Trade Vetoed - Fair or Unfair

[jaymay75 0]

In my leage (Yahoo) I traded with a guy who is 0-8 and the trade got vetoed. I know 2 people in the leage, and this guys is not one of them. I will post both teams. Please let me know if you think the veto was fair.

 

My Team:

QB - Hasselback, Brees, Rivers

RB - Tomlinson, Parker, Bush, Droughns

WR - Boldin, Driver, Coles, Glenn

TE - Colsten, Clark

K - Gould

Def - Pgh

 

His Team:

QB - E. Manning, McNair

RB - L. Johnson, K. Jones, Dillon, L. Maroney, Jacobs,

WR - J. Walker, I. Bruce, Re Williams, M. Muhammad, T. Williamson

TE - J. Shockey,

K - R. Longewll

Def - Giants

 

He offered Me -

 

L. Johnson, M. Muhammad, J. Shockey

 

for

 

Parker, Colsten, Coles

 

 

Should this trade have been vetoed and was it unfair?

 

Thanks

[thetrain 0]

sounds like a reasonable trade to me

 

 

quote name='jaymay75' date='Nov 1 2006, 06:57 PM' post='2829113']

In my leage (Yahoo) I traded with a guy who is 0-8 and the trade got vetoed. I know 2 people in the leage, and this guys is not one of them. I will post both teams. Please let me know if you think the veto was fair.

 

My Team:

QB - Hasselback, Brees, Rivers

RB - Tomlinson, Parker, Bush, Droughns

WR - Boldin, Driver, Coles, Glenn

TE - Colsten, Clark

K - Gould

Def - Pgh

 

His Team:

QB - E. Manning, McNair

RB - L. Johnson, K. Jones, Dillon, L. Maroney, Jacobs,

WR - J. Walker, I. Bruce, Re Williams, M. Muhammad, T. Williamson

TE - J. Shockey,

K - R. Longewll

Def - Giants

 

He offered Me -

 

L. Johnson, M. Muhammad, J. Shockey

 

for

 

Parker, Colsten, Coles

Should this trade have been vetoed and was it unfair?

 

Thanks

[coops58 0]

Looks one-sided to me. I would be concerned if anyone in my league had the 2 dominant stud RB's in the league. It would be unfair, and make you nearly unbeatable most weeks. Look at it the other way around, would you approve this if you were one of the other teams? Then all you need to do is trade K Jones and another player for a top QB to make sure you are unbeatable.

[Danskins22 0]

its hard to say but i think it sounds pretty reasonable.

[Llexlon 0]

Values of the players seems reasonable...no veto.

 

Coops 58 opinion of you being to dominant after the trade is just plain terrible. Just think if the NFL had that veto power.....the Redskins wouldn't be able to spend all that money on a terrible team year in and year out. Also, managers should not have the ability to hinder anothers creative team management. Otherwise why not just let the commish put together 12 or 14 even (in his opinion) teams and you all just sit around and drink beer and b*tch about how unlucky you got with so and so having a poor year, so and so got hurt ..................come on

[Mephisto 15]

It's more than reasonable. It's a fair trade.

 

This is the problem when you actually prompt an 0-8 team off of the ledge to make a trade. Most bitchasses are content to sit there and make fun of the poor loser for being 0-8 while others of us, myself included, try to make an effort to prompt them to do something to change their predicament.

 

In a league where vetoing of trades is permitted, there typically isn't a trade you could make (and agree to) with an 0-8 team that wouldn't be vetoed because of their own selfish interests and the mistaken belief that an 0-8 team has no business doing business therefore it must not be on the up-and-up.

 

Tell that league to fock off.

[mggoilers 0]

The shock value of LJ being traded probably upset some owners(especially to the LT owner), but the trade seems fair enough.

 

Best RB in the deal is LJ

Best TE is Colston, since it's yahoo

Better WR is a wash

 

Colston/FWP could reasonable get you LJ, but not in any of my leagues unless it's a steelers fan.

 

Shockey is worthless so far, and a weekly injury concern.

[dehaven123 31]

In my leage (Yahoo) I traded with a guy who is 0-8 and the trade got vetoed. I know 2 people in the leage, and this guys is not one of them. I will post both teams. Please let me know if you think the veto was fair.

 

My Team:

QB - Hasselback, Brees, Rivers

RB - Tomlinson, Parker, Bush, Droughns

WR - Boldin, Driver, Coles, Glenn

TE - Colsten, Clark

K - Gould

Def - Pgh

 

His Team:

QB - E. Manning, McNair

RB - L. Johnson, K. Jones, Dillon, L. Maroney, Jacobs,

WR - J. Walker, I. Bruce, Re Williams, M. Muhammad, T. Williamson

TE - J. Shockey,

K - R. Longewll

Def - Giants

 

He offered Me -

 

L. Johnson, M. Muhammad, J. Shockey

 

for

 

Parker, Colsten, Coles

Should this trade have been vetoed and was it unfair?

 

Thanks

 

The trade is reasonable and should NOt have been vetoed. Clearly, the other owners are fearing the possibility of you having the most feared backfield in your league. That doesn't make the trade unfair as a result. That is the whole point of trading, improve your team, while helping both teams out, definately doesnt make for collusion in this case. the owners need to accept the fact that you are making the system work for you, as tey could have too. That's why I suggest you should not be any league where trading can be vetoed, especially by poor sports and haters. This is the best example I've seen.

[DC 9]

i'm sure they are all pissed that you now have LJ and LT2. It is a one-sided trade, but that is insufficient grounds to veto absent collusion. Do i think the trade is reasonable? not really, but not unreasonable enugh to overturn it.

[madd futher mucker 36]

Looks one-sided to me. I would be concerned if anyone in my league had the 2 dominant stud RB's in the league. It would be unfair, and make you nearly unbeatable most weeks. Look at it the other way around, would you approve this if you were one of the other teams? Then all you need to do is trade K Jones and another player for a top QB to make sure you are unbeatable.

 

This trade should NEVER be vetoed. This comment by Coops58 is a perfect example of an owner looking out for and who would vote his own interests. This also the reason why league veto voting sucks and totally discourages trading.

 

When will everybody get it: Trades DO NOT HAVE TO be fair! Trading is a skill just like drafting and weekly roster management. The old 'league balance' argument is a total crock! League balance is destroyed as soon as the draft took place and one owner drafted 3 studs and the other owner drafted none. Should they have voided the draft? Why not just have everybody autodraft if the object is that nobody gets any advantage? When somebody drops a player of obvious value and another team benefits, should that pick-up be voided? Come on, people. Managers who develop trading skill should be rewarded just like managers who are rewarded for their drafting skill - they deserve to have superior teams! Otherwise, why not let everyone just sit in a circle and flip coins?

 

In this case, both players rightly felt the trade would help their team with this exchange of value. The fact that one of the owners is 0-8 is totally irrelevant. The fact that you helped your team through the trade is also irrelevant. That is exactly what you are supposed to do. Any owner had the same opportunity to make a trade to improve your team just like these guys did.

 

There have been 100's of threads relating to vetoes like this, and I suggest do a you search under 'veto' here and get better arguments than mine. But from what I've seen in 4 years of reading posts here, the position taken by coops58 is an extreme minority position. I'd venture to say that 90+% of the responses to veto posts similar to this are that this veto is total BS!

[vardaski 0]

Trade is not unfair by any means. I can understand it being tough to swallow for other league mates watching a team have the top two rbs. I imagine that you are doing fairly well if not close to the top of your league. Mephisto is right about teams not wanting to see you do business with an 0-8 team especially if your team is near the top because they don't want to see you get stronger but the way it should be looked at is if the trade is unfair . Really can't believe the guy is 0-8 although his wide receivers are hurting. Must have made some unlucky decisions along the way. I certainly would have tried to get more for LJ than he did but I credit him for trying to make trades and change his unlucky streak.

[Ambroc 0]

Side note: In the leagues I play in, we have a trading deadline AND, if a team is eliminated from play-off contention before said deadline, they may not make trades. Does 0-8 qualify?

 

This "In Contention Rule" can be useful; however, if you are in a money league with per week payouts it can be problematic.

 

Many have already said this, but it needs repeating: Leagues should not let other owners have strict veto power over trades. That should be the commissioner's job, if and only if there is just cause. I have no problem with a system that allows owners to vote on sending a perceived "unfair" trade to the commissioner, but the final decision should be with the commissioner. If you do not trust the commissioner to make a rational, thoughtful decision (be it right or wrong, in your favor or against), consider changing leagues.

 

(If the commissioner is involved in the trade, then an alternate commissioner - in league or out - may be used.)

[tinnman 0]

Unless there is collusion, no trade should ever be vetoed. Who is to judge which trade is fair? The only reason why any trade should be vetoed is if collusion is involved.

 

I'm not going to comment too much as to the fairness of the trade, but why would an 0-8 team even make such a trade? Are you in a keeper league?

 

If I was in your league, I wouldn't have agreed with the trade, but I wouldn't/couldn't do anything about it. I'm not saying the trade was fishy, but again, why make such a trade. Back to the point, was it fair that the Yankees got Babe Ruth for some no name? Was it fair the Braves got Maddox for who? Was it fair that the Astros got Jeff Bagwell for some washed up pitcher? Bottom line, buyer beware!!!

 

I would look elsewhere next year for another league. Vetoing trades as unfair is absolutely stupidity.

[CapitalCityCajun 0]

This trade should NEVER be vetoed. This comment by Coops58 is a perfect example of an owner looking out for and who would vote his own interests. This also the reason why league veto voting sucks and totally discourages trading.

 

When will everybody get it: Trades DO NOT HAVE TO be fair! Trading is a skill just like drafting and weekly roster management. The old 'league balance' argument is a total crock! League balance is destroyed as soon as the draft took place and one owner drafted 3 studs and the other owner drafted none. Should they have voided the draft? Why not just have everybody autodraft if the object is that nobody gets any advantage? When somebody drops a player of obvious value and another team benefits, should that pick-up be voided? Come on, people. Managers who develop trading skill should be rewarded just like managers who are rewarded for their drafting skill - they deserve to have superior teams! Otherwise, why not let everyone just sit in a circle and flip coins?

 

In this case, both players rightly felt the trade would help their team with this exchange of value. The fact that one of the owners is 0-8 is totally irrelevant. The fact that you helped your team through the trade is also irrelevant. That is exactly what you are supposed to do. Any owner had the same opportunity to make a trade to improve your team just like these guys did.

 

There have been 100's of threads relating to vetoes like this, and I suggest do a you search under 'veto' here and get better arguments than mine. But from what I've seen in 4 years of reading posts here, the position taken by coops58 is an extreme minority position. I'd venture to say that 90+% of the responses to veto posts similar to this are that this veto is total BS!

 

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

A good rule of thumb is that all trades should be vetoed. Especially those involving Marques Colston if he can be used as a TE because it's unfair to play him as a TE.

[msudavedawg 5]

It probably was not the players involved that got it vetoed. The fact is that you would have a team with LT AND LJ on it is why they probably balked. Plus the fact that the guy is 0-8 it could appear to smack of collusion.

 

With that said, it should not have been vetoed.

[mccombsau 5]

Side note: In the leagues I play in, we have a trading deadline AND, if a team is eliminated from play-off contention before said deadline, they may not make trades. Does 0-8 qualify?

 

This "In Contention Rule" can be useful; however, if you are in a money league with per week payouts it can be problematic.

 

Many have already said this, but it needs repeating: Leagues should not let other owners have strict veto power over trades. That should be the commissioner's job, if and only if there is just cause. I have no problem with a system that allows owners to vote on sending a perceived "unfair" trade to the commissioner, but the final decision should be with the commissioner. If you do not trust the commissioner to make a rational, thoughtful decision (be it right or wrong, in your favor or against), consider changing leagues.

 

(If the commissioner is involved in the trade, then an alternate commissioner - in league or out - may be used.)

 

great post, I'm having an issue with the worst team and the commissioner's team making what is in my mind an unfair trade (but I would NEVER veto) and this solves both....IMO good post

[Turcaso 1]

QB - E. Manning, McNair

RB - L. Johnson, K. Jones, Dillon, L. Maroney, Jacobs,

WR - J. Walker, I. Bruce, Re Williams, M. Muhammad, T. Williamson

TE - J. Shockey,

K - R. Longewll

Def - Giants

 

 

That looks like a team that should have one at least one game out of 8.....you said his team is 0-8???

[jaymay75 0]

QB - E. Manning, McNair

RB - L. Johnson, K. Jones, Dillon, L. Maroney, Jacobs,

WR - J. Walker, I. Bruce, Re Williams, M. Muhammad, T. Williamson

TE - J. Shockey,

K - R. Longewll

Def - Giants

That looks like a team that should have one at least one game out of 8.....you said his team is 0-8???

 

His team is 0-8, and my team is 5-3 and in second place. I have the most points at over 1000, and had a game where I scored 190 points. I should be in first, but had a couple BS weeks.

[Trout_2 0]

Sorry, I disagree with most of the posts here. I agree that just the fact that it is a lopsidded trade is not grounds for a veto, however, the fact that he is 0-8 (i.e. never going to make the playoffs) and really hasn't made his team any better, the trade starts to hint of collusion, which is grounds for veto.

 

I mean, what position was he really looking to improve by giving up LJ, TE? While not his best season, Shockey has been doing pretty well since he's been healthy. Seems more likely if he were really trying to trade to improve his team (i.e. the only reason anyone would ever do a trade), he would be going after a stud WR or QB at a minimum, since he's willing to give up LJ. I'd veto it in my league.

[catelo 0]

No way I let that trade go through... LJ and LT... They might as well hand you the trophy after that trade. I am sure you were happy as hell when he offered you that trade..

[jcuadrado 0]

even though it may not be popular here...but I'd veto it...

 

and I have never vetoed a trade in 8 years in 3 leagues that I commish.

 

I run big $$$ leagues...and if a trade like this went through from an 0-8 team to a contender who already has LT on his team will definitely rock the league and many owners will end up quitting. I can't have that....I've had basically the same owners since the beginning...

 

Luckily, I've never been put in this type of predicament and probably won't because guys in my leagues know better than to pull this.

 

Bash away...if that what floats your boat.

[tbone138 6]

Muhammed-Coles equal

Colston for Shockey... pretty equal

Parker for LJ............ HELL NO veto veto veto veto

[northernsong 0]

I assume this is not a keeper league. If it's not and I were in this league I would want the guy you made the trade with to explain himself. Assuming he had a plausible rationale for making the trade, I'd let it go through and then if I were the manager, even if the trade went through, I probably wouldn't invite him back.

 

I know some people will try to compare FF to the real NFL, but it's totally different. In the NFL, no matter how bad your team is, you need to run it full tilt because your decisions impact future years. In a non-keeper FF league where managers have no obligation to rejoin and different levels of interest there's the risk that some jackass will sink your season with a bs trade. At least if the managers all know each other, there's social pressure to keep things on the level, but it seems that you don't even know most of the other managers. That's a problem with your league, not necessarily with the other managers, but with the league itself because there's not a lot of accountability.

 

The other guys season is done. He's a non-factor. He shouldn't make himself a factor by screwing everyone else when his decision has zero impact on his own season (or future seasons). I don't like to see trades vetoed, but this trade kind of stinks. You might be able to justify it looking at it strictly from a player by player point of view, but that doesn't give the whole picture of what's going on here.

[Giants Fan 85]

Trade is fair.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

This is a perfect example of why I personally believe that collusion should not be the only reason for a veto. I don't know why collusion is the holy trinity of trade ethics and vetoes. If a bunch of owners don't like it, in which this would clearly be the case in almost any league... then they should be able to veto it.

 

Collusion is nearly impossible to prove, but I also don't feel that the 0-8 team has much of a chance of getting better.

[preilly 0]

As a commish, I would not allow this trade, so I think the veto is fair. And it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you will have LT and LJ, or with the fact that he's 0-8.

 

Here's my reason, the trade doesn't help the 0-8 team, he gets a decent upgrade at starting TE and huge downgrade at starting RB. At best the trade will be a wash for him.

 

Collusion is probably not possible to prove, but you can't let a team make a trade that hurts their team and helps the other team so much. It's not good for the league.

 

My advice to you is this. You have a pretty good team, respect the wishes of the league and try to win it with what you have.

[Mephisto 15]

I can't get enough of the ridiculous excuses for vetoing this trade. Keep it up, morons.

 

This comment alone: "if one team gets LT and LJ that's reason enough..." shows the mindset of those who would overturn. It's sad and it's wrong.

[Demon 0]

Muhammed-Coles equal

Colston for Shockey... pretty equal

Parker for LJ............ HELL NO veto veto veto veto

 

 

your reasoning is insanely stupid

 

Coles > Muhammed

Colston >>>>>>>> Shockey

LJ >>>Parker

 

Now, Coles for Muhammed is an upgrade at receiver, but that is just thrown in and not the meat of the deal. It is Colston and Parker for LJ and Shockey. Being able to use Colston as a TE in Yahoo makes him one of the most valuable players out there, almost untradeable. To get Colston in a Yahoo league, you have to involve players like LJ, LT, SSmith, Holt. Colston's value is crazy right now (will it be fixed next year?) Completely fair trade, no way it should be veto'd. People need to look at the trade, not the the teams. If the trade is fair, so what if the team looks crazy dominant, you should be giving the guy props for building a great team instead of vetoing the trade.

[edjr 5,567]

0 - 8 teams should not be allowed to trade.

 

Any team out of playoff contention should never be allowed to trade, as they don't have the leagues interest in their minds when making a trade.

 

hth

[northernsong 0]

I can't get enough of the ridiculous excuses for vetoing this trade. Keep it up, morons.

 

This comment alone: "if one team gets LT and LJ that's reason enough..." shows the mindset of those who would overturn. It's sad and it's wrong.

 

I think it's foolish to think that you can apply an absolute rule to all situations. In a good league with good managers, you should never need to veto, but this guy's league creates major issues, free Yahoo, redraft, the managers don't all know each other, etc. There's no accoutability. Buyer beware, I guess. The people in the league knew what they were getting into, but buyer beware that the league also gives the other managers the right to veto trades.

 

I'm not necessarily saying the trade should be automatically vetoed, but it's not crystal clear to me that it shouldn't be vetoed either.

[Mephisto 15]

I'm not necessarily saying the trade should be automatically vetoed, but it's not crystal clear to me that it shouldn't be vetoed either.

 

Then it shouldn't be vetoed.

[GobbleDog 816]

0 - 8 teams should not be allowed to trade.

 

Any team out of playoff contention should never be allowed to trade, as they don't have the leagues interest in their minds when making a trade.

 

My league charges $5 per loss. Plus an extra $5 for the lowest weekly points. And any team not finishing in the top 3 is eligable for the Toilet Bowl playoffs at the end of the season. So there's plenty of incentive for even the worst teams to keep trying. Which is a good thing.

[northernsong 0]

Then it shouldn't be vetoed.

 

With a name like Mephisto, you should understand the concept of the inquisition. Since the trade is a little suspect, I think the parties trading should explain themselves before a decision on a veto is made. If the trade is on the up and up, they should have no problem making their case. Ideally, the commissioner would have the final say, but that's not how this league works.

 

The league vote is a bad system, especially since Yahoo doesn't let you know who the vetoers were. Talk about a lack of accountability. The inquisition isn't perfect, but if the trade is legit, he explains himself well and they still veto it, then when it comes time to tell the other managers to go f*** themselves, he will know without doubt that he was in the right.

[lb3g4m3rcyl 0]

In my leage (Yahoo) I traded with a guy who is 0-8 and the trade got vetoed. I know 2 people in the leage, and this guys is not one of them. I will post both teams. Please let me know if you think the veto was fair.

 

My Team:

QB - Hasselback, Brees, Rivers

RB - Tomlinson, Parker, Bush, Droughns

WR - Boldin, Driver, Coles, Glenn

TE - Colsten, Clark

K - Gould

Def - Pgh

 

His Team:

QB - E. Manning, McNair

RB - L. Johnson, K. Jones, Dillon, L. Maroney, Jacobs,

WR - J. Walker, I. Bruce, Re Williams, M. Muhammad, T. Williamson

TE - J. Shockey,

K - R. Longewll

Def - Giants

 

He offered Me -

 

L. Johnson, M. Muhammad, J. Shockey

 

for

 

Parker, Colsten, Coles

Should this trade have been vetoed and was it unfair?

 

Thanks

 

It's a fair trade, but what works against you is the fact that he is 0-8 and that you have Tomlinson.

[Dr. Hardbody 0]

It might be a little lop-sided towards you, but hey, you had extra value in your team and you used it to pick up another stud running back.

 

It shouldnt have been vetoed. Keep doing the trade over and over again, just to piss the league off.

[jaymay75 0]

It might be a little lop-sided towards you, but hey, you had extra value in your team and you used it to pick up another stud running back.

 

It shouldnt have been vetoed. Keep doing the trade over and over again, just to piss the league off.

 

We have made the trade like 5 times now and each time it got vetoed. There is a huge uproar about this. Before this trade, a guy offered Ronnie Brown, and Lee Evans for Johnson. Of course that got vetoed because it was BS. This is a pay league BTW.

 

So I proposed this trade, which I thought was fair..but it got vetoed. Then I got pissed.

 

Oh well, I'll just have to win it all with what I got.

[FantasyKing 4]

Looks one-sided to me. I would be concerned if anyone in my league had the 2 dominant stud RB's in the league. It would be unfair, and make you nearly unbeatable most weeks. Look at it the other way around, would you approve this if you were one of the other teams? Then all you need to do is trade K Jones and another player for a top QB to make sure you are unbeatable.

 

So you would veto a trade because it makes one team too strong???? That's a horrible excuse to veto.

 

The trade is not that bad, LJ>Parker, Colston>Shockey Coles>Muhammad

 

Yeah you got the better deal, but its not awful

[edjr 5,567]

My league charges $5 per loss. Plus an extra $5 for the lowest weekly points. And any team not finishing in the top 3 is eligable for the Toilet Bowl playoffs at the end of the season. So there's plenty of incentive for even the worst teams to keep trying. Which is a good thing.

 

 

What does that have to do with a team that's already 0 - 8 not being allowed to trade? You saying they're going to try to avoid a few more loses?

 

I also have never vetoed a trade in the leagues 11 year history. One reason is probably from not allowing teams with 0 - 8 records to make trades.

[Mephisto 15]

I keep going back to trades I've made and their "vetoability."

 

When I traded Jamal Lewis and the Chicago DST for an injured Shaun Alexander (from the only 0-fer team left in the league while I am undefeated) there were more than a few groans. I have LT.

 

I guarantee you that trade gets vetoed in a "leaguewide vote" league.

 

Since then, we discover than Alexander isn't going to be out "only a few weeks" but it has now become "indefinitely." Chicago DST is still averaging more ppg in my league than many starting runningbacks. I've been left with a pair of weakass #2 NFL runningbacks as my #2 starter.

 

Mr. 0-fer now has the #1 DST in my league and, even though it's Jamal Lewis, he has a #1 starting NFL runningback as one of his two regular starters each week.

 

More than once in my 10-year FF league I've made trades for a stud who subsequently got injured. These are the types of reasons why unless it is just completely lopsided, a tanking effort, or suspicious of otherwise bailing-out or collusion of some sort, I allow a lot of leeway for those trying to make some sort of adjustment to improve their lot.