Trade veto process

This is the part of being a commish I dislike the most , but I suppose it needs to be discussed.

Back in the h3hfhl , we had a 7 man board of gov's that vetoed any perceived bad deals.
I'd say in the leagues 6 year history I could count on one hand how many deals were vetoed .

I'm not really interested in having a seperate group of gm's have the power to veto deals but if the majority would want that I suppose we could head down that path

I'd prefer to have a system where gm's all have equal opportunity to protest.

If there are enough gm's that protest a trade (lets say at least 5 gm's )then we can put it to an official vote to either allow/veto the trade .

again , is it really necessary to have a veto process with 12 mature fellas ?
maybe not , but I suppose we should just the same

I'd like to hear your comments /ideas , but wouldnt want anything we decide to implement be too complicated

Who said we were mature? lol

Danmor wrote:

Who said we were mature? lol

for once I'm not the oldest gm in a league , which I'm extremely pleased with .
(actually steve and brian are over at cdhl)

Butch wrote:

Danmor wrote:

Who said we were mature? lol

for once I'm not the oldest gm in a league , which I'm extremely pleased with .

It's a typo. I meant 35

Butch wrote:

Danmor wrote:

Who said we were mature? lol

for once I'm not the oldest gm in a league , which I'm extremely pleased with .

Mature means spending time with in-laws when they're in town instead of on this board

I place a pile of local tourist spot pamphlets around the house Dan , so far its grabbed me 48 hours of peace.

otherwise , try some things that tire them out so when they come back they hit the sack

3 man veto team would seem to work. Hopefully we won't need it, but I agree it would probably be a good idea to have a rule in place.

Well this might be a little complicated, but I think it should be looked at. These are the rules that Brian, Butch and I use in our other league:


(1) The 70's League Deuce Trade Board and Review of Questionable Trades


(2) Who Sits on the The 70's League Deuce Trade Board

If 6 or more GMs post objections to any trade in the The 70's League Deuce, then said trade shall be put up to a review by the The 70's League Deuce trade board. The trade board will consist of Butch, Mark and 1 other rotating GM. We will start with the Boston GM, Brian, and move to the next GM, in alphabetical order based on team name for each subsequent trade that requires the board to issue a decision. If either Butch, Mark or the third GM are involved in that particular trade, then they shall be replaced on the trade board by the next GM in alphabetical order based on team name.


(3) Posting Objections to Trades in The 70's League Deuce

Any GM who objects to a trade shall post valid reasons why he does not think this trade should go through. Some trades will be unbalanced; some trades will have a definite winner and loser - that's just the nature of the beast. Neither is reason enough to negate a trade. Severely unbalanced trades can undermine the The 70's League Deuce and so you would expect if there are 6 or more objections to a trade, then a mechanism has to be in place to overturn what could be a bad trade for The 70's League Deuce.


(4) What happens if a GM leaves The 70's League Deuce

If a GM leaves The 70's League Deuce at the end of the season, their last two trades shall be investigated, but only if these 2 trades have been made within 30 days of the trade deadline.

If 8 out of the 11 remaining GMs vote that either of the trades are deemed to be unfair, or that the players involved were “unloaded” at a price too cheap, these trades shall be nullified and all players shall be returned to their original teams.

If a GM who remained with the The 70's League Deuce has been involved in trades with other GMs that occurred after the trade that has been reversed, he shall have the option of calling back these trades. After all, a GM may never had made additional trades without the other assets being in place first, so we owe it to him to have that option available.

I actually think that the above rules are pretty good, but it may be just a little much too.

I like most of these rules Steve

couple of things I'd change would be to make the Trade Board be 5 members instead of 3 (butch,mark + 3 gm's in alpha order)

and perhaps do away with the ''if a gm leaves'' section because if its a smelly trade to begin with we would have the opportunity to veto it at that time rather than look back at it afterwards.

we play for $$ in cdhl so its good to have that call back rule in place should a gm quit
we're just playing for pride here in 70's league so maybe its not needed as much

All good points Butch. Something like we used would probably work well, depending on what the rest of the boys want to do.

once again, i'll go with the majority here. i'm not too worried as i don't forsee vetoable trades being an issue in a league like this.

I'm fine with what the majority wants, but feel we should have something in place before we get a questionable trade. It's always better to be proactive rather than reactive. Either 3 man or 5 man works for me.

maya has the knife wrote:

once again, i'll go with the majority here. i'm not too worried as i don't forsee vetoable trades being an issue in a league like this.

agreed .
although I dont know the newer fellas as much as my regular crew - we seem to have an above average group of gm's that care about a league as a whole as opposed to just their own team

Butch wrote:

maya has the knife wrote:

once again, i'll go with the majority here. i'm not too worried as i don't forsee vetoable trades being an issue in a league like this.

agreed .
although I dont know the newer fellas as much as my regular crew - we seem to have an above average group of gm's that care about a league as a whole as opposed to just their own team

What are you talking about Butch?

I only care about my Bruins.

only weeks I wont care for your Bruins is week 11 and 22 Brian

Good on all points. Still believe a 3 man panel works well for 12 team league.

I'm OK with those rules. I'd prefer a 5 members veto board. A trade that may look lopsided for some may be looked at differently by others. The more input the better.

I agree about this league being mature (except for me), but these are fair rules that might apply to a new Owner one day, or to one of us becoming too old to make a rational decision...

I agree with what seems to be the consensus here. Basically that we probably don't need it, hope to never use it but it doesn't hurt to have it.

Seriously though, I agree with what Steve said a while ago that as long as we aren't vetoing trades because someone won it should all work out. We've all been around the fantasy block long enough to see trades that looked lopsided at one point actually work out better for the other gm in the long run. We all have different ideas of the value of different players, guys we like and willing to pay a little premium to get, etc.

That said, I'm fine with the proposal on the table and as long as no one vetos all the trades where I take advantage of Slats and Marty everything should be good

Danmor wrote:

I'm OK with those rules. I'd prefer a 5 members veto board. A trade that may look lopsided for some may be looked at differently by others.

5 man panel would be a better snapshot , agree with that dan

3 man panel would put too much pressure / responsibility on those 3

...trades are much harder to judge in a Keeper league than 1 year leagues..who knows how some kids will turn out?...some guys seem to love the "go young" method which may mean they have a team that will struggle for a year or 3...is trading a 60 point 37 year old vet to a team with Cup hopes for a 19 year old goalie in juniors and a #1 pick wrong?...hard for me to judge...that being said,i will go along with whatever we pick,although i hate being asked my opinion on whether a deal should be nixed..i doubt i will ever veto any deal with this crew of gms

Looks fine for TML !

btw - where was this committee when we needed them (ie. Raycroft / Rask, Kessell / 1,1,2, Courtnall / Kordic)

lets kick it around for a few more days then I'll set up a poll .

I like the idea of simply adopting the guidelines from cdhl that Steve posted (but dont feel as though sub-section 3 is needed )& of course you've heard me suggest 5 man panel instead of 3 .

I actually think that 3 is enough members to put on a board. The Commish and Co-Commish run this league and I would think that their opinion of what is in the best interests of the league are what should drive any decisions that have to be made by this board.

I really don't see vetos happening in this league, so these guidelines are supposed to cover the what-ifs. Having 6 guys saying that a trade is vetoable is rather signifcant here imo, because the general concensus I see on these postings is that most GMs are very reluctant to ever cast a vote to veto a trade.

If 6 GMs are that worried about a trade, I would hope that the 2 GMs proposing the trade could actually sit down and work out a better deal amenable to the concerns expressed.

If the majority wants 5 on a board, then that's just fine too.

Butch wrote:

lets kick it around for a few more days then I'll set up a poll .

I like the idea of simply adopting the guidelines from cdhl that Steve posted (but dont feel as though sub-section 3 is needed )& of course you've heard me suggest 5 man panel instead of 3 .

I think posting your reasons why a trade should be vetoed is valid. Everything from paragraph 4 onwards can definitely be deleted here, as Butch pointed out, as I really don't think it is necessary in this league.

sorry guys , I meant section 4 shouldnt be needed

section 3 would be a ''must have'' in the guidelines

whatever u guys want i never really have had any fishy trades in the leagues ive been in that required veto

steve wrote:

I actually think that 3 is enough members to put on a board. The Commish and Co-Commish run this league and I would think that their opinion of what is in the best interests of the league are what should drive any decisions that have to be made by this board.

I really don't see vetos happening in this league, so these guidelines are supposed to cover the what-ifs. Having 6 guys saying that a trade is vetoable is rather signifcant here imo, because the general concensus I see on these postings is that most GMs are very reluctant to ever cast a vote to veto a trade.

If 6 GMs are that worried about a trade, I would hope that the 2 GMs proposing the trade could actually sit down and work out a better deal amenable to the concerns expressed.

If the majority wants 5 on a board, then that's just fine too.

I didn't count the above responses but it sounded like a majority of them were for 5 members. If it matters any I'll go with 5 members also.

I think we all agree on everything except for 3 or 5 members

I'll post a poll in a few days