another "should be vetoed"

[madd futher mucker 36]

Should this trade have been vetoed????

 

Trade that got vetoed by 1/3 of league this week:

 

Team A pre-trade: RBs: Rudi, Portis, T.Bell, Perry, Dayne; WRs Burress, Housh, Reggie Williams, Battle

 

Team B pre-trade: RB's Ch. Taylor, McAllister, M.Bell, C. Brown, F. Taylor; WRs: Wayne, Driver, Roy Williams, Jones, Mark Clayton, Williamson, Reg Brown

 

Trade: Portis for Driver and C. Brown

 

Neither Owner A or Owner B know each other. Keeper league with flex and standard scoring + ppr. Trade initiated by owner B - first year in league took over existing keeper team. Post your comments without totally flaming either owner please. Thanks

[Churchill610 0]

Dumb trade, but I don't believe trades should be voted on in a league.

[J-Money 4]

the guy obviously has no faith in housh or portis so he's making a move now before he feels it's too late...only veto when there's collusion

[IndyTom 0]

I agree with these guys - no votes for trading. What if the "weaker" players end up produicing more points? You plan to reimburse the owner?

[Demon 0]

trade should not be vetoed

[tampa_fan_01 0]

I wouldnt say Veto. But try to trade with that sucker. Sounds like hes in special ed.

[Trojan35 0]

Considering Portis has been falling to late round 2 in drafts and now is missing time.. I wouldn't be surprised if he misses a long period of time in order to get healthy. His injury is not minor.

 

Could be a good move... I would hold out for more value, but the league should let it stand.

[Quickolas1 80]

i wouldnt do it but you can't veto a trade because you don't like it

 

post that on your league board

[dominus florenzus 0]

i wouldnt do it but you can't veto a trade because you don't like it

 

post that on your league board

Exactly. The guy who traded Portis... well good luck, pal. But you can't veto a trade based on stupidity. You've gotta believe that there is some intent to conspire. And I certainly don't see that here.

[Mephisto 15]

The trade should go through. I won't flame the owners... but the vetoers are a bunch of whining focking crybaby assholls. Post that on your league board and tell them to jam it in their collective asses. Focking pussbags. Tell them I'd like to fock them up really good, too.... then I'm gonna screw their moms, wives, and girlfriends... you tell them THAT!

[nicewolf64 0]

only a third of owners needed to veto??? talk about adding more stupidity to veto powers.

[football_scooter 0]

responses will be posted on league board

 

really?

 

 

my response: this league bites my nads.

 

there's nothing wrong with that deal. deal with it.

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 37]

No problem with the trade. Problem is with league voting on it. It's been documented here numerous times. League vote sucks. Pick a strong Commish and let him decide all trades. Then some kind of appeal process going to a small committee (3) if both don't like the veto.

[sleazye 0]

The trade should go through. I won't flame the owners... but the vetoers are a bunch of whining focking crybaby assholls. Post that on your league board and tell them to jam it in their collective asses. Focking pussbags. Tell them I'd like to fock them up really good, too.... then I'm gonna screw their moms, wives, and girlfriends... you tell them THAT!

 

So are saying they shouldn't veto the trade?

[BringBackBernie 0]

No problem with the trade. Problem is with league voting on it. It's been documented here numerous times. League vote sucks. Pick a strong Commish and let him decide all trades. Then some kind of appeal process going to a small committee (3) if both don't like the veto.

 

Agreed.

 

[ratbastard1 0]

Trade is fine.

 

Post this on your message board: NO TRADE VOTING!

 

This too: GET A REAL COMMISH!

[taa455 0]

I don't understand putting every trade to a league vote. It's retarded. Everyone should manage their own team. Why should other owners have a say in my affairs? Ridiculous

[NJJoe20 0]

Do MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL teams get together and veto a trade they deem to be unfair? Tell your commish to take veto power away from the other owners and grow a sack, and then offer the trade again.

[benbadman 0]

I think that trade was rightfully veto'd because there was a large discrepancy in equal total value of the players being traded, and here's why:

 

Coming into the season, Portis was a consensus the #4/5 RB off the board, and he has shown great consistency in his first 4 seasons. Driver is a 4th/5th round player (a 3star WR on a 5star scale) & Chris Brown plays for a terrible team and is probably splitting carries in a committee. The Redskins are being mysterious and coy with information about Portis' status to alter the Vikings game preparations. Teams often say players are more injured than they are, and a "questionable" feature back like Portis definitely will see some action. The Steelers had me going on Hines Ward, so much that I benched him for fears he may not play much in Thursday's game, but he ended up having a TD and about 50 yards--numbers I would have gladly accepted had I known he was really 90-100% and would play well (did you see his run blocking?).

 

Ok I rest my case, but you cant let someone give up an elite fantasy stud like Portis for a borderline roster-worthy RB and a 2nd WR.

[ILOVEBUSH 0]

Should this trade have been vetoed????

 

Trade that got vetoed by 1/3 of league this week:

 

Team A pre-trade: RBs: Rudi, Portis, T.Bell, Perry, Dayne; WRs Burress, Housh, Reggie Williams, Battle

 

Team B pre-trade: RB's Ch. Taylor, McAllister, M.Bell, C. Brown, F. Taylor; WRs: Wayne, Driver, Roy Williams, Jones, Mark Clayton, Williamson, Reg Brown

 

Trade: Portis for Driver and C. Brown

 

Neither Owner A or Owner B know each other. Keeper league with flex and standard scoring + ppr. Trade initiated by owner B - first year in league took over existing keeper team. Post your comments without totally flaming either owner please. Thanks

 

 

If people in your league are vetoeing a trade like that....they need to get a life. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with that trade.

 

Trades should ONLY be vetoed if they are collusion. Stupidity no matter how bad is not a reason to veto a trade.

[yako0o 0]

What a terrible veto.

 

Firstly the rule that ONLY 1/3 need to vote in order to veto should be reviewed. No offense, but you guys are setting yourself up for a season of fighting and bickering. A few peoples trades are going to be veto-ed and owners are going to hold grudge's and veto other guys normal trades. Its gonna get ugly......

 

 

But back to the deal. Theres nothing wrong with it.

 

 

Driver is predicted to be a top 5 receiver by some sites including this one.

 

Chris Brown is in a run heavy offense, and after he faces the Jets who are a terrible run stopping team his value is going to rise.

 

The biggest factor here is Portis. Did you guys read the quote about him not playing this week? I have a very bad feeling about Portis this year with this injury and the acquisition of Duckett. You really have to consider the possibility of a down year for him. A team doesnt give up 2 draft picks for a RB if they have a stuf rb/Their stud guy is healthy.

 

In conclusion--There should be no veto--And you really need to change the rules in that league otherwise its going to get ugly before years end.

[JT 137]

League needs to simply cancel trading as an option. If this one doesn't go through, there's no reason for any other to be approved.

 

Trades should be vetoed ONLY when collusion is evident. Not because different owners have different ideas about the value of a player/players. Isn't that why we play ff in the first place? Because we all think we are better at picking the best players than the other guys?

[treewarden 1]

Let the boys play with their own teams! No one should be telling others how to manage their teams.

People who whine about trades are jealous that their own pathetic offers weren't accepted.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I am trying to figure out who is getting robbed in this one. Only AFTER we see Portis can anyone comment on his health, so if that is the basis of the Veto it is surely ridiculous. Get rid of the vote, only about 1/3 of all FF players comprehend trades and the rest would shoot down anything.

[nadnewob 1]

There is no room for trade vetoes in fantasy football. I am the commish of my league and a few owners cry every year that they want veto power over trades. NOT ON MY WATCH. So no, the trade should not be vetoed.

[mtammen 0]

should not be vetoed. If I were in the league and this trade were vetoed I would probably quit. The guy doesn't have a WR for this week! He is giving up an RB who is likely out for 2 games. Come on. You are full of sh!t if you think this is a vetoable trade.

[AnkleBiter 0]

I think that trade was rightfully veto'd because there was a large discrepancy in equal total value of the players being traded, and here's why:

 

Coming into the season, Portis was a consensus the #4/5 RB off the board, and he has shown great consistency in his first 4 seasons. Driver is a 4th/5th round player (a 3star WR on a 5star scale) & Chris Brown plays for a terrible team and is probably splitting carries in a committee. The Redskins are being mysterious and coy with information about Portis' status to alter the Vikings game preparations. Teams often say players are more injured than they are, and a "questionable" feature back like Portis definitely will see some action. The Steelers had me going on Hines Ward, so much that I benched him for fears he may not play much in Thursday's game, but he ended up having a TD and about 50 yards--numbers I would have gladly accepted had I known he was really 90-100% and would play well (did you see his run blocking?).

 

Even if you're 100% correct with the above analysis, it just isn't relevant. Not one little bit. Because it's just your opinion, and you're not involved in the trade.

 

Ok I rest my case, but you cant let someone give up an elite fantasy stud like Portis for a borderline roster-worthy RB and a 2nd WR.

 

Um, yes you can. The guy has possibly made a bad trade - what of it? This should be NONE of the other league members' business. Both owners agreed to the trade, in *their* opinion the trade was a fair one, and no collusion is evident. It was their decision and it should be allowed to stand. What right do the other owners have to interfere because they think one guy made out like a bandit?

 

Voting on trades is stupid. Leagues that do it die out over bickering. Get a commish who has a pair.

[taa455 0]

I think that trade was rightfully veto'd because there was a large discrepancy in equal total value of the players being traded, and here's why:

 

Coming into the season, Portis was a consensus the #4/5 RB off the board, and he has shown great consistency in his first 4 seasons. Driver is a 4th/5th round player (a 3star WR on a 5star scale) & Chris Brown plays for a terrible team and is probably splitting carries in a committee. The Redskins are being mysterious and coy with information about Portis' status to alter the Vikings game preparations. Teams often say players are more injured than they are, and a "questionable" feature back like Portis definitely will see some action. The Steelers had me going on Hines Ward, so much that I benched him for fears he may not play much in Thursday's game, but he ended up having a TD and about 50 yards--numbers I would have gladly accepted had I known he was really 90-100% and would play well (did you see his run blocking?).

 

Ok I rest my case, but you cant let someone give up an elite fantasy stud like Portis for a borderline roster-worthy RB and a 2nd WR.

You fail to see the purpose of the veto.

[mtammen 0]

You fail to see the purpose of the veto.

 

That OP is a big crybaby?? Only reason that this trade could be vetoed.

[taa455 0]

That OP is a big crybaby?? Only reason that this trade could be vetoed.

 

 

 

should not be vetoed. If I were in the league and this trade were vetoed I would probably quit. The guy doesn't have a WR for this week! He is giving up an RB who is likely out for 2 games. Come on. You are full of sh!t if you think this is a vetoable trade.

 

 

 

You contradict yourself.

[mtammen 0]

You contradict yourself.

I'm not seeing anything.

 

The trade should not be vetoed since it is fair. OP is a nit and wants to veto so he does. I don't agree with OP. I think OP is a crybaby.

[taa455 0]

I'm not seeing anything.

 

The trade should not be vetoed since it is fair. OP is a nit and wants to veto so he does. I don't agree with OP. I think OP is a crybaby.

 

The OP didn't say he vetoed the trade. Where are you getting that?

[mtammen 0]

Oh, I was under the impression that the lenghty post about why it was vetoed was from the OP. I guess it's not.

[Demon 0]

I think that trade was rightfully veto'd because there was a large discrepancy in equal total value of the players being traded, and here's why:

 

Coming into the season, Portis was a consensus the #4/5 RB off the board, and he has shown great consistency in his first 4 seasons. Driver is a 4th/5th round player (a 3star WR on a 5star scale) & Chris Brown plays for a terrible team and is probably splitting carries in a committee. The Redskins are being mysterious and coy with information about Portis' status to alter the Vikings game preparations. Teams often say players are more injured than they are, and a "questionable" feature back like Portis definitely will see some action. The Steelers had me going on Hines Ward, so much that I benched him for fears he may not play much in Thursday's game, but he ended up having a TD and about 50 yards--numbers I would have gladly accepted had I known he was really 90-100% and would play well (did you see his run blocking?).

 

Ok I rest my case, but you cant let someone give up an elite fantasy stud like Portis for a borderline roster-worthy RB and a 2nd WR.

 

 

Dang, if you are going to go through all the trouble for a writeup like that, you think you would get your info correct.

 

You say Portis was a consensus #4-#5 back coming into the season. Did you miss the entire preseason? Hello, shoulder injury! Portis has been dropping to at least the second round now in almost every draft. Driver is a 4th rounder, and Brown is a 6th-7th rounder. The trade will come out awesome for the guy who gave up Portis if Portis misses a bunch of time with the injury or isnt the same when he comes back, now wont it? and who knows about the status of his injury. The guy trading Portis obviously knows he has a big question mark and is willing to deal him for a top wr and a healthy starting rb. I see absolutely no problem with this trade.

[Meglamaniac 380]

Why veto a trade?

Collusion, no other reason.

 

If it's not collusion then you have no right to tell a manager how to manipulate his roster.

[JGB_11 0]

If you league veto'd this trade then your league owners are bunch of Morons....

 

This is obviously not collusion, and not even a bad trade. I hate when people veto trades because it makes the league boring because there will be not trades down the line.

 

Tell you league owners I think they are idiots...

[taa455 0]

Oh, I was under the impression that the lenghty post about why it was vetoed was from the OP. I guess it's not.

I get it now. I thought you were agreeing with the guy I quoted who was justifying the veto.

[Polamalu43 0]

Not a smart trade, but not worth voting on.

[norseman 0]

Leagues that veto trades which are not obviously a product of collusion should be vetoed. And this trade was obviously not the product of collusion.