VETO? Stastny & Lecavalier for Ovechkin

[rangerfan2430]

The trade got vetoed, thanks guys!

Np. Now why don't you send the guy an offer for Ovechkin

[Pengwin7]

If someone wants to veto, they need to explain themselves rationally, and there needs to be some sort of "deterrent" to vetoing to stop a trade that will help a team ahead / behind you etc.

Besides leagues having a veto vote, every GMs vote needs to be public.
I agree with you. People need to explain why they feel something is worthy of a veto.

In this particular trade, it would bring out some good discussion.
It also flushes out the way people are.

There WILL be people that veto a vote out of pure-self-gain. And that's not right.
A public vote will bring those people to light eventually... "self-servers" that are just trying to keep a team from jumping them.

Eventually, league GMs will learn about other league GMs... who plays fairly, who does not.
Every time somebody votes FOR or AGAINST a veto, it's going to provide context to who-is-who and what they see as fair.

For all we know, even in THIS league... we may find out that everybody is OK with the trade.
Maybe everybody is brothers!!! Except the OP! And he's just the "SUCKER".
Maybe everybody has their vote and everybody is OK with it.
At least the OP would know to get out of this league fast... because he's gonna get screwed every year!!!

Which leads me to one of my favourite clips about being the "SUCKER AT THE TABLE".
I reference this YouTube clip all the time:



It's a very healthy thing for a league.
It's a very healthy thing, I think... in general, for people to stand-up and take a side.

Be on the record for believing what you believe.

[roenick27]

But again, where's the "line?" In some ways I agree 100% with you and I'm anti veto. But Gm's come and go, these are $100 leagues etc (In my case--I play for the fun, not the money) So in some ways I think it can make it more difficult. Others have posted about common sense (again I agree, but we will all disagree on defining common sense)

Besides leagues having a veto vote, every GMs vote needs to be public.
I agree with you. People need to explain why they feel something is worthy of a veto.

In this particular trade, it would bring out some good discussion.
It also flushes out the way people are.

There WILL be people that veto a vote out of pure-self-gain. And that's not right.
A public vote will bring those people to light eventually... "self-servers" that are just trying to keep a team from jumping them.

Eventually, league GMs will learn about other league GMs... who plays fairly, who does not.
Every time somebody votes FOR or AGAINST a veto, it's going to provide context to who-is-who and what they see as fair.

For all we know, even in THIS league... we may find out that everybody is OK with the trade.
Maybe everybody is brothers!!! Except the OP! And he's just the "SUCKER".
Maybe everybody has their vote and everybody is OK with it.
At least the OP would know to get out of this league fast... because he's gonna get screwed every year!!!

Which leads me to one of my favourite clips about being the "SUCKER AT THE TABLE".
I reference this YouTube clip all the time:



It's a very healthy thing for a league.
It's a very healthy thing, I think... in general, for people to stand-up and take a side.

Be on the record for believing what you believe.

[J0e Th0rnton]

Brothers? I would smash veto and publicly call them on it.
The worst team in the league giving Ovechkin to his brother for some bottom tier non-Keepers?

In keep 5-6 leagues, I am all for weaker teams giving stacked trades for a solid Keeper upgrade. That is the nature of the beast to upgrade your keepers for the next year. I myself offered Steen/Larkin/Josi for Tavares and 2 Garbage waiver players and that is on the level since I got the Best player available(Tavares) to go with McDavid/Burns/Draisaitl/Bishop/Hellebuyck going into next year

But in this case, there seem to be no redeemable reasons for this trade

[J0e Th0rnton]

Not trying to hijack the thread etc, but I always value Pengwins beakdowns. But I was interested in this part of your thoughts:
Obviously, you're pro veto (throwing out the fact that you feel veto or non-veto, there needs to be a rule in place etc). In your leagues, is there a "punishment" for trying to veto a trade that should not be vetoed/not voted to be vetoed? I know it sounds silly, but I've personally had trades that were voted on to be vetoed(didn't meet the 75% etc ratio) but were very eve, or very close to even. There were a lot of good knowledgeable GM's in there, some are definitely on here. I asked publicly, what's the reason for the veto? The responses I got back were:
1) didn't respond any further
2) " I just didn't like it"
3) One GM I'm in other leagues with: "He didn't feel it was a good trade" It was also with a team that was about tied for 3rd (early in the season) with this Vetoing GM


Needless to say I walked out.

I just feel like every action has to have an equal and just reaction. If someone wants to veto, they need to explain themselves rationally, and there needs to be some sort of "deterrent" to vetoing to stop a trade that will help a team ahead / behind you etc.

This. Most leagues I play in are the same. You publicly call out the trade you do not like and give reasons why it is stupid lopsided.

Anonymous veto's between guys private messaging a clique to prevent others from merely improving their teams are why Anonymous Vetoes suck and should not exist.

[hipcheck]

Veto it! Beacuase it is appropriate action to this trade
Email the commish and call them out on it.

And most important: Continue to out manage them the rest of this season, the next, and the next after that. Winning vs cheaters is the best!!!!

Steve

[roenick27]

I guess I should clarify a bit. I was also trying to focus on the "punishment" aspect. Say the trade is called out and people give BS answers as to why. So the trade doesn't get vetoed. What about the stooges that decided to open up their mouths about another trade not concerning them? Shouldn't they be punished? My thought process is 1) lose a 1st rd draft pick, 2) lose a draft year (on top of the 1st) 3) kicked out.

As much as people vote yes or no on the veto concept, I think the one thing that is overlooked is the fact that once you open up your mouth about a trade that you feel should be vetoed, you better be prepared to defend it, and most of all, to avoid constant bickering/retribution etc, punishment needs to be inflicted. The issue is when is that line crossed? My thought process would be to veto a really bad trade, one that is detrimental, but are we then going to veto a Santorelli vs a 5th? I wish I had the answer, but to me one of the most important factors is the veto process itself.

This. Most leagues I play in are the same. You publicly call out the trade you do not like and give reasons why it is stupid lopsided.

Anonymous veto's between guys private messaging a clique to prevent others from merely improving their teams are why Anonymous Vetoes suck and should not exist.

[PensInThree]

I'm curious. What does this 'rational argument' look like when we're talking about veto discussions? You mention that self-serving vetoers will get revealed, but there's not much more rational than vetoing all trades because you suspect those trades will make either one or two of your competition stronger.

[roenick27]

The OP's question would be a perfect example. It's not a good trade for the league. When the trade is closer, yes, I see your point. But isn't the veto to only stop ridiculous, detrimental to the league trades from happening? But I agree with your thoughts as well, as then it will trickle down to trades that shouldn't remotely be discussed for a veto

I'm curious. What does this 'rational argument' look like when we're talking about veto discussions? You mention that self-serving vetoers will get revealed, but there's not much more rational than vetoing all trades because you suspect those trades will make either one or two of your competition stronger.

[LawMan]

I agree with Pengwin's points (as usual). Luckily for me and my league we have only ever faced a veto vote twice in league history. And both times it actually revolved in part around some guys not understanding the value of keepers in a keep-2 league. The few times I have had to consider a veto vote I have used the "Air of Reality" test. Question: Is there any opinion which is reasonable that allows for each team to argue they can win the trade? Ultimately it's a pretty low bar. I don't have to agree with the guy on his opinion, I can even think it's an idiotic opinion, but if said opinion is honestly held, and within the realm of possibility I'll let the trade pass. Now it's really easy to make these statements in the abstract, it's when you apply the statement to the facts of a trade that things get murky in a hurry.

This trade is so lopsided, and bad for keepers, and amongst a last place team, and between brothers that it screams veto.

I also agree that all leagues should have a veto rule in place at inception. The rule should be clearly outlined as to the: process- how to initiate, how to call for vote, argument beforehand and type of vote (public or private) timeline, and procedure for veto voting. Ideally the rule will also include some guidelines on the proper use and procedure, and philosophy behind why vetos are allowed (collusion is bad, trades so bad lopsided they effect league integrity are also bad). Having clear rules in place will reduce the amount of arguing when it becomes necessary to review a trade.

I guess I should clarify a bit. I was also trying to focus on the "punishment" aspect. Say the trade is called out and people give BS answers as to why. So the trade doesn't get vetoed. What about the stooges that decided to open up their mouths about another trade not concerning them? Shouldn't they be punished? My thought process is 1) lose a 1st rd draft pick, 2) lose a draft year (on top of the 1st) 3) kicked out.

As much as people vote yes or no on the veto concept, I think the one thing that is overlooked is the fact that once you open up your mouth about a trade that you feel should be vetoed, you better be prepared to defend it, and most of all, to avoid constant bickering/retribution etc, punishment needs to be inflicted. The issue is when is that line crossed? My thought process would be to veto a really bad trade, one that is detrimental, but are we then going to veto a Santorelli vs a 5th? I wish I had the answer, but to me one of the most important factors is the veto process itself.

An interesting idea that I've never considered before. Generally speaking that a guy who complains about every trade and constantly calls for vetos is dealt with by other managers naturally being less inclined to trade with him. I can't say as I've ever heard of a rule that calls for punishment for a failed veto vote. I'd be inclined to give everyone one freebie but that's just me, if guys become a constant problem they can be booted from the league for the benefit of the surviving 11 managers.

[havanablast21]

This screams underhanded dealings and as such, I'd make the charge of collusion and launch whatever veto process your league has in place. Failing that, I'd bow out of this rediculous league.

[PensInThree]

It's clear collusion to most people because the OP was kind enough to give us enough context.
Or it's clear collusion to most people because the trade is SOOOOO unbalanced that it is (indeed) obvious.

My point on vetoes is that we rarely get this much context.
And my other point is that sometimes it's not THIS unbalanced.
Sometimes it's significantly unbalanced... but not so obviously unbalanced as Stastny/Lecavalier.

Let's try on some more cases:

Team A gets: Ovechkin
Team B gets: Stastny & Milan Lucic
Collusion or not collusion now?
Answer that one. (Seriously)

Team A gets: Ovechkin
Team B gets: Stastny & Max Domi
Collusion or not collusion now?
Answer that one. (Seriously)

Team A gets: Ovechkin
Team B gets: Sam Bennett & Max Domi
Collusion or not collusion now?
Answer that one. (Seriously)

Everybody will have answer.
Now let's say I add that it's a keep 16, cap pool.
What do people say about the trades above?
Now let's say I add that it's a keep 2 pool.
What do people say about the trades above?

Again - context is EVERYTHING in evaluating trades.
And the only people that really have full context are those in the pool.


At some point, a trade goes from:
i) Highly unbalanced
to
ii) Slightly unbalanced
to
iii) Fair

And different people will have different opinions depending on context provided.

My big issue with people's stances on VETOs is that they show up (like you) and say "Oh, Ovechkin for Stastny/Lecavalier... of course it's VETO."
Well - you are evaluating ONE trade.

That doesn't mean you have a good system set-up.
A good system has to have a fair end result for ANY trade:
Ovechkin for Stastny/Lecavalier...
Ovechkin for Stastny/Lucic...
Ovechkin for Stastny/Domi...
Ovechkin for Bennet/Domi...

With a 75% veto vote... that's a system... a system where the people that know (the GMs) can make the right judgment for the league.

If there's no veto rule in place, the trade may be forced to hold.
And for those people that don't believe in allowing for the veto... this trade goes THROUGH in your league.

People can't just show up when they want and yell VETO and say "Oh... it's obvious... so it's OK that I want a veto now.".
You have to be OK with a league VETO... or not OK.

People have to pick a side.

I agree with your point that there needs to be a system. The obvious answer to all of those hypothetical trades is 'no collusion', because you've provided no evidence of collusion.

I'm curious how your system works. I get the mechanics - in say a 12 team league you need at least 8 of the 10 non participating managers to publicly vote veto. But what justifications are there for voting veto? What does that discussion look like? How do you negotiate an argument where a trade passes 7 managers smell test, or air of reality test, but not the other three managers'?

[rataylor22]

It's clear collusion to most people because the OP was kind enough to give us enough context.
Or it's clear collusion to most people because the trade is SOOOOO unbalanced that it is (indeed) obvious.

My point on vetoes is that we rarely get this much context.
And my other point is that sometimes it's not THIS unbalanced.
Sometimes it's significantly unbalanced... but not so obviously unbalanced as Stastny/Lecavalier.

"Enough context". So as I understand, you want the following trades evaluated with no context, no insight as to one year vs. keeper, no insight as to size of league, and no insight to scoring settings? Because what you're asking is impossible. And if you think your system of 75% votes allows these trades to be vetoed or not without knowledge of those 3 factors, then you're wrong. If you give me zero of the above information, then my vote for the OPs trade is still veto, and my vote for the following trades are all NOT veto. But to follow your process.

Let's try on some more cases:

Team A gets: Ovechkin
Team B gets: Stastny & Milan Lucic
Collusion or not collusion now?
Answer that one. (Seriously)

No veto. With zero information, assumption has to be made assists, hits, and PIMs are heavily weighted, and team B is trying to recoup depth.

Team A gets: Ovechkin
Team B gets: Stastny & Max Domi
Collusion or not collusion now?
Answer that one. (Seriously)

No veto. With zero available information, have to assume it's a keeper league.

Team A gets: Ovechkin
Team B gets: Sam Bennett & Max Domi
Collusion or not collusion now?
Answer that one. (Seriously)

No veto. With zero available information, have to assume this is a keeper league.

Everybody will have answer.
Now let's say I add that it's a keep 16, cap pool.
What do people say about the trades above?

No veto (Ovechkin is expensive, arguably declining), No veto, No veto.

Now let's say I add that it's a keep 2 pool.
What do people say about the trades above?

No veto, no veto, no veto.

My big issue with people's stances on VETOs is that they show up (like you) and say "Oh, Ovechkin for Stastny/Lecavalier... of course it's VETO."
Well - you are evaluating ONE trade.

That doesn't mean you have a good system set-up.
A good system has to have a fair end result for ANY trade:
Ovechkin for Stastny/Lecavalier...
Ovechkin for Stastny/Lucic...
Ovechkin for Stastny/Domi...
Ovechkin for Bennet/Domi...

With a 75% veto vote... that's a system... a system where the people that know (the GMs) can make the right judgment for the league.

If there's no veto rule in place, the trade may be forced to hold.
And for those people that don't believe in allowing for the veto... this trade goes THROUGH in your league.

People can't just show up when they want and yell VETO and say "Oh... it's obvious... so it's OK that I want a veto now.".
You have to be OK with a league VETO... or not OK.

People have to pick a side.

I'm find with a vote system. A PROPER vote system. I just don't think yours is. If a trade is so bad that it is clearly detrimental to the league, then it will be more than obvious it should be vetoed to all managers. As such, if you want a voting veto system, it should require 100% of the non-trading owners to veto, and should have no issue achieving that.

[Instant Karma]

This is definitely worthy of a veto for me.

Also, the burden of proof as far as collusion is concerned should rest with the defendants. In other words, they have the burden of demonstrating why it shouldn't be considered collusion. They are the actors who are putting forth this transaction.

I tend to take the same philosophical approach to collusion that that judge so famously took with pornography way back when: "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."

[Bass56]

Thanks for the warm welcome!
It's actually a keeper league (first year of this league - keep six players), sorry if I posted in the wrong trade area. Did I mention the two parties involved in the trade are brothers!

This league I am currently in 1st place.

VE-to-the-TO