• Draft and Trade Talk Message Board

  • FlyinPens FlyinPens Jan 12, 2010 11:29 AM Flag

    Should this have been vetoed?

    This trade was vetoed in our league (public, standard roto, 12 teams)

    Team A sends - Ovechkin, Simon Gagne, Nittymaki
    Team B for - Mike Green, Enstrom, Luongo

    I wasn't involved in the trade and didn't vote to veto it because it is lopsided but not veto worthy in my opinion. Am I right/wrong?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • veto's are for fags

    • Well, the trade was proposed and accepted again so we will see what happens. I agree with most of what has been said on here, I have never voted against any trade but I am starting to see the draw back of a public league. It lends itself to this kind of personal crap. I am right on his heals in 2nd and turned down a similar offer from him for my Brodeur and Markov because MA Fluery is stinking right now but if was a fair offer. I rather lose in a fair league opposed to winning in crooked one.

    • well i would only have vetoed if someone like the Number one guy in the league was getting Ovechkin

    • There is nothing wrong with the trade. I would allow it in the league I'm a commisioner of. Many veto votes are not because the opposing managers think it's lopsided or cheating. Many are out of Jealousy.
      "No way, I don't want that guy to get Ovechkin etc."

      I don't know the teams specifically, but I can easily see the senario where the trade makes sense to both teams.

      I would take either side of that trade depending on my teams situation. FWIW.

      Vetos suck.

    • Thanks for the input. I think it was vetoed simply for the fact that team that would have received Luongo is in 1st place and has been quite a trash talker to the point of abrasive to some teams. He is WAY over his max games at LW and really needs a goalie (his our Nitty and Vokoun), I got no issues with him or the trade but I don't like the idea of trade being vetoed for other reasons which seems to be the case. I'm in 2nd by 8pts so I gain from the veto but I don't want to win like this.

    • Considering only those in your league know the rosters of the players involved, who's to say that this deal is either veto-able or lopsided? One could argue that any deal is veto-able, but then again, there are no rules as to why deals could/should be vetoed. Personally, I would never veto a trade, b/c it's between those two players, and none of my business, even as a commissioner. Unless I had "proof" of some kind of "conspiracy" for one team to try to take over the league by loading up their team, I'd not be likely to do anything about it.

    • I say this everytime someone posts this question...if it was vetoed then it was veto-able (if thats a word;)).

      You have the right to vote against trades. It's part of the rules. If enough people vote no then the trade is vetoed.

      You don't have to explain why you don't like the deal (and that deal is so lopsided it probably got LOTS of no votes). If that trade had been slipped thru your commissioner should have shot it down but fortunately you league has people that pay attention and they did it.

      Read the rules. You don't have to justify no votes.

      • 2 Replies to ruthie
      • That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Vetoes are to combat cheating, not for you to run someone else's team. If 2 teams want to make a trade that they think helps them and there is no collusion going on, you have no right to tell them they can't do it. Just manage your own team.

        The fact is, vetoing a trade just because you think it will hurt your chances of winning is more cheating that a lopsided trade, which btw, this trade isn't lopsided. One team needs a goalie, one team needs scoring, whats the big deal?

      • I would like to know why this trade is so lopsided. Some teams need offense and are willing to give up a lot. Some teams need D or G and are willing to give up a lot. I am in four leagues and for various reasons I would pick the Ovechkin side to help me in some leagues and in others I would pick the Luongo side.

    • I certainly wouldn't veto this. One guy gains big time on defense and goal and loses offense. The other guy gets a big time improvement in offense. This is the kind of trade that can make a huge difference for both teams.
      Crazy to veto.

    • Not veto worthy.


Expert Fantasy Advice