Trade Approval/Veto (we never did finalize this)

[Deleted]

Frank - please, enlighten me. Other than this specific poll, which polls that matter have I not voted in?

And if you must know, I've been busy. I conditionally sold my house tonight. I'm so sorry, but getting it ready for sale and dealing with agents and buyers and showings and so forth took precedent over this one poll. I have been working on a response to Matt's post above, but I'm still reflecting on it. Here is what I had saved as a draft (which I may modify further):

"I respect your opinion.  Personally, I prefer a league that encourages all members to participate in decisions. If you implemented a 2 hr time limit on option 2, where's the harm in full participation? Or if you implemented option 2 with 3 votes for or against ending the process, again - where is the harm in letting everyone participate? 

I'm curious as to what the specific advantage is of limiting these votes to 7 specific people?

And my attempt at constructive criticism:

1.  Whatever process is in place, I suggest everyone place a lot more emphasis on etiquette, especially when it comes to playing the veto card.  In my humble view, the manner in which some veto's are announced is very off putting, and comes across as condescending, judgmental & rude.  (Just like I, at times, come off as condescending, judgmental & rude).

2.  I still believe it would be useful to provide more guidance on what can be vetoed.  I know the language was recently modified, but it is still incredibly vague. There is still no guidance about whether a trade should go through if there is clearly a winner on one side, but no evidence of collusion or a deal so bad that it impacts the integrity of the league. It almost appears to me that the trade panel wants the latitude to nix "slightly bad" trades for the bottom teams, but let those go through for the top teams. But this is just speculation, given that there really is no clear standard on what should be vetoed."

In addition, if you want feedback by a certain date, then I suggest you put a date in your request; I really don't see this as an urgent issue.

[Deleted]

Hey Sabres Dave. Point 2 certainly is speculation.

One thing I always like to do is provide a solid analysis of the trade. So I am transparent with everyone on my motives. It helps with the trade panel in the rare situation where a trade is vetoed. And if one trade panel member vetoes, still two others must agree for the trade to be kibosh completely.

And I agree with point 1. We must be careful on how a veto is made. Definitely not to insult.

[Deleted]

Thank you for the feedback, Eric. Yes, point 2 is speculation. As I mentioned, it's a draft I had been working on in my "free" time over the last while, and I'm still not entirely happy with its composition.

The key point, in my view, is that the current guidelines for a veto are vague. I would argue that's a fact. The example I gave is speculation, but it is based on discussion from an actual trade. I've chosen not to highlight it because I really don't want to turn this into a circus act. My primary point - my opinion, of course - is that if more clarity was provided regarding what ought to be veto'ed, there would be less issues in the league.

Especially: "3) Were the traded players/picks made publically available for trade? If not, more scrutiny may be required from the trade panel to determine market value of the traded players/picks."

Question 1: if players/picks are made publicly available, and there is no collusion, can a deal still be vetoed?

Question 2: what exactly do we mean by "market value" - are we saying that trades need to equal; if not they can be veto'ed?

Question 3: in some recent trades, there has been feedback such as (I am paraphrasing) "GM A wins the trade, but not enough to veto." How does such a comment reconcile with the market value line above?

Way back when, I suggested two criteria for vetos: 1) collusion; or 2) a trade that is unbalanced enough to negatively impact the integrity of the league.

Please note that this is all intended as constructive feedback, and if this comes across as being composed by someone running on no sleep....well....it is.

[Deleted]

Question 1: if players/picks are made publicly available, and there is no collusion, can a deal still be vetoed?

Question 2: what exactly do we mean by "market value" - are we saying that trades need to equal; if not they can be veto'ed?

Question 3: in some recent trades, there has been feedback such as (I am paraphrasing) "GM A wins the trade, but not enough to veto." How does such a comment reconcile with the market value line above?


I guess I'll try to answer

Q1. Yes. For example, GM want someone to trade for his 1st rnd entry 2 months before the draft. IF the GM waited till draft day, the justification for exploring all options would be met. Trading too early for low value can be a reason for a veto.

Q2. Trades don't need to equal. In fact most are 60-40 depending on who you ask. Market value means the going rate for that particular player in relation to his key attributes (salary, age, stats, potential). A vetoed trade can happen if the balance is more like 75-25 (as determined by at least three panel members)

Q3. GMs use that phrase when the tilt is like 65-35. border line. Meaning they had a tough time deciding if it was so unfair that a veto should be made.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Jun 23, 2014 21:23:41 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

"I respect your opinion.  Personally, I prefer a league that encourages all members to participate in decisions. If you implemented a 2 hr time limit on option 2, where's the harm in full participation? Or if you implemented option 2 with 3 votes for or against ending the process, again - where is the harm in letting everyone participate? 

This league has allowed all members to participate in decisions since day 1 when it comes to changes to the league and this poll is another example of that.

A 2 hour time limit or 3 votes was never proposed or discussed, I have only seen the suggestion of leaving trades open for a longer period of time, which I feel is unnecessary, mainly due to the fact that no trade has ever been officially vetoed with 2 potential vetoes being withdrawn and the GM getting a better return.

The problem with a 2 hour window is you are just going to get the same active members voting every time and that is in essence the same as a panel. I was in a league with a voting process of anyone can vote and 3 approvals or denials passed a trade and out of the 24 GMs there was only 7-10 that voted on every trade. We still don't have 7 GMs votes on a poll that has been up for days so thinking they are going to vote within two hours of a trade being posted seems like wishful thinking.

The other issue of opening it up to everyone that I encountered in this past league that ended up folding after one season due to poor GMs and lack of activity was there were some GMs that were veto happy and some that were approve happy. Depending on who got on to vote first it resulted in trades being approved by GMs quickly 3-0 that were bad for the league and others vetoed that never should have been. Part of the responsibility of being on the panel is looking more in depth at trades and not just voting approve on every single one since they can't be bothered to check stats and are of the frame of mind that all trades should pass no matter what.

I would still prefer trade advisers for new GMs and no panel since I trust all the GMs that have been here for a while now, but I worry that letting GMs who dislike the panel vote approve on every trade could put new GMs at risk of being taken advantage of and I value a panel or trade adviser to protect new GMs from being ripped off and hurting their team.

Once again I still don't understand how this is even an issue when the panel hasn't vetoed trades and no one is clamoring for stricter votes and more vetoes. I agree that the wordage on vetoes in the rules is vague, but Sabres and I have had lengthy discussions via PM on this topic.

For me it's simple.... Does it cause harm to the league's integrity?

Collusion and overly lopsided trades both can do harm and with no official vetoes, the panel has decided no trades have harmed the league's integrity to date.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 23:16:45 GMT -5 Bruyns (Barrie) said:

Jun 23, 2014 21:23:41 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

Thank you (and Eric) for the responses.  This is great stuff.

First, a very minor point.  The suggestion that the panel hasn't vetoed trades is technically true; but I find that to be a misleading statement since the threat of a veto has been played to make people withdraw or revise trades (e.g., the original miller deal: it was clear that the GM's had a choice between withdrawing that trade, re-doing it, or having it veto'ed).  In my view, the original Miller deal was veto'ed even if you aren't technically classifying it that way.  But that's really just a side-point and not that important.

What is more important (perhaps just to me, and nobody else) is trying to understand exactly how this trade panel will be judging trades. I've been asking questions on this for months, and I'm now starting to get some excellent answers in this thread.  For example:

Bruyns: "For me it's simple, does it cause harm to league's integrity." Thank you, I now get YOUR standard.

Now let's look at Eric's response.  He has a different standard.   (I'm paraphrasing here, but everyone can go back up and look at his exact words.  I don't know how to use multiple quotes.)  For Eric, if draft picks are traded too far away from the draft, that can be veto worthy for him.  Or if the trade is off, (say 75-25), that can be veto'ed even if it doesn't harm the integrity of the league. Thank you, Eric - now I know YOUR standard too.

I have NO CLUE what standard the other 5 members will be using. A number of months ago, in private messaging, Frank told me that all trades should be "about equal." But since all the stink was raised, his standard appears to have loosened, since he now approves trades by saying things like, "GM A wins the trade, but not enough to veto." He never used to say things like that, so I can only ASSUME that he is using a standard similar to Eric. 

Why is this important to me?

This is important to me because if I'm going to invest the time to craft a trade, I want to know how it's going to be judged so I can minimize the risk of a veto.  Remember my first trade in this league (my 3rd entry in 2015, for Jon's 5th entry in 2015 plus Jon's 3rd and 4th waivers in 2014). That deal was veto'ed.  Then Dave changed his vote, and it got unveto'ed, and then it passed 3-2.  

It makes perfect sense to me why Eric veto'ed this, based on the criteria he was using (and will continue to use) to evaluate trades.  And it also now makes sense why you accepted it, based on the more simple criteria you are using.  I'd just like to know what criteria the other 5 proposed members will be using.

Before I made that trade with Jon, I read the "rules" or "guidelines" that were in place....and it really did not prepare me for the wide variation in how different memebers were evaluating the same trade. It was a very unpleasant experience for me, being my first trade.

The only thing I've been asking, over and over, is....WHAT is the standard.  And so far, it appears that there is no common standard; that each of the 7 members will be interpreting the guidelines differently.   It would be nice to know how the other 5 members will be applying these guidelines.



 

[Dave (PLK)]

I'm pretty much of the same thoughts as Matt on this. I'm ok with the trade being in favour of one team, especially if the other team initiated the trade. I am of the opinion that there SHOULD be an overpayment made by a team if they are after a player(s) to improve their team.

As long as there is no outright evidence of collusion or tanking or a new GM being taken advantage of, I am going to approve the trade.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 22:35:22 GMT -5 @rdrebels said:

Question 1: if players/picks are made publicly available, and there is no collusion, can a deal still be vetoed?

Q1. Yes. For example, GM want someone to trade for his 1st rnd entry 2 months before the draft. IF the GM waited till draft day, the justification for exploring all options would be met. Trading too early for low value can be a reason for a veto.

No offence, but that's flawed thinking. If I trade my first round pick now, you can vote to veto it because you think I could get more two months from now at the draft? What happens if I don't? What happens if in two months from now, not only did I not get more, but the guy I originally made the trade with has traded the piece I wanted to someone else?

The problem is we all value things differently. I might think a late first round pick is worth Jarred Tinordi. Others may disagree, and say a late first is worth at least Hampus Lindholm. Others think it's someone like Andrei Markov. And that's the issue.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote to veto a trade unless there's clear collusion.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Jun 24, 2014 9:07:07 GMT -5 @newfcollins said:

I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote to veto a trade unless there's clear collusion.

So a new GM should be able to trade Crosby for Datsyuk and a 2nd since he thinks Crosby is a whiner and Datsyuk is his favourite player?

I don't think anyone in this league would make a trade like that, but I think having the ability to stop such a lopsided trade is a positive not a negative.

I also agree with Sabres that saying we have had no vetoes is slightly misleading since the Colin Miller trade would have been vetoed.

Look at the Kings D depth chart in this link www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Jason-Lewis/Gaborik-and-Greene-Deals-Getting-Close-Blake-Enters-HHOF/179/60805 Miller isn't close to the NHL and from looking at any mock drafts the 9th overall pick projects to be a very good player. Besides being severely lopsided there were concerns raised privately in panel discussions about collusion or trying to prove a point rather than trying to obtain a fair return.

I think it is impossible to argue that trade should be approved on the merits of it being fair and the GM who was winning the deal never even tried to defend or justify it. I would expect that if that trade was opened up for voting to the whole league an overwhelming majority would see it as not even close in value and a little fishy that the GM losing the trade was trying to defend his right to lose the trade rather than wanting to get a better return.

[Deleted]

So to sum it up, try not to focus on the trade panel "individuals". None of us or perfect or claim to be. Kind of like NHL Refs. Obviously never perfect, but definitely required.

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2014 10:32:58 GMT -5 @rdrebels said:

So to sum it up, try not to focus on the trade panel "individuals". None of us or perfect or claim to be. Kind of like NHL Refs. Obviously never perfect, but definitely required.

Hello Eric.  That's actually not a very good summary, in my opinion.  My intent is not to "focus" on trade panel individuals in a critical sense, but what I would like to see is each member do exactly what you did - provide an outline of what constitutes a veto-able offense.  If somebody wants the responsibility / task of doing this role, then I don't feel it's too much to ask them to outline specifically how they will perform this role.  I have found the responses so far to be fascinating and very informative.

For example, you are of the view that trading draft picks a few months before the draft can be veto'able, particularly if the picks are not advertised.  Fair enough.  Now I know that.  Dave and Matt do not seem to hold them view, and just look at the balance of the trade.  Fair enough, now I know that too. 

But what about the other trade panel members?  If all the other members that have been silent think like you do...then I'd know a trade like I did with Jon runs a very high risk of being vetoed.  Alternatively, if the others think more like Dave, for example, then I'd know that same trade is likely to be vetoed by you, but ultimately make it through the full process and be ok.

I'm not looking to criticize anyone in particular.  I am not even trying to tell you, or anyone else on a panel, how to evaluate trades.

I'm just asking whoever is on this panel to tell me, and everyone else, what specific standard(s) they will use when evaluating trades.

And then I will use this, moving forward, when crafting trades in order to limit the chances that I'll be singled out for a veto again.

And for what it's worth, assuming each member of this trade panel is willing to commit to their standard in writing, I'd suggest copying that information and putting into the thread that talks about veto considerations.  Why would we want to hide such useful information?
That material would be highly relevant reading to a potential new member.  Also, trade panel people could revise that material if their thinking evolves/changes...and there would be a place for that information to be shared to other members.

All I really want is a transparent process.  And, in my view, the process is not transparent if a trade panel member is unwilling to share their philosophy on what constitutes a veto-able trade.

Again, this is all intended as constructive criticism; my hope is that I am sparking discussion that will improve the IFFHL experience.  I will leave it to the rest of you regarding whether there is anything here that is worth acting upon. 

[Deleted]

I voted for option two because I think that all GMs should have an opportunity to vote on a trade if they so choose. I do understand the concerns raised by some here that option 2 would unduly delay some trades, such as a trade during the draft. I am sympathetic to that concern. I do think that a trade panel serves a useful purpose and has been effective thus far. I believe that one GM in this thread said that there would be an opportunity for any GM who wants to join the trade panel to volunteer. If this option is made available then I think this gives those GMs (like myself) who want to have the ability to weigh in the chance to join the panel. If not, then they had their chance.

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2014 9:53:39 GMT -5 Bruyns (Barrie) said:

Jun 24, 2014 9:07:07 GMT -5 @newfcollins said:

I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote to veto a trade unless there's clear collusion.

So a new GM should be able to trade Crosby for Datsyuk and a 2nd since he thinks Crosby is a whiner and Datsyuk is his favourite player?

Yes. If a new GM comes in, and thinks that makes his team better, then who am I to judge. I can name numerous trades in my other leagues over the years where we laughed at someone making a trade, only to realize a couple of years later that the guy we laughed at won the trade, and sometimes easily.

Two or three years ago, a trade like Bobrovsky for Fleury would have been laughed at and vetoed. Now, not so much.

Let an owner build a team the way he sees fit.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Jun 24, 2014 15:12:10 GMT -5 @newfcollins said:

Jun 24, 2014 9:53:39 GMT -5 Bruyns (Barrie) said:

So a new GM should be able to trade Crosby for Datsyuk and a 2nd since he thinks Crosby is a whiner and Datsyuk is his favourite player?

Yes. If a new GM comes in, and thinks that makes his team better, then who am I to judge. I can name numerous trades in my other leagues over the years where we laughed at someone making a trade, only to realize a couple of years later that the guy we laughed at won the trade, and sometimes easily.

Two or three years ago, a trade like Bobrovsky for Fleury would have been laughed at and vetoed. Now, not so much.

Let an owner build a team the way he sees fit.

Do you not think a line needs to be drawn somewhere? What about Crosby for Jagr? or Stamkos for a 2014 3rd?

It's great that you want to let GMs build the way they want, but some GMs are concerned with the health of the entire league. You took over a team and other GMs will likely take over other teams in the future. Why allow a GM to make terrible trades and decimate their team and make it more difficult to find a replacement once the GM realizes his team is terrible and has no hope for the future. This hasn't happened and likely won't, but allowing trades like the ones I used as examples are indefensible and I'm sure you would have enjoyed this league less if the team you took over traded away all his valuable assets for 4th round picks and 38-40 year olds and there was nothing in place to prevent those trades from occurring.

[Deleted]

Dave Buffalo: I think your intentions are very good but I fear you are over complicating the trade review process.

I disagree; breaking down each individual trade panel member to figure out the last nook and cranny won't help anything. It think it will accomplish the opposite of what is desired; more disappointment and hard feelings. It's like I try and tell my boss "I work better when you don't micro-manage my day".