Comments for Overruled: To Veto or Not to Veto at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:14:01 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23356 Excellent article , The Veto has been overused in my leagues and in more than one case at my urging. .This gives me a better compass for the future .Thank you - allen5938 Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:16:50 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23352 There is a gray area. 1. replacement managers- any league going past 2-3 years typically has had to replace a managers, and on occasion the replacement is just not any good. they may have a playoff team they are dead set at rebuilding, or something else equally objectable. Typically it is a matter of different expectations for the team, but it is an issue. This actually happened in my baseball league last year. Guy left, the team was fighting for a playoff spot. The replacement did not think he could win it all, so he blew the team up. After about a week of complaining about trades, the replacement manager was replaced. I understood what he was doing, but other managers did not like it. 2. the richards or marleau trade is a really good example. Proven stars for up and comers. I honestly would have objected to that trade, but would not have vetoed it. In hindsight, it was an even trade, but there is just too many question marks. WE also have to look at the manager in the trade. I know a few guys that just cycle young talent in and out. They never really make a run since they have been rebuilding for 10 years. 3. When you are trying to rebuild a team run into the ground. example- I have the best team in the league by a mile. I know this, and want the league to keep going. So i make a few trades where i know i am losing to help out the bottom feeders and make my team more in line with others. I did this in a 10 team league a few years ago. Over the first 3 years we had 4 managers leave after getting destroyed. I took advantage of the weaker owners a little too much... so when they left and were replaced, i let the new managers win on a few trades. I still won the league last year, but it is not a run away like it was the first 2 years (i changed my team name to dominators after the first 2 months of the first season of that league when i did not lose a single point.... h2h weekly and i went 10-0 for like 8 weeks strait... then the name stuck) - notoriousjim Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:38:52 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23345 Actually Pengwin, as I think about it more, I don't think you're really saying anything different than I did in the article. My point is that collusion is grounds for a veto, but a lopsided trade that was fairly negotiated should not be vetoable. I think your point, if I'm understanding correctly, is that it's not always easy to know if there was collusion or not. I didn't really get into how to go about investigating this - and you're right, that's not simple by any means. I didn't mean to imply that it is. But I still think you need some evidence of collusion in order to veto, and not veto a bad trade just in case there might be something shady behind it, even though you have no evidence. Again though, I do agree that when there's more money at stake, you have to be much more stringent. Makes a lot of sense. - angelofharlem Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:21:43 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23343 Hey Pengwin, you make a good point. I've never played in a big money league, with anything more than a nominal entry fee. I can see how you would need something more stringent in place in that case. The majority of league are for minimal or even no money; in my league there's no money on the line, so really no incentive to collude anyway. In that situation, the only reason for a veto is to overrule shrewd trades, and I don't think that's called for. Thanks for the alternate viewpoint. - angelofharlem Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:11:05 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23342 I have one salary league were I pulled off a huge trade. Last year, I was already pretty stacked, and had lost in the finals (after suffering through Sids injuries and E.Staals early woes). And I had learned early on in this particular league that GMs absolutely HORDE goalies, usually asking at least double value. So I had to do the same. And slowly paid the price to acquire good G prospects 2-3 years ago. Fast forward to this year, and I was able to expend Cory Schneider and Price and a pick for and allstar array of young elite talent. Adding a lot of cheap young fire-power to my already stacked team (my primary G was still Lundqvist). Afterwords I was emailed by other GMs that they considered asking for a veto. Some thought me crazy. But because the GM that got the goalies was a bottom feeder. And because he was unable to trade with other GMs (including themselves) for established goalies, they withheld. As much as it gave me a big bump that I didnt necessarily need, it restored some balance to the league. And possibly saved a guy from having to bottom feed for 2-3 more years (or quitting). Adding more enjoyment (if we had a season this year) for all. The other GM may need two years to develop his skaters, but at least his team is not crippled longterm anymore by GMs goalie-hording because I was willing to let two premium G assets go, and the rest of the league was gracious enough not to veto. Honestly, with my skaters alone I should now be a cup-contender for the next 3-5 years. And the rest of my league has to deal with that. But it just shows the dynamic of a REALLY good league, when they don't veto to avoid facing a power house. There is no money involved in this league. Which I am sure helped. But even then, fantasy hockey is just for fun. $20-25 entry fees just keep me a little more interested. People can ruin a good league trying to be selfish, when the money lost can be pissed away in two drinks at the right(or wrong!) bar. - Sovereign Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:53:35 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23341 [i]No Collusion = No Veto. It’s that simple.[/i] No, it's really not. When you KNOW there is NO collusion, then this statement is very fair. When you KNOW there IS collusion, then this statement is very fair. But what about when maybe there is collusion? Oh... see now... what do we do now if we need an investigation? Who plays god? Who plays judge? Maybe BuddyA gets the proven players from BuddyZ. Maybe TeamB & TeamC get passed by BuddyA in the late part of the season. Buddy A takes home the $1000 championship prize. After the season... BuddyB quits the league. He says he is too busy, even though he really enjoyed the league. (I've seen this happen.) How much more is there to the story? What if BuddyA & BuddyB are brothers? What if BuddyA & BuddyB work together? What if... what if... what if... Are you ready to judge? Are you ready to be god? Is there enough information here yet to form a decision? Oh... hmmm... A good set of trade-rules keeps a collusion-investigation from ever being required. For those of us that have played in big-money leagues where it wasn't just "all friends"... things get a little more dicey... a blanket statement like "No collusion = no veto" won't cover it anymore. I personally don't play in big-money leagues (any more) because I have first-hand experience at the fuzzy-grey area of potential collusion in fantasy leagues. It's a good article, but "no collusion = no veto" is for those fantasy pool fans lucky enough to be living in an insulated/perfect world with trust-worthy friends. Outside the bubble, that kind of generic statement is a ticking timebomb. - Pengwin7 Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:23:39 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23340 Glad you enjoyed the article! Fortunately I've never had a GM who was running their team into the ground. If I did, I'd try to determine whether it was intentional, or they're just clueless. If it's the latter, I'd give him some coaching and try to help him improve. Otherwise, I'd probably give him the boot before his team was completely crippled. - angelofharlem Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:08:43 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/hoos/5078-overruled-to-veto-or-not-to-veto#comment-23339 Fantastic read! Definitely illustrates why vetos are dangerous grounds. Would be interesting to see a Part II that examines if a trade should be vetoed if a GM is running his/her team into the ground. Many say that it's the GM's choice. But if they leave, a team in shambles can be very difficult to find a replacement GM to manage it. - arctic_rogue Sun, 25 Nov 2012 15:25:32 +0100