VETO? Stastny & Lecavalier for Ovechkin

[Mr. Guru]

I'll say this again.

If you have to veto a trade you're in the wrong league to begin with.

So back to the original question.....would I veto Stastny and Lecavalier for Ovechkin (brothers/commish)......no I wouldn't.

I'd get the hell out of that league faster than worrying about a veto.

PS) Unless you are paying for my entrance fee, don't even think about telling me how to manage my team let alone vetoing a trade.
PPS) If you're worried about the league being ruined......this is what we did.......when we started our keeper 8 years ago every GM paid 3 years up front. We've since expanding two teams......they also paid 3 years up front when joining. After three years, you probably made some mistakes and learned from it. No one has quit the league, yet.

[Noddes55]

Not much to say other then veto this trade

[2014olympicgold]

I’m against vetos, and I usually just huff and puff complain about trades, but this is one unless they can explain their actions, I’d veto.

In a baseball league, really good rookies are usually O-Ranked in the 1000s and there was a trade with a couple of the top prospects, but O-Ranked low and hadn’t played yet. It was like Bryce Harper and someone for about 5 young guys who turned out to be all top 10 prospects. We Veto’d, but reversed the veto when the trade was explained.

Putting them on the spot and putting a “Hold” on the trade and asking an explanation would be how our league handles something this lopsided.

[roenick27]

I generally agree with Guru here. especially the part about not telling a GM how to manage a team. Now, when a trade comes up like this I do also think a commish may want a further explanation on the trade. If it doesn't make sense, then collusion creeps into the equation. If there is justification, and it even makes some sense, I agree the trade needs to happen. I'm more in this camp if the trade was Ovie for 2-3 stud prospects. Is it fair? No. Does it make sense? Yeah.

I'll say this again.

If you have to veto a trade you're in the wrong league to begin with.

So back to the original question.....would I veto Stastny and Lecavalier for Ovechkin (brothers/commish)......no I wouldn't.

I'd get the hell out of that league faster than worrying about a veto.

PS) Unless you are paying for my entrance fee, don't even think about telling me how to manage my team let alone vetoing a trade.
PPS) If you're worried about the league being ruined......this is what we did.......when we started our keeper 8 years ago every GM paid 3 years up front. We've since expanding two teams......they also paid 3 years up front when joining. After three years, you probably made some mistakes and learned from it. No one has quit the league, yet.

[roenick27]

Also, off topic, but something that also fits here somewhat. Sometimes it's best to focus on improving your team rather than worrying about what another gm is doing IMO. Again, this would fit moreso for tanking etc, but in some ways it works here as well.

[Instant Karma]

Also, off topic, but something that also fits here somewhat. Sometimes it's best to focus on improving your team rather than worrying about what another gm is doing IMO. Again, this would fit moreso for tanking etc, but in some ways it works here as well.

What would make these mutually-exclusive? Being aware of what's going on in your league is an essential part of winning it.

[glorybe23]

I’m against vetos, and I usually just huff and puff complain about trades, but this is one unless they can explain their actions, I’d veto.

In a baseball league, really good rookies are usually O-Ranked in the 1000s and there was a trade with a couple of the top prospects, but O-Ranked low and hadn’t played yet. It was like Bryce Harper and someone for about 5 young guys who turned out to be all top 10 prospects. We Veto’d, but reversed the veto when the trade was explained.

Putting them on the spot and putting a “Hold” on the trade and asking an explanation would be how our league handles something this lopsided.

That's a pretty solid way to do it, I would love to hear the explanation on this Ovi trade with this mindset in place.

[2014olympicgold]

That's a pretty solid way to do it, I would love to hear the explanation on this Ovi trade with this mindset in place.

We have a commissioner and 2 Co-Commissioners so when an explanation is given 2 of the 3 pretty much have to agree on the explanation. We’ve never had a trade where it’s been 2 of the commissioners, so we’ll just cross that bridge when we get there.

If it was Crosby + Ovi for a scrub and a 1^st round pick, we’d get the explanation and if it was “oh I’m tanking for McDavid and this helps me bring in another 1^st round pick” we would have to agree that it was a fine explanation of a trade. If it was “oh I’m tanking for Yakupov”, we may think differently.

Worse comes to worse I think we just agree we’d go to an outside group of people and have it go that way.

[Seeds of Grapes]

99% of the time, I would not veto a trade.

No collusion = no veto. If the team getting the short en of the stick could objectively prove a benefit to his team, then no collusion.

In this case, there is no objective reason that the team receiving Stastny and Lecav benefits. None.

100% veto!

[roenick27]

What would make these mutually-exclusive? Being aware of what's going on in your league is an essential part of winning it.

I meant it more as a lot of vetoes (and people upset with a team tanking etc) use this as an argument but in reality, it is "sour grapes" They could be attached at the hip, but they could also be separate.

[Instant Karma]

I meant it more as a lot of vetoes (and people upset with a team tanking etc) use this as an argument but in reality, it is "sour grapes" They could be attached at the hip, but they could also be separate.

I don't think that being annoyed with other teams tanking amounts to "sour grapes". The sportsmanship (or lack thereof) exhibited by other GMs is not something to be easily dismissed as a problem of perception.

[roenick27]

I don't think that being annoyed with other teams tanking amounts to "sour grapes". The sportsmanship (or lack thereof) exhibited by other GMs is not something to be easily dismissed as a problem of perception.

Define tanking? This was in response to Guru's idea that a GM should be able to manage their team how they see fit. I generally agree with that. If I don't think my team is good enough to win or be close to winning, why should I not trade off some vets to acquire prospects? Now just going vacant for no reason and not setting lineups, answering emails etc, that is a different category in itself.

For example, the trade deadline approaches. I sell off some vets as I'm in 10th place. A GM in 5th place complains that this is tanking and not fair because he doesn;t have any more H2H matchups with me the rest of the year etc. Is that really "unsportsmanlike"? I would feel that I'm dong what will give my team the best chance to win, maybe next year and so on, as this year it isn't happening. To me, that GM (the 5th place team in this example) needs to worry more about improving his team, then what the 10th place team is doing, hence, "sour grapes" because he/she didn't step up and make a good offer for the vets I sold off.

Each example is different of course.

[Instant Karma]

Define tanking?

I define tanking as shirking the responsibility to put forward a competitive line up in order to finish lower and therefore obtain a higher draft pick. There are more egregious and less egregious ways to go about this.

[roenick27]

I define tanking as shirking the responsibility to put forward a competitive line up in order to finish lower and therefore obtain a higher draft pick. There are more egregious and less egregious ways to go about this.

Exactly. Its similar to the veto etc as there really is no defined line. On this, you can define it, but each league is different etc..
I agree that you shouldn't "abandon" your team and your responsibility to the league, but I don't think its wrong to trade players for futures.

[Instant Karma]

Exactly. Its similar to the veto etc as there really is no defined line. On this, you can define it, but each league is different etc..
I agree that you shouldn't "abandon" your team and your responsibility to the league, but I don't think its wrong to trade players for futures.

Sure, for example if I see that my prospects for finishing near the top of my league are slim or none, I might trade one of my goalies who is doing well for a player who can better help next year. Even though odds are trading that goalie will likely sink me, I wouldn't call this "tanking".

But, I'd better be getting pretty decent player(s) back to motivate me to do that. If it was a highly unbalanced deal such as the one under discussion, I could understand where the other GMs might have an objection.