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

[als_revenge]

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.

My only reaction this is - this the team acquiring Larkin is a new GM, with no history of demonstrating competence - then how many trades do you let the person make before stepping in? I'm off the mind that veto rules should be different (more strict) for a GM with no track record in the league.

[Pengwin7]

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.

If I've learned something from years of "is this veto" threads... it is this:
The OP (thread poster) usually (!!!) has a vested interest in one-side or the other. (otherwise, why post?)
And then, the OP, lists enough information - and only enough information - to get our opinions to sway to one side or the other.

Everytime I come into these threads and ask questions - it flushes out key information that exposes the situation.

Here's a few:
*How long has each GM been in the league?
*What kind of experience does each GM have?
*Do the two GMs know each other?
*Is it a money league?
*Is either of these GMs the commissioner? (God I hope not... but I find that half the time... one IS!!!... usually the rake-city-GM is working over a noob-invite-GM... that's the worst/most-common, I've found)
*Is the Larkin-team acquirer a Red Wing lover? (I know a few overly passionate, lowlevelkeenfantasyhockey Wing fans.)


I mean... Lafreniere >> Larkin in the "keeper world"... and we all know it.

So to throw in MORE assets on the Lafreniere side is pretty crazy. Very crazy.
Would I veto this deal?... Yes, probably yes.
It is very inbalanced and I think the the Laf side is too loaded up for the future.

Something is off here... and I feel like we didn't get enough GM-info to flush it out.
The Larkin-buyer isn't too fantasy-savvy. Period. (Sorry to whoever that is. Truth, you need to hear it.)
And he's basically gifting/loading-up assets onto the GM taking advantage.

No, this isn't good for a league... it creates imbalance/power on TeamLaf... and is therefore at least worthy of VETO-discussion.
I'd imagine the top "young"/building teams in the league will have a major problem with this trade - and I get that, fair feeling... very fair to feel rubbed the wrong way.
Once those other non-trading GMs feel that imbalance, they leave, and the league continues to goes to shit.
It's a trickle-down effect.... imbalanced trades... and this is why VETOs are important (even without needing to know or investigate collusion).

[stevegamer]

My only reaction this is - this the team acquiring Larkin is a new GM, with no history of demonstrating competence - then how many trades do you let the person make before stepping in? I'm off the mind that veto rules should be different (more strict) for a GM with no track record in the league.

I can understand that. However, it should be in the rules for all GM's new to the league to have a probationary period. You could exempt a GM if they are returning after a year off, or something if you like.

[jshed2]

If I've learned something from years of "is this veto" threads... it is this:
The OP (thread poster) usually (!!!) has a vested interest in one-side or the other. (otherwise, why post?)
And then, the OP, lists enough information - and only enough information - to get our opinions to sway to one side or the other.

Everytime I come into these threads and ask questions - it flushes out key information that exposes the situation.

Here's a few:
*How long has each GM been in the league?
*What kind of experience does each GM have?
*Do the two GMs know each other?
*Is it a money league?
*Is either of these GMs the commissioner? (God I hope not... but I find that half the time... one IS!!!... usually the rake-city-GM is working over a noob-invite-GM... that's the worst/most-common, I've found)
*Is the Larkin-team acquirer a Red Wing lover? (I know a few overly passionate, lowlevelkeenfantasyhockey Wing fans.)

Lets see if I can add some context then (truly was more interested in a more general discussion about how people choose to veto than specific but so be it).

Also I will point out that the general consensus in the league was that Lafreniere is worth more alone than Larkin before adding Smith & a 1st. The team getting Larkin also lucked into Laf through someone else's pick they owned I believe and they should be competing next year, so the trade has reason at least.

*How long has each GM been in the league?

League is entering it's 3rd season. Both owners have been in for that whole time I believe.

*What kind of experience does each GM have?

No clue about the experience of the guy who traded for Larkin, but the other I'm in a number of other leagues with.

*Do the two GMs know each other?

Not that I know of

*Is it a money league?

Yes. $50 entry

*Is either of these GMs the commissioner?

The one trading away Larkin is. However, I don't think she was intentionally trying to take advantage of the other owner. 90% sure that she got offered this and accepted.

[saucelife90]

Usually the people on the veto side are the kind of owners who wish they offered a Larkin type player in a deal, but never thought the Laf side was willing to move him in the first place. Then use the reasoning of "well I would have paid wayyy more!"

It's bad, but it's not league changing bad.

[havanablast21]

Lets see if I can add some context then (truly was more interested in a more general discussion about how people choose to veto than specific but so be it).

Also I will point out that the general consensus in the league was that Lafreniere is worth more alone than Larkin before adding Smith & a 1st. The team getting Larkin also lucked into Laf through someone else's pick they owned I believe and they should be competing next year, so the trade has reason at least.

*How long has each GM been in the league?

League is entering it's 3rd season. Both owners have been in for that whole time I believe.

*What kind of experience does each GM have?

No clue about the experience of the guy who traded for Larkin, but the other I'm in a number of other leagues with.

*Do the two GMs know each other?

Not that I know of

*Is it a money league?

Yes. $50 entry

*Is either of these GMs the commissioner?

The one trading away Larkin is. However, I don't think she was intentionally trying to take advantage of the other owner. 90% sure that she got offered this and accepted.

She's got chops! Good for her. Horrible for the league.

Also what time of day did this take place? Late night drunken offer by the GM trading away LAF and the Fairer sex GM saying ... "um...ok ... I'll show you".

I'd personally be embarrassed to be on either side of this trade, but if offered the Laf side... I'd likely take my chances accepting and see what happens when the dust settles. Which is why I agree with P7 that VETOs should be a consideration for more than just collusion if a league is serious and wants to remain strong. But a strong defined method of Veto outlining expectations should be clear and available by all GM's all of the time.

[als_revenge]

If both GMs have been in the league since inception, 3 years, then I personally wouldn't do anything outside of what ever regular veto process exists. A horrible trade, IMO, but that's how it goes.