Vetoed Eichel Trade

[Martin5150]

I am as anti-veto as it gets but I really can't see any way the owner moving eichel and barzal can justify the move. You're not getting younger, you're not getting more productive assets, you're not getting guys with a higher pedigree and you're not getting additional assets back. It's EXTREMELY hard for me to believe that the GM is acting in what he believes are the best interests of his team here. So that really leaves us with 2 possibilities: 1. Collusion or 2. The GM shouldn't be in the league due to a lack of knowledge.

Yup

[als_revenge]

I am as anti-veto as it gets but I really can't see any way the owner moving eichel and barzal can justify the move. You're not getting younger, you're not getting more productive assets, you're not getting guys with a higher pedigree and you're not getting additional assets back. It's EXTREMELY hard for me to believe that the GM is acting in what he believes are the best interests of his team here. So that really leaves us with 2 possibilities: 1. Collusion or 2. The GM shouldn't be in the league due to a lack of knowledge.

Two possibilities? So you are saying you can't PROVE it was collusion. And since you can't prove it, the trade should go through? Or, at least, that's the mentality of the anti-veto crowd lol

[SergeP]

Two possibilities? So you are saying you can't PROVE it was collusion. And since you can't prove it, the trade should go through? Or, at least, that's the mentality of the anti-veto crowd lol

I don't think any of the anti-veto crowd, including myself, has ever said that you need to "prove" collusion as though this was some sort of murder trial. Short of seizing the GMs' computers and phones you're not likely going to be able to find undeniable proof. The Commish however should be able to speak to both players and get a pretty good sense of their reasoning for the trade and whether or not something smells like BS.

What I'm saying is that this is very likely collusion and, if by some reason it's a completely honest trade where the guy giving up Eichel and Barzal genuinely thinks he's making his team better and that this was the best return he was getting for those two, then he shouldn't be in the league. In other words, you're either dealing with two @ssholes or one idiot, regardless of which one it is, you need to make a change.

[DocMcPuffin]

My first year as my own team, 2 years ago, I made some pretty bad trades. Set myself back a while. I'm at the point now where I'm actually blowing my team up and essentially getting draft picks back and starting from scratch. This guy has been around for a while so he should have a clue about making a good deal. I'm one to think they don't really know what's going on.

[The Black Panther]

Is there any way you can find IP addresses?
Might this be an owner for 2 teams?

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

I feel vetoes have a place in fantasy leagues, and this is that place. Just an awful trade. Sometimes you've just gotta hit the reset button on a trade and make the owners figure something else out.

[Fighting_Emu]

Im going to read the whole thread- but I havent yet.

Just seeing that I am always, always, always against vetoes- they ruin leagues imo but...

Wow!! That is one of the worst trades Ive ever seen. Youve got two guys who might be flirting with generational type talent in there. Id allow it because Id never speak in favor of a veto- but Id strongly reccomend the owner in question do more research on his assets in the future. This might sound harsh but Id even consider replacing him. Tbh Im not sure why you play fantasy hockey when your making trades like that- lol! I mean Eichel and Barzal are ot even really under the radar at this point. Thats a tough situation. I mean you cant really ask the other owner to "go back on it"- but itd be nice if he volunteered too- lol :P

[Fighting_Emu]

OK I read the thread. The quote I like best is where someone said "I have a hard time thinking he was acting in accordence of what he thought was best for his team". Im definitely in agreeance. I think a simple question would go a long way, just ask "how do you feel this trade has improved your team?". I think the answer would be a fantastic portrayal of bullshit artistry in action- hahaha!

I think this might actually be collusion and I wouldnt be surprised if as some people are suggesting its the same guy who owns both teams trying to poach one roster to strengthen the other. You cant say your getting younger or playing potential- its basically "indefensible".

[stevegamer]

I think a simple question would go a long way, just ask "how do you feel this trade has improved your team?".

This is an often underused tool by commissioners. You get feedback, and while you may not agree with the answers, if the owner has sound reasoning, and a plan to what he's doing, that's generally good enough. I doubt you find the "sound reasoning" part here.