any proof of collusion, undue influence, etc. then it's okay in my books.

[horrorfan]

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

This right here is the reason you should not veto - I don't see why you need votes from us. If you veto, then I would be concerned about the integrity of your league since there are no rules in place and the deal was done in good faith. The guy should learn through his (perceived) mistakes. Also, having rules for potentially unbalanced trades could lead you down a slippery slope. Where's the line? At what point does a deal go from unbalanced and ok to unbalanced and veto? If the 14th place team feels this will help his team, then you leave it alone.

[horrorfan]

Also I don't like the wording in your poll: "Unfair but should not be vetoed"? What does unfair mean? It's a poor choice of word. A better word would be unbalanced. Either the deal is ok (two managers agreed in good faith) or there is concern of collusion and should be blocked. In the former case, you do nothing. In the latter, I'd kick them out of the league. As you said it's the former, then you leave it alone. Of course, it's very difficult to prove collusion but as you said there is none then you should accept it.

[IslanderFan]

The trade was vetoed. The commissioner said they can do the deal if Tyler Johnson is removed.

[franklin]

Bad trade, no veto.

Let the dumbass lose his trades and learn on his own.

- - - Updated - - -

Bad trade, no veto.

Let the dumbass lose his trades and learn on his own.

Agree with Axe here. Bad trade, no veto.

[horrorfan]

The trade was vetoed. The commissioner said they can do the deal if Tyler Johnson is removed.

The commissioner just made that decision? I'd be pissed if the commish told me what deals I can and cannot make. This goes beyond what is deemed as unbalanced; I strongly disagree that the commissioner steps in to determine the line. Coming from experience, the commissioner's role should be to ensure the smooth running of the league, not be a dictator. Managers should have the right to manage their teams how they see fit. If the commissioner doesn't like perceived unbalanced deals, then ensure you have managers who play according to your own knowledge. Don't take it out of the managers' ability to play the game.

I'd be out of that league pretty quick.

[stotan]

The commissioner just made that decision? I'd be pissed if the commish told me what deals I can and cannot make. This goes beyond what is deemed as unbalanced; I strongly disagree that the commissioner steps in to determine the line. Coming from experience, the commissioner's role should be to ensure the smooth running of the league, not be a dictator. Managers should have the right to manage their teams how they see fit. If the commissioner doesn't like perceived unbalanced deals, then ensure you have managers who play according to your own knowledge. Don't take it out of the managers' ability to play the game.

I'd be out of that league pretty quick.

I totally agree with Horrorfan. Why would a Commissioner determine what's "Fair" and what's not? To me, that is unfair, especially if he has a team in the league.

Sounds like your league has some serious issues to deal with.