Trade help - heading to vetoland

[Moses]

Especially if either of those top 4 end up being the #1 pick and the guy gets Hughes and/or LAfreniere

Yup! Exactly. 25% chance at Lafreniere doesn't do much for your roster today.

[Moses]

I am on the Rinne side, and have in the past landed on the right side of deals with said GM. Mind you, this has been the case with several deals in the past with various other GM's (Stamkos - Boedker, Fiala and a keep 10 redraft 1st - a couple years ago - with a different GM, mind you as an example - that went through)

Well, when you have 12,211 posts in a forum like this you are bound to make the odd good deal or three based on your research time alone.

[Stewpaloop]

Sounds like a terrible league with a veto system that gets thrown around far more than it should.

[als_revenge]

Sounds like a terrible league with a veto system that gets thrown around far more than it should.

Sounds like vetos are not the problem; the problem is there is a GM in a league that lacks the knowledge or experience and keeps getting fleeced. The vetos are to protect a weak GM and the integrity of the league. There's nothing wrong with this, IMO, if the league doesn't have the stones or will to replace the GM.

[saucelife90]

Sounds like vetos are not the problem; the problem is there is a GM in a league that lacks the knowledge or experience and keeps getting fleeced. The vetos are to protect a weak GM and the integrity of the league. There's nothing wrong with this, IMO, if the league doesn't have the stones or will to replace the GM.

I think this hits the nail. Instead of continuously veto'ing this GMs "bad" trades, why not give him the boot and save everyone the hassle?

Unless it's,
A. He/she is a good friend. - In which case someone should speak to them.
B. Having a clueless GM in your league means 1 less team to contend with and the rest of the GMs are fine with that.

[Pengwin7]

His team isn't the strongest. Unlikely he lands a top 2 pick. We run a consolation bracket. 12 vs 9, 10 vs 11 - winners play off for #1, 2 picks - losers playoff for 3, 4 picks.

In fairness, this would have been a good item to include in the OP.
If there is a near-certainty that the pick will NOT be a top two (due to league format of gifting top two picks to a "stronger" than "weakest" team)... then he may be giving up a bit much.

For 2019, as I understand it, the big prize is Hughes with K.Kaako being a solid Laine-ish #2.
For 2020, as I understand it, the big prize is Lafreniere... and I don't know who falls behind.

Elite high-end talent is typically needed by inferior GMs to rise up.
And Rinne - the way he is playing well and Saros is not - is a MAJOR add in leagues for 2018-2019.
Rinne IS a top 10 player in most leagues for this year... and maybe next one or two - with that new extension.

I'd understand the concern of other GMs.
Trade Veto is not purely about collusion.
If a trade is damaging to the integrity of the league - I think GMs should be allowed to vote on this factor too.

(Sorry - it's one of my pet peeves, those people that think "collusion is the only reason". I've been in too many leagues where the commissioner invites an inferior-fantasy-hockey-mind [often: BUDDY of the COMMISSIONER] and then fleeces that GM several times in trades. ***Hopefully OP is not the league commissioner... and hopefully other trade party is not his "invite" to the league. That WOULD be key info to divulge, if true.*** One smart person taking advantage of one stupid person is still subject to overturning in some courts of laws. There need not be collusion to have that transaction reversed. Good fantasy hockey laws/rules/guidelines are looking out for the overall health of a community. The whole "non-collusion" argument is simply not the only evaluating metric when there are other impacted members of the society [non-trading parties]. This applies to small fantasy hockey leagues as well as larger communities.)

[horrorfan]

I'm generalising here, and don't play in keeper leagues...

But I feel like using a veto is a bandaid solution, which temporarily masks a greater issue: the lack of trust in your league's managers.