General Message Board
Standard 12 team h2h league
I get ovechkin for couture and markov, but the commish just vetoed it. It's not like Ovi is lighting the world on fire, he's looking more like the 65 point guy from last year than the monster from the years before. I'm in 1st place and have had good fortune in waiver pickups and a couple other trades, and I feel like he's punishing me for it, but there is no collusion and no bad faith in the deal, so I think he's overstepping his duties. Am I wrong?
Current roster (just for fun)
C- Tomas plekanec
C- Andy McDonald
LW- loui eriksson
LW- max pacioretty
RW- evgeni malkin
RW- Corey Perry
W- Logan couture
F- Cody hodgson
D- Alex pietrangelo
D- andrei markov
Util- lubomir visnovsky
Util- Michael del zotto
G- Cory Schneider
G- Roberto luongo
G- Corey Crawford
B- brad boyes
B- David booth
B- Derek Roy
IR- Joffrey lupul
IR- Gabriel Landeskog
Depends on the stats counted, if SOG and hits are counted I would veto it easy...Markov is...
Depends on the stats counted, if SOG and hits are counted I would veto it easy...Markov is injury prone and on the downhill IMO...so it boils down to Couture for Ovechkin, I would still veto it...I mean on a bad season Ovechkin will get 60points...and if hits and SOG are counted... then forget about it, cause he is a stud on those stats.
- View Replies
Veto?? are you kidding. Im with the guys above, only veto is its collusion or roster dumpi...
Veto?? are you kidding. Im with the guys above, only veto is its collusion or roster dumping. You can be the judge of how someone values players. and maybe he is like myself and have given up on Ovi. Ovi is on the decline and couture is on the rise.
I hear you, but player valuation isn't the point here. The point is that I offered up ...
I hear you, but player valuation isn't the point here. The point is that I offered up a deal to another owner in my league (as far as I know, it's a random league. At least I don't know anyone) and he accepted. Now would I make that deal from the other side of the table? Probably not. But he did. He's not out of the playoff race yet, so this isn't a roster dump. And he certainly doesn't owe me any favors that would lead to him accepting the trade. So on what grounds can the commish (who isn't far behind me in the standings) veto the trade that doesn't give him de facto control over how I run my team? It's not his job to maintain competitive balance, parity isn't compulsory in fantasy hockey, and if someone wants to trade me Alex ovechkin, whether it be out of need or a simple, deep-seated hatred of Russians, he should be allowed to do so.
it's a bad veto.. you don't veto trades like this.. if the other player is dumb en...
it's a bad veto.. you don't veto trades like this.. if the other player is dumb enough to trade a player he probably shouldn't. Whomever is the first team to realize this weakness surely deserves to reap the benefits. As an active commish I would not veto this trade; worst case I would let it go to league vote and let the other teams weigh in as well but I would not veto it out of the thought of collusion. Colluding and roster dumping are really the only things that would influence me to veto a trade. Like I mentioned before, it's not your fault you were the first to offer up a trade to someone who might not know that much about the sport and the players involved. Also, getting a d-man and a dual position forward can pay off for one Ovi., yes Markov has a history of injury, but is he injured right now? will he get injured next game? possibly.. but will Ovi get injured next game? possibly..
all in all, bad veto, bad commish.
- View Replies
Totally bad veto. The trade is slightly lopsided but to some degree that is on the two tea...
Totally bad veto. The trade is slightly lopsided but to some degree that is on the two teams that are trading. Couture is on the uptick (but the Sharks CANNOT score as of late) and Markov is injury prone (as mentioned), so the person getting OV is the winner (IMO)... but to veto - nah.
Crosby for Heatley is a veto..... not this one, could go either way.
On its face, there is zero reason to veto such a trade. Collusion and dumping should be ...
On its face, there is zero reason to veto such a trade.
Collusion and dumping should be the only instances to warrant a veto and only after thorough scrutiny.
Did he give you a reason?
I hope you're not playing for money.