big_dl wrote:
As fellow commish I let almost every single deal go through. I don\'t believe in babysitting. Guys should be allowed to make moves. that\'s what fantasy hockey is all about. This deal is very close and debatable who gets the better end of it in the future. I see no reason to deny this deal.

How can you as commish deny a deal and then make a trade with some of the same assests involved? I would think if this deal is denied by you, you shouldn\'t be allowed to swoop in and pick up the pieces. Sounds like an unfair advantage to me. Who\'s going to dent your deal?

__________________
http://www.torontohockey.net

I wouldnt deny this deal, I withdrew myself from deciding about this deal because I was involved in trying to make a deal for the assets and have a deal in place with Team B should this deal be approved. I am the commish and normally would have no problem putting this deal through, but I dont want the prospect of impropriety given my involvement.

I understand the removing yourself from deliberation because of impropriety but if you agree that there\'s nothing wrong with the deal then I think you should speak up.

I mean, you actually tried to get Team A\'s package, and he turned you down. If you\'re not opposed to the trade he took, nobody else should be either.

And if it\'s vetoed, there\'s no way you can trade for the same package and maintain any shred of credibility. Because that trade is not veto-able.

It is the job of the league, commisioner, etc, as Dobber says, to prevent collusion. NOT, I repeat, NOT, to tell people how to run their teams.

I had an issue early last season in the keeper league that I run. An owner with Malkin accepted an offer of Iginla, Mike Comrie, and Mark Bell for him. This was like the first week of the season. He had rejected an initial offer from me of something along the lines of Brad Richards, Ales Hemsky, Nathan Horton, and Dion Phaneuf. He had basically nothing decent on his roster in terms of youth beyond Malkin and Eric Staal. The sticking point was he wanted either Hemsky or Horton swapped out with Kovalchuk and I refused and was trying to re-work the deal when he accepted the other offer. I ended up offering Kovalchuk but wasn\'t willing to also give up Phaneuf. He wouldn\'t do the trade without both of those players plus 2 of Richards/Hemsky/Horton.

Needless to say, I was pissed. Really pissed. The trade still pisses me off to this day. I was the only one who had huge issues with it. Quite a few of the managers thought it was an idiotic trade, but it wasn\'t collusion. I think we got maybe 1 veto vote.

A year later the team who traded Malkin will have the #1 pick in the draft again, and the team who got Malkin won his division last year and got to the playoff semis, barely losing.

The most recent trade over the summer not involving me? Marty Biron for Marty Turco, straight up. Again, not my job to babysit.

Post edited by: blindedbyfear, at: 2007/07/08 15:26

This issue has been concluded, the co-commish or vice-commish, whatever, investigated and found no collusion and the trade was allowed. I put my 2 cents in in favour of the deal. I have since traded gagne, jeff carter and a 2nd for the keeper spot nylander and the 8th overall pick. It all resolved itself the way I think it should\'ve. I agree whole heartedly that deals should only be vetoed in the case of collusion, which is what i meant by a ridiculous deal.

Glad to hear everything worked out. Sounds like the keeper spots are worth as much, if not more, than the players!

It\'s as much the predicament I\'m in as the value of the keeper spots themselves. Even if this deal goes through I\'ll have 12 forwards ranked in dobbers top 50 with nagy being my 13th forward and ranked #70. I have 3 goalies with 2 in the top 10 and Biron. and 3 top notch d-men pitkanen, bouwmeester and rafalski. I also have zhitnik, beauchemin and o\'sullivan who i have no use for at all.

Sounds like me. I\'m running around this summer with 14 keeper spots total and I\'m dealing guys like Demitra and Nagy like they\'re spare change to move 3 spots in the first round. Because to someone else it\'s the difference between keeping Jere Lehtinen and Ladislav Nagy, and Nagy\'s probably got better upside.

Me, I\'m trying to move up a few spots to nab Backstrom or Toews because that\'s all I\'m really interested in.

I can\'t even trade top forwards because the only way I\'d do it would be if I could, say, trade Havlat and Tanguay for Crosby, because I\'ve got Thornton, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, and a bunch more (Vanek, Radulov). But they guy with Crosby would want more than that.

I like that being able to trade keeper spots thing. I have a question, though. If you have, say, 10 keeper spots, and you trade for 1, that\'s just for going into next year, right? Meaning at the beginning of every season each team has the same # of keeper spots for the following year. Is that correct?

yes that\'s right, the keeper spot is for 1 year, every year we get to keep 10 players off our roster of 25. I must say thought your situation seems to be much better than mine. My best players are Spezza, Kovalchuk, Raduloc, Marleau and Richards. I have most of my forwards in the 25 - 50 range.

Are you in a position where you can trade a Marleau and Richards for, say, a Thornton? Or does the person with Thornton not need that many more players? You know what I\'m saying, maximize value at each position. I\'d probably be offering 2 for 1, 4 for 2 type of deals for top 10 guys by now if I were you. That is, if they\'re even feasible depending on the other teams.

thornton\'s owner has made it quite clear that he\'s not available. I\'m making a pitch for malkin, but first i\'m trying to get a top notch goalie for the deal, maybe not top notch but very good, he needs a top 10 goalie to compete. And i\'ll package that at first with gomez and nylander and then if i have to i\'ll try marleau or richards. with the goalie and one of the aforementioned 2.