ColumbusGM wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:17 am I'm agree on that, I propose this:

If a Gm shows shows his discontent with a trade within 24h-48h, the trade will go through a voting process excluding the two gms involved. If the trade receive 7 positives votes, the trade is accepted by the league.

Also, I think we should have the obligation of having our roster updated for the next season before the entry draft begins. At least having the right players in the roster with the good salary. A certain penalty in the draft could be given to encourage gms to do so? Like having our earliest draft pick getting a stepback of 5 ranks...

The problem with this is that it leaves it open for some GMs to use "discontent" with a deal to possibly stop trades for the top contenders. Ex. A GM in 3rd makes a deal with the last place team to help in the playoffs, the GM in 1st has an issue with the deal. What stops the GMs in 1st/2nd through all the other contenders to vote against? It opens up for the veto to be used far more frequently. Now if the trade looked like collusion (ex. Last place trades McDavid to 3rd place for Domi, Meier and a pick) then it is a spot where the veto can be used.

The veto has been used in this league in certain circumstances, and warranted each time. In the 10 years this league has been around, it has been used about a dozen times.

I believe the GMs in this league are making trades based on the best of their knowledge to do what they believe is right for their franchise. Sometimes that involves moving a better player to get the piece they believe will help them.

We are all capable of determining if a deal makes sense for our teams or not. We should not be vetoing deals just because we don't thing they are all that great.

Again, using the trade that opened this discussion,

Sprong and Domingue/2nd even out

Konecny and Hertl will put up similar points in the long run (and Konecny will probably make more money to do so)

So that leaves Grubauer for Hischier.. right now it doesn't look great, but Frederik Andersen, Corey Schneider, Martin Jones were all in similar spots, and look how they panned out. Yes there is always a Darling for every Jones.. but I'm sure the Jones/Andersen/Schneider owners ask for more than Hischier now to move them.

This trade proved no collusion, it does not change the balance of the league, and the GM (Ducks) explained how was buying a young goalie he believes will follow that same path as the 3 above mentioned.

I doubt that a group of gms will create alliances to veto trades...

My opinion on the other trade is far from yours, I would have personaly vote against it but I have no hard feelings or whatever on the outcome of it.

I just thinks it is normal that all gms should have a word in the trade veto system in the future.

ColumbusGM wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:10 am I doubt that a group of gms will create alliances to veto trades...

My opinion on the other trade is far from yours, I would have personaly vote against it but I have no hard feelings or whatever on the outcome of it.

I just thinks it is normal that all gms should have a word in the trade veto system in the future.

I'm not saying they will, but it opens the door for it to happen and have seen it happen in other leagues in the past.

I 100% believe that we all see the trade differently. But, the trade did not prove collusion or change the balance of the league. It was made with full intent to better his team (his personal view). While we may not agree with it, it's still not a deal that is to be vetoed. Hopefully Ducks reads this and looks at his player values closer going forward.

Also, when it comes to the veto, that's similar to saying that the Arizona Coyotes didn't like the Jeff Skinner trade (which was terrible) so they could call and get it vetoed.

It is only used when absolutely necessary.

A trade would not get vetoed unless the majority of the league is against it, wich I think is fair for everyone.

Why are we proposing massive changes to a system that isn’t broken? This league is one of the best run ones I’m in (and that includes 2 that I Commish!). This is the first trade in a number of years that I even recall being disputed.

I'm in multiple fantasy leagues, all which have voting, and all are for money.

Even a big NFL pool I'm in (for quite some $) has voting, and bad blood between GM's yet there is never any collusion with voting.

I think it's fair and democratic to have voting if off the bat there is concern over a deal. Not for every deal. Just for the ones that stand out.

steve-canucksgm wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:20 am

ColumbusGM wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:10 am I doubt that a group of gms will create alliances to veto trades...

My opinion on the other trade is far from yours, I would have personaly vote against it but I have no hard feelings or whatever on the outcome of it.

I just thinks it is normal that all gms should have a word in the trade veto system in the future.

I'm not saying they will, but it opens the door for it to happen and have seen it happen in other leagues in the past.

I 100% believe that we all see the trade differently. But, the trade did not prove collusion or change the balance of the league. It was made with full intent to better his team (his personal view). While we may not agree with it, it's still not a deal that is to be vetoed. Hopefully Ducks reads this and looks at his player values closer going forward.

Also, when it comes to the veto, that's similar to saying that the Arizona Coyotes didn't like the Jeff Skinner trade (which was terrible) so they could call and get it vetoed.

It is only used when absolutely necessary.

It would take quite a few GM's to have a "grudge" to vote down a trade for no reason. I think the worry about this is a little far fetched.

Besides, the voting should be for trades that stand out as stupid, or in your word where there is suspected "collusion" , not for every little trade.

No one needs to vote on a 5th for Chad Kilger or Andrew Cassels for Steve Rucchin. Those are obviously fine.

ColumbusGM wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:17 am I'm agree on that, I propose this:

If a Gm shows shows his discontent with a trade within 24h-48h, the trade will go through a voting process excluding the two gms involved. If the trade receive 7 positives votes, the trade is accepted by the league.

Also, I think we should have the obligation of having our roster updated for the next season before the entry draft begins. At least having the right players in the roster with the good salary. A certain penalty in the draft could be given to encourage gms to do so? Like having our earliest draft pick getting a stepback of 5 ranks...

I love the obligation of having to update your roster. Steve has proposed a basic maintenance during the off-season, but I think prior to the draft would be a good idea coupled with a penalty for not complying.
This creates participation (good thing), makes it easier for everyone to get their rosters in order before the season starts (good thing) and can even create easier trade possibilities because you aren't looking at a page that was last updated in March!!

SaugaGM wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:44 pm

ColumbusGM wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:17 am I'm agree on that, I propose this:

If a Gm shows shows his discontent with a trade within 24h-48h, the trade will go through a voting process excluding the two gms involved. If the trade receive 7 positives votes, the trade is accepted by the league.

Also, I think we should have the obligation of having our roster updated for the next season before the entry draft begins. At least having the right players in the roster with the good salary. A certain penalty in the draft could be given to encourage gms to do so? Like having our earliest draft pick getting a stepback of 5 ranks...

I love the obligation of having to update your roster. Steve has proposed a basic maintenance during the off-season, but I think prior to the draft would be a good idea coupled with a penalty for not complying.
This creates participation (good thing), makes it easier for everyone to get their rosters in order before the season starts (good thing) and can even create easier trade possibilities because you aren't looking at a page that was last updated in March!!

Everyone should be active in maintaining their rosters at all times, the only issue with having it ready to go before the draft is, RFA's arent all signed before our draft. So it would be impossible to have a complete roster ready to go. You should always maintain it as close as possible, and make sure your next season salaries are updated after the previous season is complete. But to have a fully tabled roster ready to go, is near impossible, esp when it comes to RFA's.

Yes indeed, I was not thinking of a complete and ready roster, I am still not sure about mine. Just to have the right salary/RFA/UFA mention instead of last season informations.