Colorado/Winnipeg Trade Veto Poll

[Derrick - Senators]

Colorado Trades

Henrik Lundqvist
Alex Goligoski
4th rd Waiver
2nd rd Entry(COL)

Winnipeg Trades

Ondrej Pavelec
Loui Eriksson
Tom Wilson
Simon Despres
Josh Anderson
2nd Waiver


Some random thoughts and justification as to why this trade is in question:

I fail to see how Colorado can make any argument whatsoever justifying this as a beneficial trade for the franchise. Building for the future? Then he shouldn't have traded away a high 2nd round entry pick. Or a relatively young defenseman. Or one of the best goaltenders in the world who just signed a new fat long term contract. Just doesn't add up. If his intent were to "rebuild" then I would think a significant player like Lundqvist would be made available on the trade block first and not traded directly to his good friend Tyler.

It's an absolutely terrible trade for Colorado

...I fail to see how this equals up, he got nothing of note really. Not for a player of Lundqvist's caliber anyway. Either this is some form of collusion or Mike - Avalanche is that poor at extracting the best value for his best player. Vetoable.

I don't like vetoing anything but...this ones fishy

I tend to lean away from vetoing trades. That said, Due to the facts that a.) they are buddies; b.) this is mikes first and unusually quick trade; and c.) lundqvist was not shopped at all prior to this trade all lead me to believe that this may be veto material.

The way I see it is that either the Colorado owner is a complete idiot and not up to the task of running a team in this league, or he has given his buddy a discount on Lundqvist. Neither is a particularly good option for the league.

See: nafhl2.proboards.com/thread/901/colorado-winnipeg-trade?page=1&scrollTo=8132

So what is it going to be? Discuss.

[Tyler - Jets]

There was no collusion or anything this is getting way out of hand. If the league feels this is such a bad trade it will get voted down. Every GM evaluates things differently. We thought a fair deal had been reached based on what our teams respective needs are. Never meant to cause such drama.

[Nos - Sharks]

Voted 'Yes' it should be vetoed, sorry, maybe there isn't intentional collusion but certainly this looks like a 'softer' approach to a trade, with a friend, my reason for saying/thinking this is that I've had minimal talks with Mike - Avalanche about some of his players and his asking price, for lack of a better word, was retarded. Nothing close to the value he accepted here. Or he didn't even want to talk. I don't buy it. If you want value shop high end players against other managers, at least let it be known that you're hearing offers for a highly sought after piece. Fantasy Hockey Economics 101. It looks really bad.

[Tyler - Jets]

My apologies to everyone if you think that way. I am not that type of person if the trade is vetoed I understand and will go forward regardless. Honestly meant no harm here. Mike should open up the bidding war now for Lundqvist.

[Markus - Hurricanes]

I'll start off by saying that I'm completely against vetoes in general as they can ruin the fun of fantasy hockey for everyone. Everyone should be allowed to complete both good and bad trades. I sure as hell have had my share of both. Oh and league activity seems to be down this year and we surely could use every spark of activity we can get.

That being said I was/am highly critical of this trade for multiple different reasons. First of all I don't see any logic in the deal. Lundqvist is arguably the best goaltender in the NHL and just received a contract that makes him the highest paid goaltender in the NHL and pretty much guarantees he's the man in New York for next 7-8 years. He's by far the best player in the deal and typically the best player always wins the deal.
Each GM approaches trading differently but I honestly don't see how someone joins a league and then proceeds to complete a "behind closed doors" deal for his most valuable piece. That's to put it diplomatically, stupid.
Thirdly I know collusion word has been thrown around, but I'd rather steer the discussion towards inexperience of a new GM rather than anything else.

Just wanted to give my reasoning for voting yes.

[Derrick - Senators]

Bump

[Derrick - Senators]

Bump. Still waiting on one vote.

[Tyler - Jets]

Even if it comes through 7-5 it should still get vetoed. I don't want any player if this much of the league agrees. I will just have to reform my offer and hope I win the bidding war that is going to happen. This league does need a little more activity. We all wait for deadline day to wheel and deal.

[Mike]

I agree with what Tyler said, if over half the league disagrees on the trade I'd much rather just start this process over than having the majority disapprove of the trade. Especially since I'm guessing we won't be seeing the final vote, since Detroit hasn't posted anything since July.

[Mike]

Since July or August***

[Nos - Sharks]

I'm assuming you two have changed your 'No' votes to 'Yes' then? I can't fathom 4 GM's other than you two voting it through.

[Tyler - Jets]

I didn't change my vote just trying to do what's right in leagues eyes the poll can stand 7-4 and it go through as vetoed.

[Nos - Sharks]

I'm saying you could vote to have it vetoed yourself if you feel that strongly about it. Making it 8-3 or if Mike changes his vote 9-2.

[Nos - Sharks]

Oh I see what you were saying, my bad, I was thinking of a regular 8/12 vote, sorry.