Crosby Trade Issue

[93213]

Karma has a way of coming back at you. I know it sucks now, but down the road at some point it will all work out.

In fact I'm hoping your honorable move means that Crosby is okay. You may have saved the season!

[LawMan]

Since this thread came up and the OP's problem has been solved I'll hijack a little here to ask for a question that came up in a league I'm in awhile back.

A trade was offered involving Visnovsky, it was a balanced trade. The offering manager offered a deal where he got Vis. After the offer Vis went down for a month, then the trade was accepted.

Multiple questions:
1. Is the trade vetoable because the owner who got Visnovsky offered to take a perfectly healthy Vis and got a month long IR stint Vis?
2. Does your answer depend on whether or not the accepting manager knew Vis was hurt? or how long after the trade was accepted?
3. Is it a shady practice to accept after you know the player is hurt in cases where its a "freak accident"?

The other manager wasn't overly upset because its a H-2-H league. I was torn, I settled on the trade wasn't vetoable but it was still shady for the owner accepting to do so. The owner asked what I'd of done and said I would have rejected and re-submited the trade to the other manager noting Vis's injury for fairness' sake.

[hockeyrobot]

Multiple questions:
1. Is the trade vetoable because the owner who got Visnovsky offered to take a perfectly healthy Vis and got a month long IR stint Vis?
2. Does your answer depend on whether or not the accepting manager knew Vis was hurt? or how long after the trade was accepted?
3. Is it a shady practice to accept after you know the player is hurt in cases where its a "freak accident"?

1. This deal is vetoable in my opinion because of the fact that the deal was accepted AFTER Vis got hurt. Yes, he is an injury prone played, but it wasn't like my deal for Crosby where he was already sitting out for two games and there was no news or confirmation as to whether he'd be back for tomorrow vs Detroit.

2. I think it depends on: a) how long was the trade offer pending? B) how long after the injury was the deal accepted?
If the deal

[93213]

Since this thread came up and the OP's problem has been solved I'll hijack a little here to ask for a question that came up in a league I'm in awhile back.

A trade was offered involving Visnovsky, it was a balanced trade. The offering manager offered a deal where he got Vis. After the offer Vis went down for a month, then the trade was accepted.

Multiple questions:
1. Is the trade vetoable because the owner who got Visnovsky offered to take a perfectly healthy Vis and got a month long IR stint Vis?
2. Does your answer depend on whether or not the accepting manager knew Vis was hurt? or how long after the trade was accepted?
3. Is it a shady practice to accept after you know the player is hurt in cases where its a "freak accident"?

The other manager wasn't overly upset because its a H-2-H league. I was torn, I settled on the trade wasn't vetoable but it was still shady for the owner accepting to do so. The owner asked what I'd of done and said I would have rejected and re-submited the trade to the other manager noting Vis's injury for fairness' sake.

No veto at all. Healthy or hurt Viz it's your job to manage your team not anyone else's. When I have a trade up I make damn sure to monitor the games every night. If any player in the deal goes down either coming my way or going the other I cancel. I usually also include a note explaining why. Hope being that if I ever miss one they other guy will remember what type of guy I am and not do me over.

It is a douche move to do that to someone, but unfortunately douche bags can't be vetoed or we'd have a much nicer planet.

[Kaphis]

Since this thread came up and the OP's problem has been solved I'll hijack a little here to ask for a question that came up in a league I'm in awhile back.

A trade was offered involving Visnovsky, it was a balanced trade. The offering manager offered a deal where he got Vis. After the offer Vis went down for a month, then the trade was accepted.

Multiple questions:
1. Is the trade vetoable because the owner who got Visnovsky offered to take a perfectly healthy Vis and got a month long IR stint Vis?
2. Does your answer depend on whether or not the accepting manager knew Vis was hurt? or how long after the trade was accepted?
3. Is it a shady practice to accept after you know the player is hurt in cases where its a "freak accident"?

The other manager wasn't overly upset because its a H-2-H league. I was torn, I settled on the trade wasn't vetoable but it was still shady for the owner accepting to do so. The owner asked what I'd of done and said I would have rejected and re-submited the trade to the other manager noting Vis's injury for fairness' sake.

It all hinges on your second question but not so much on the receiving manager of the injured player, but on the previous owner. I am a full believer that Veto is only used for one reason which is to prevent collusion in a league, I don't use it to "reverse bad trades".

But in this case, which actually have happened a few years ago in my league, I have used my veto powers to maintain the integrity of the league.

What happened is that a player's injury was announced the day when the receiving owner accepted the trade. The trade was pending but it was made aware to me that the receiving owner didn't know that player was injured.

I interviewed both Managers and the owner moving the player was aware of the injury but did not feel that it was his responsibility to communicate the injury to the other owner.

During that week, a similar event happened in the NHL where a trade was canceled by the NHL due to a player not passing a physical. Using that as my source, I vetoed the trade. Are all trades going to be vetoed because managers aren't paying attention to NHL news? Definitely not! But I felt that it was a good time to discourage this type of deal where information was not brought forth knowingly to mislead another manager of a players value.

In another instance, a DTD player's injury detail was released after the trade has been accepted. The trade was not vetoed because there was an accepted risk in trading for a DTD player. No information was withheld and the trade was made with all the information available at the time.

That's how I use the veto options, not to "reverse" bad trades. But as a tool to maintain the league's integrity and also to prevent collusion.

[dmfitzpatrick29]

No veto at all. Healthy or hurt Viz it's your job to manage your team not anyone else's. When I have a trade up I make damn sure to monitor the games every night. If any player in the deal goes down either coming my way or going the other I cancel. I usually also include a note explaining why. Hope being that if I ever miss one they other guy will remember what type of guy I am and not do me over. .

Ya, I agree with this. You have to know what guys you're getting in bound. If you hit accept after he gets hurt, that's just you getting burned because you didn't do research. At the very least, a GM should google to see if the players involved in the trade are hurt before accepting.

[LawMan]

Ya, I agree with this. You have to know what guys you're getting in bound. If you hit accept after he gets hurt, that's just you getting burned because you didn't do research. At the very least, a GM should google to see if the players involved in the trade are hurt before accepting.

I agree but the reverse happened here. the owner who offered the deal was to get a healthy Visnovsky, the accepting owner had Visnovsky and then accepted the deal after Visnovsky was hurt.

My thought process was this: there is a distinction between accepting the risk of injury and an injured player. Every player has a risk of a freak accident puck to the face, broken ankle etc. so when "healthy" players are swapped there's no big deal. The problem here in my mind was the accepting owner had information available to him that was not available to the offering owner.
While I appreciate the idea that you should watch your players who have been offered up, most owners can't be that vigilent and I don't think there should be a "race to your laptops" if a player goes down.

[dmfitzpatrick29]

Ah, my mistake I read that wrong.

Still, as others have said, as a sometimes Commish myself, I've concluded the veto should only be used in cases of collusion, not buyers/sellers remorse. Unless there's conspiracy to undermine the league and change the balance of power, don't think a Commish should get involved at all. I had a similar crisis when a very one sided deal was proposed, but it ended up just being one manager not knowing any better.

Hope it works out for you though.


Edit: I would distinguish between things that I think are "gutless" or "low blows" and what I think is "vetoable."

[93213]

I agree but the reverse happened here. the owner who offered the deal was to get a healthy Visnovsky, the accepting owner had Visnovsky and then accepted the deal after Visnovsky was hurt.

My thought process was this: there is a distinction between accepting the risk of injury and an injured player. Every player has a risk of a freak accident puck to the face, broken ankle etc. so when "healthy" players are swapped there's no big deal. The problem here in my mind was the accepting owner had information available to him that was not available to the offering owner.
While I appreciate the idea that you should watch your players who have been offered up, most owners can't be that vigilent and I don't think there should be a "race to your laptops" if a player goes down.

I agree you shouldn't have to race to your laptop, but the reality is that you run a risk if you don't. It sucks and the guys who burn you like this are dicks, but it's not a valid reason to veto is what we're talking about.