[VETO] Subban for Eberle

[Avangard]

The one getting Subban wins hands down. But mature people playing fantasy hockey shouldn't have to use any veto. They will sure be laughed at for a while, and everyone will make a pitch trying to pry the GM with poor judgment !

[2014olympicgold]

I hate vetos, it’s bitten me in the butt in many leagues. I almost didn’t get a blockbuster done on deadline day in Baseball because it got vetoed like 4 times. And it was one guy going for the championship and the other guy going for next yr. Exactly what deadline day is for. The only time I use a veto is when a.)You know the GM knows nothing about the sport and is getting picked on. And that’s more of help. It’s an “I would not do this deal buddy, but it’s up to you”. This works because we are all friends and easy going enough where we’ve allowed a 1time trade reversal within 12 hours of the “accepted” trade. Also we’ve had people mistakenly accepted a trade (don’t ask how) and needed it reversed. Really dumb I know. Or B.) collusion

[Loki]

If you have a practice that actively uses "on the block" then "veto" rules should be unnecessary.
The fair market price is the fair market price...if everyone had the opportunity to submit their best offer and this is it then it is what it is regardless of what you perceive the value to be.
I remember a few years ago, I traded Pat Kane for Mike Green who was the scoring darling of D-Men.
Price was high and there isn't a moment I regret doing that deal.
However, the moral is...it doesn't always turn out to be the way you anticipate/perceive ti to be.
The Hockey Gods have a way of keeping us humble.

[Pengwin7]

re: VETO.
That is completely subjective to so many things.
i) What does the other guy's roster look like?
ii) Is he going to be back in the pool FOR SURE next year... or could he just say, next offseason "I'm out, I am too busy"?
iii) Does he know the other guy?
iv) Would they take turns trading assets so that they could take turns winning the pool?

I absolutely understand and have witnessed very questionable trades that can destroy leagues.
Subban is a massive upgrade in multi-cat on Eberle.
One team is getting strengthened huge here and the pick IS of very little value.

I hear a lot of opinions that teams should be able to do what they want... but I've also seen first-hand teams trade-off winning in seasons with their buddies... and I've seen first-hand, leagues destroyed due to unbalanced trades.
We all think in the first person, that everybody has ethics similar to our own and intentions, similar to our own. But this is not always the case.
If you are the 1st place team... and you get passed by a team winning a high unbalanced trade with a brother... or buddy... and then taking home a $1000 prize (say)... you'd see this all differently.

People talk about "as long as there isn't collusion"... and we (the outsiders to this league) have NO IDEA if there could be or not.
And the truth is... there could be. There. could. be.
So get rid of the "what ifs" or "could be"... and do this:

My solution in all leagues:
Allow veto voting.
Non-trading GMs all get one vote.
Votes are public. This is very important, because if somebody wants to veto a "fair" trade, it will come back to bite them eventually.
If there is a 75% or greater veto vote... the trade is vetoed. (This number 75% is a HUGE majority of GMs seeing the trade as unbalanced. That would be 8 of 10 votes in a 12-team league.)

This way, you don't have to question collusion.
You don't have to look into the "why" behind people's MO.
And more importantly, you don't have to start up a thread asking for our opinions... when... WE really don't know... and we will never know enough about your league & GMs to form a judicious opinion.

That's my 2 cents.
Get that rule in place so that YOU and YOUR league can figure this stuff out internally.
Good luck.

[rataylor22]

re: VETO.
That is completely subjective to so many things.
i) What does the other guy's roster look like?
ii) Is he going to be back in the pool FOR SURE next year... or could he just say, next offseason "I'm out, I am too busy"?
iii) Does he know the other guy?
iv) Would they take turns trading assets so that they could take turns winning the pool?

I absolutely understand and have witnessed very questionable trades that can destroy leagues.
Subban is a massive upgrade in multi-cat on Eberle.
One team is getting strengthened huge here and the pick IS of very little value.

I hear a lot of opinions that teams should be able to do what they want... but I've also seen first-hand teams trade-off winning in seasons with their buddies... and I've seen first-hand, leagues destroyed due to unbalanced trades.
We all think in the first person, that everybody has ethics similar to our own and intentions, similar to our own. But this is not always the case.
If you are the 1st place team... and you get passed by a team winning a high unbalanced trade with a brother... or buddy... and then taking home a $1000 prize (say)... you'd see this all differently.

People talk about "as long as there isn't collusion"... and we (the outsiders to this league) have NO IDEA if there could be or not.
And the truth is... there could be. There. could. be.
So get rid of the "what ifs" or "could be"... and do this:

My solution in all leagues:
Allow veto voting.
Non-trading GMs all get one vote.
Votes are public. This is very important, because if somebody wants to veto a "fair" trade, it will come back to bite them eventually.
If there is a 75% or greater veto vote... the trade is vetoed. (This number 75% is a HUGE majority of GMs seeing the trade as unbalanced. That would be 8 of 10 votes in a 12-team league.)

This way, you don't have to question collusion.
You don't have to look into the "why" behind people's MO.
And more importantly, you don't have to start up a thread asking for our opinions... when... WE really don't know... and we will never know enough about your league & GMs to form a judicious opinion.

That's my 2 cents.
Get that rule in place so that YOU and YOUR league can figure this stuff out internally
Good luck.

Like say....Jimmy Graham for two marginal players....?

[Laendarian]

not veto worthy in my opinion, I'd want Subban but c'est la vie.

[islefan31]

We did away with vetoes for that reason. Sure I'd prefer one side over the other but that's my opinion, no reason for a veto here...fair enough.

[reggo]

Prefer Subban, but nothing - and I mean nothing short of collusion should be vetoed.

I'll second that

[SergeP]

re: VETO.
My solution in all leagues:
Allow veto voting.
Non-trading GMs all get one vote.
Votes are public. This is very important, because if somebody wants to veto a "fair" trade, it will come back to bite them eventually.
If there is a 75% or greater veto vote... the trade is vetoed. (This number 75% is a HUGE majority of GMs seeing the trade as unbalanced. That would be 8 of 10 votes in a 12-team league.)

This way, you don't have to question collusion.
You don't have to look into the "why" behind people's MO.
And more importantly, you don't have to start up a thread asking for our opinions... when... WE really don't know... and we will never know enough about your league & GMs to form a judicious opinion.

That's my 2 cents.
Get that rule in place so that YOU and YOUR league can figure this stuff out internally.
Good luck.

I personally hate this approach. GMs become enamoured with a player's potential and make bad trades all the time - in fantasy hockey AND in the NHL. I agree that there could be collusion but, in a situation where a trade appears lopsided, I would expect a good League Manager to speak to both parties and decide for himself whether he believes their motives to be purely "hockey reasons". There are almost always tell-tale signs that something fishy is going on (e.g. a GM refuses to trade with anyone but his buddy, a GM who has been inactive for most of the season suddenly sends off all his best players in a one-sided trade, a GM has previously approached other GMs about colluding, etc.). If the League Manager cannot determine for himself whether or not there was collusion, then and only then should a case be presented to the other GMs in the league and put up for a vote.

When you put every trade up for a vote, you will undoubtedly have honest trades veto'd due to factors like jealousy and simple ignorance (especially in multi-cat leagues where player value isn't always proportionate to "name recognition"). Also, GMs will almost ALWAYS vote on a trade with their own best interests in mind. Let's look at two very common scenarios to illustrate my point:

Scenario 1:
Bottom team trades slumping superstar (think Giroux this time last year) to last year's champion team for young player who is likely playing above his head (think Hertl this time last year) - no reason to believe there was any collusion. Uproar ensues, other GMs promptly vote to veto the trade in order to "protect the bottom team's GM from himself"

Scenario 2:
Same trade as scenario 1, only this time the bottom team is the one receving Giroux in exchange for Hertl. Other GMs rejoice as their chances of winning the league just improved. No one vetoes the trade.

Both trades are identical however I've never heard of a league veto'ing a trade where the better team seemingly "lost". I can understand how frustrating it is when the balance of power in a keeper league ends up out of whack because of a few GMs who consistently make ill-advised trades however the answer to this problem shouldn't be to forcefully run an ignorant GM's team for him, rather you should look to find a new league with better competition.

[reggo]

re: VETO.
That is completely subjective to so many things.
i) What does the other guy's roster look like?
ii) Is he going to be back in the pool FOR SURE next year... or could he just say, next offseason "I'm out, I am too busy"?
iii) Does he know the other guy?
iv) Would they take turns trading assets so that they could take turns winning the pool?

I absolutely understand and have witnessed very questionable trades that can destroy leagues.
Subban is a massive upgrade in multi-cat on Eberle.
One team is getting strengthened huge here and the pick IS of very little value.

I hear a lot of opinions that teams should be able to do what they want... but I've also seen first-hand teams trade-off winning in seasons with their buddies... and I've seen first-hand, leagues destroyed due to unbalanced trades.
We all think in the first person, that everybody has ethics similar to our own and intentions, similar to our own. But this is not always the case.
If you are the 1st place team... and you get passed by a team winning a high unbalanced trade with a brother... or buddy... and then taking home a $1000 prize (say)... you'd see this all differently.

People talk about "as long as there isn't collusion"... and we (the outsiders to this league) have NO IDEA if there could be or not.
And the truth is... there could be. There. could. be.
So get rid of the "what ifs" or "could be"... and do this:

My solution in all leagues:
Allow veto voting.
Non-trading GMs all get one vote.
Votes are public. This is very important, because if somebody wants to veto a "fair" trade, it will come back to bite them eventually.
If there is a 75% or greater veto vote... the trade is vetoed. (This number 75% is a HUGE majority of GMs seeing the trade as unbalanced. That would be 8 of 10 votes in a 12-team league.)

This way, you don't have to question collusion.
You don't have to look into the "why" behind people's MO.
And more importantly, you don't have to start up a thread asking for our opinions... when... WE really don't know... and we will never know enough about your league & GMs to form a judicious opinion.

That's my 2 cents.
Get that rule in place so that YOU and YOUR league can figure this stuff out internally.
Good luck.

In our yahoo league, the built in rule by yahoo is only 25%! And there's no way to change that, so are you saying you have managers vote by coming forward publicly and then tallying the votes? Or are you using a different pool system than yahoo?

[audiopile]

Too close for a veto and too many unknowns. Roster needs, salary cap etc. Ive seen and done worse.