When to veto - only in collusion or when a trade is too one-sided?

[jshed2]

In the league in my sig (notable a deeper cap league) the following trade just went down:

Larkin for Laffreniere + Ty Smith + 2021 1st + J. Boqvist

Created a bit of a stir between owners with several saying they think the trade is bad for the league (we just replaced 4 or 5 owners last offseason) and several others saying that since both teams agreed there's no collusion and it shouldn't be vetoed. Curious about the dobber community's thoughts.

[Axeman33]

What is your league policy on trades? Is there anything in place that allows a veto?

[jshed2]

What is your league policy on trades? Is there anything in place that allows a veto?

Trades are supposed to go through a 2 day window where they can be vetoed. However in the offseason that has been waived and will only been done by request.

To be clear the trade won't be vetoed, it seems more members are on the no collusion = no veto side of this argument.

[lucafen4]

I mean.. I wouldn't do the deal, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it alters the balance of the league.
Consider that Lafreniere is the only 'almost sure thing' coming back.
If he has a Hughes or Svech type 1st pro year - Smith, Boqvist won't move the needle in 20/21 that much - and that pick is wild card.
So the return value is really a coin toss for 20/21 season, possibly even 21/22.

All that aside, I'd still want the futures side. It's a name value thing vs. real value.

Lafreniere without playing a game in the NHL already has more name value than Dylan Larkin. I guess that alone says something right there.

Vetoes have more uses than just collusion. Sometimes you have an owner so out of their league he/she needs to be protected from themselves.

I agree it appears lopsided but I would not veto this deal.
If I were the Commish I'd make a note to perhaps monitor the new GM to see if this was a one-off to obtain their favourite player or if they just have no clue.

[VanDan]

I'd ask if there was any future considerations not mentioned, but other than that I don't think it can be vetoed. I don't like the deal, but bad trades happen.

[Dr.Brad]

Commish night reserve the right to reverse it if the “stupid” side (who traded away the future) then quits the league before ‘20-‘21 season starts. But that could get complicated and messy. I just see bad trades like that as an omen.

[DocMcPuffin]

I mean.. I wouldn't do the deal, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it alters the balance of the league.
Consider that Lafreniere is the only 'almost sure thing' coming back.
If he has a Hughes or Svech type 1st pro year - Smith, Boqvist won't move the needle in 20/21 that much - and that pick is wild card.
So the return value is really a coin toss for 20/21 season, possibly even 21/22.

All that aside, I'd still want the futures side. It's a name value thing vs. real value.

Lafreniere without playing a game in the NHL already has more name value than Dylan Larkin. I guess that alone says something right there.

Vetoes have more uses than just collusion. Sometimes you have an owner so out of their league he/she needs to be protected from themselves.

I agree it appears lopsided but I would not veto this deal.
If I were the Commish I'd make a note to perhaps monitor the new GM to see if this was a one-off to obtain their favourite player or if they just have no clue.

Sounds like me HAHA! Vetos probably would've helped me in the past LOL!

[roenick27]

Idk. I'm anti-veto. But in a deep CAP league something is fishy here. You normally can't get younger, better, and save cap in the same deal. In a cap league this seems to be way off. Sure laf may not hit 60 points this year but you could prolly stash these guys and pick up a veteran that can be a Larkin-lite and still save cap.

I wouldn't necessarily veto but I think this is a deal that needs further investigation from a commish

[LuigiC173]

Larkin is one year removed from a 73-point campaign at 22 years old and being treated like dirt. Yes, overall last year it was a disappointment, I owned him, I know. End of the day it is a lot of potential for proven at this point. I do think the pick is a little much but there are no guarantees any of these guys step in and do anything, even Alexis. Last summer everyone and their mother were calling for 60-point floor seasons for Kakko and Hughes and that did not come close to happening. As god awful as Detroit is, Larkin still crossed the 50 point plateau, it can only go up from here. Dylan hits a lot of these cats even though he will be a burden on plus minus but it is not entirely out of the question the deal.

[Jerrodedson99]

No vetoes unless collusion is a hill I’ll die on. In my league we say if someone gets fleeced it’s on them. We give a few jabs, we laugh it off, then move on. (Not that I think this is a fleecing; I really like Larkin.)

[als_revenge]

I'm guessing the Lafreniere side will be a lottery pick again next year, which just further distorts the value, IMO.

The potentially BIG red flag I see if that you replaced 4 or 5 owners last off-season. Is one of these owners acquiring Larkin? If so, has this owner made any other trades to indicate they know anything about fantasy hockey? I'd be much less concerned with this trade if the team acquiring Larkin is a long-standing member that has a history to demonstrate competence for your league.

The "die on a hill" no collusion leagues, I find, our also the leagues advertising a spot for someone to take over a team with no goalies, no draft picks, no stars, and the need for a 20 year rebuild. But hey, whatever floats your boat...

[Jerrodedson99]

I’m lucky to be in a league where everyone knows each other; long time league; no manager turnovers.

[als_revenge]

I’m lucky to be in a league where everyone knows each other; long time league; no manager turnovers.

Those are the best leagues ever, treasure it. And yeah, no need for a veto in a league like that.

[stevegamer]

Generally I want people to manage their teams, so bad behavior that compromises the league is where I normally draw the line. That is not strictly limited to collusion, as sometimes just one team just is trying to do something not healthy for the league. I have seen it happen with an temporary GM where the real guy was hospitalized, and his brother figured he'd trade for players he hates to yank his chain.

I can see that for some leagues, having some sort of "trades must be approved by a review board" when you are new kind of vets the GM.

This is a deal where I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Do I think I'd definitely prefer one side? Yes, but this is not close to being crazy enough to consider vetoing.

[Axeman33]

Trades are supposed to go through a 2 day window where they can be vetoed. However in the offseason that has been waived and will only been done by request.

To be clear the trade won't be vetoed, it seems more members are on the no collusion = no veto side of this argument.

If there's no chance of veto due to league rules, it is what it is. I mean, it's not a great looking trade on paper but the game is played on the ice. In my opinion, it's an overpayment for Larkin but I am also of mind that you have to let teams run their franchises.