Trade Vetoed - Fair or Unfair

[edjr 5,600]

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.

 

you cannot give me 1 good reason to allow an 0 - 8 team to make a trade with only 5 games left.

 

0 - 5 well that's different they can still finish 8 - 5

[Mephisto 15]

you cannot give me 1 good reason to allow an 0 - 8 team to make a trade with only 5 games left.

 

0 - 5 well that's different they can still finish 8 - 5

 

 

I can give you more than 1 reason.

 

- They paid money to play in my league and as long as they are playing right and fairly, they get access to the same rules and features as everyone else.

 

- There is weekly prize money for several different performance categories that even losing teams can win. Not allowing them to make improvements that will potentially serve to help them win that money is not right nor is it fair.

 

- They get to play the "spoiler" role. Every win that they can muster against opponents during the year can and usually does affect the seeding for the playoffs. Given that the #1 finisher gets the most regular season money and those that finish after that get less money on a sliding scale means potentially more money for some and less for others. I want that to improve my position and hopefully not worsen it.

 

I'm sure I can come up with a few others, but what guy who spends $200+ to be in a league wants to be put in a position where he cannot appropriately manage his team like all the others half-way through a season?

 

Are you that much of a focking dolt, ed?

[jgcrawfish 232]

I'm torn on this one. Handing LJ to the LT owner does, in my opinion, unfairly tilt the balance of power in the league to one team. In the interest of fairness across the league, I can see how some owners object to it. However, below the surface, this trade does seem fair and does actually seem to maybe help the 0-8 team. As one of the other owners in the league, it would be hard to swallow this trade going through, but I would not vote against it, as it is relatively fair and definitely is NOT collusion. When you're 0-8, you gotta shake things up, cause obviously they're not working.

[Sgt_Russia 0]

Good Reasons to allow an 0-8 team to make trades:

 

1. Weekly win and/or high points payouts

2. End of season points payout

3. It's his team.

4. It's not your team.

5. 5-8 can make the playoffs (unlikely, but quite possible), depending on your league

[edjr 5,600]

I can give you more than 1 reason.

 

- They paid money to play in my league and as long as they are playing right and fairly, they get access to the same rules and features as everyone else.

 

- There is weekly prize money for several different performance categories that even losing teams can win. Not allowing them to make improvements that will potentially serve to help them win that money is not right nor is it fair.

 

- They get to play the "spoiler" role. Every win that they can muster against opponents during the year can and usually does affect the seeding for the playoffs. Given that the #1 finisher gets the most regular season money and those that finish after that get less money on a sliding scale means potentially more money for some and less for others. I want that to improve my position and hopefully not worsen it.

 

I'm sure I can come up with a few others, but what guy who spends $200+ to be in a league wants to be put in a position where he cannot appropriately manage his team like all the others half-way through a season?

 

Are you that much of a focking dolt, ed?

 

 

A team that's 0 - 8 is going to win money now? yet they can't win a focking game?

 

Again, no trade has ever been vetoed in this league. This is a league rule, i didn't make it up yesterday. "if your team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs you are not allowed to trade" Don't like it? don't be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs after week 9. Don't pay the $400 to join the league. Simple.

 

HTH

[lagarzlebrew 0]

I might be unhappy with this trade if I were in the league, and I certainly would not have made the deal, but I would not vote to veto it. Vetos are lame unless there is funny business going on. So what if you have Tominson and LJ. If LJ gets hurt next week you just lost Parker/Colston/Coles for nothing, so you are taking a risk too. A very good RB, top TE, and a decent WR for a #1 RB. Totally within the bounds of legitimacy

[Mephisto 15]

A team that's 0 - 8 is going to win money now? yet they can't win a focking game?

 

Ummm... yes? Every team in the league has won at least one weekly prize. You can have the highest combined starting RBs score for the week and lose a game. You can have the highest combined starting RECs score for the week and lose a game. The only thing you can do and NOT lose the game is have the weekly starting lineup high score.

 

Tool.

 

Further, this dude has just been plain unlucky. He's scored higher than the league average in 4 of those games... and in those same 4 games he's lost by 5-points or less in each. One of those games was a 1-point loss. It just ain't his year.

 

 

Again, no trade has ever been vetoed in this league. This is a league rule, i didn't make it up yesterday. "if your team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs you are not allowed to trade" Don't like it? don't be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs after week 9. Don't pay the $400 to join the league. Simple.

 

HTH

 

I agree. Just because you have that rule doesn't make it stupid. Of course, maybe I would want a league full of morons who would pay $400 and then be told how to run their team after a few weeks.

[goodoldalky 0]

It's a good trade for you, but not worth a veto. The point of the veto is not to keep teams from getting too good. It's to prevent collusion and throwing seasons in money leagues - neither of which is occuring here. Tell your league to grow up...

[edjr 5,600]

Ummm... yes? Every team in the league has won at least one weekly prize. You can have the highest combined starting RBs score for the week and lose a game. You can have the highest combined starting RECs score for the week and lose a game. The only thing you can do and NOT lose the game is have the weekly starting lineup high score.

 

Tool.

 

Further, this dude has just been plain unlucky. He's scored higher than the league average in 4 of those games... and in those same 4 games he's lost by 5-points or less in each. One of those games was a 1-point loss. It just ain't his year.

I agree. Just because you have that rule doesn't make it stupid. Of course, maybe I would want a league full of morons who would pay $400 and then be told how to run their team after a few weeks.

 

Few weeks? You are as dumb as MDC says you are. This is the 10th week coming up and the rule was in place going into the season. That makes... well 10 weeks. Not counting last year or the year before that.. you probably don't understand more than 10 anyway.

 

I'm also sure all 0 - 8 teams have scored the highest points in their league and are just unlucky.

[Mephisto 15]

Few weeks? You are as dumb as MDC says you are. This is the 10th week coming up and the rule was in place going into the season. That makes... well 10 weeks. Not counting last year or the year before that.. you probably don't understand more than 10 anyway.

 

It's week 9, genius. Try learning how to count before calling someone else dumb.

 

I'm also sure all 0 - 8 teams have scored the highest points in their league and are just unlucky.

 

When proven moronic, resort to creating fiction out of fact.

 

Try again, ed. Take your buttplug out of your mouth and perhaps you'll be able to read a little better.

 

None of what you've posted since I offered you the incentive-laden reasons for allowing an 0-fer team to trade has made those points any less valid.

[edjr 5,600]

It's week 9, genius. Try learning how to count before calling someone else dumb.

When proven moronic, resort to creating fiction out of fact.

 

Try again, ed. Take your buttplug out of your mouth and perhaps you'll be able to read a little better.

 

None of what you've posted since I offered you the incentive-laden reasons for allowing an 0-fer team to trade has made those points any less valid.

 

so you're saying 9 is a few?

[npfl-vikings 0]

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.

 

 

Most trades are based on personal preference (whatever they may be). When a "bunch of owner's don't like it" is a crap for a reason to disallow a trade. Many people vote on trades based on how they perceive the trade affects them which is totally ridiculous. Let people be adults and decide on their own how to manage their team.

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

9 is not "a few". By the same token, 9 is also not 10. Hope this helps with the math...

 

And oh, I almost forgot...

 

Vetoes are lame. How many times do we have to have this same thread over and over where whiners want to veto trades because another team "got too good". That's so freaking grade school. Don't like it, then you make a trade... boo hoo freaking hoo...

[Mephisto 15]

so you're saying 9 is a few?

 

No, I didn't say 9 was a few.

 

So, do your rules define exactly when the league shut's down an owner's rights to play by the same rules as everyone else?

 

Is it 0-4? 0-6? 0-8? 1-7? Or do you collectively drop the bomb on him whenever the veto suits your needs?

 

[Creeper 0]

Just looking at the 6 players involved seems fair to me imo. No veto.

[Ray_T 597]

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

 

dude, Larry Johnson is a stud and is easily worth all 3 of those players by himself.

 

I am generally against doing Veto's but I would veto this deal hands down.

 

Sorry

 

All I gotta say is if this isnt Collusion, then the guy that offered you this deal should be punted from your league for being too stupid.

 

[NJJoe20 0]

0-8 teams shouldn't be trading, I don't see any upside in this deal for the guy...

[Mephisto 15]

I reiterate... GB having my own league with meaningful rules that allow all players, regardless of record, to play on the same field and all have equal chance to win coin to which they are entitled.

 

So many of you are paranoid, whining crybabies who think that their opinion on a given trade is the most righteous one. Assbags.

[Dalemite 0]

If I'm 0-8, I still want to win. Even if it doesn't mean anything. If my commish vetoed a trade just because I was 0-8, I would nut-punch him (I know where you live Parja).

 

To those who don't let the 0-8ers make trades...do you take over their starting lineup, too? Do you allow them to make free agent pick-ups? Do you refund 5/13th of their money? Do you have some sort of computer simulation that calculates playoff scenarios this early, thus you know he is eliminated, or do you just make this crap up as you go along?

 

Funny things can happen in FF. Just ask the guy in my league who kept LJ and drafted SA this year. His "unbeatable" team is very, very average (sorry, Parja).

[nadnewob 1]

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.

 

That is about the most homosexual thing I have ever heard. There is nothing wrong with the trade as it was obviously not collusion. There is no room for vetoes in fantasy football and only babies whine about this sort of thing. Does it suck for the rest of the league that he has the top 2 RB's? Sure it does, but maybe someone else should have went out and gotten LJ. NO VETOES!!!!

[Ray_T 597]

If I'm 0-8, I still want to win. Even if it doesn't mean anything. If my commish vetoed a trade just because I was 0-8, I would nut-punch him (I know where you live Parja).

 

To those who don't let the 0-8ers make trades...do you take over their starting lineup, too? Do you allow them to make free agent pick-ups? Do you refund 5/13th of their money? Do you have some sort of computer simulation that calculates playoff scenarios this early, thus you know he is eliminated, or do you just make this crap up as you go along?

 

Funny things can happen in FF. Just ask the guy in my league who kept LJ and drafted SA this year. His "unbeatable" team is very, very average (sorry, Parja).

 

 

Well, I'm not saying that an 0-8 team shouldnt be allowed to make a trade, but the trades should be scrutinized.

 

The reason 0-8 teams are sometimes prohibited from making deals is that they have nothing to lose. In some cases the 0-8 team is just dumb and the playoff bound team rips him off. In some cases he is offered 'a cut of the winnings' to make that deal that puts someone over the top.

 

The fact of the matter is, why should this 0-8 team be allowed to influence the final outcome of the league by sending their one and only superstar to a team that is playoff bound and upset the natural order of things?

 

I agree, there are some guys like yourself who want to win and not finish last just for pride, but that does not mean that everyone is like this.

 

The goal is to make it so that this situation cannot arise.

 

 

one solution that some people make is to make redraft leagues into 'keeper leagues' so that if the 0-8 team makes a trade to prepare for next year, he is free to do so.

 

Either way, I am in favour of scrutinizing deals from non playoff teams for the reasons mentioned above. I dont like the idea of one team getting a gravy trade at the end to put them into the playoffs or to put them in a position to win where there would not normally be this opportunity.

 

as such, I do understand why some teams restrict trading for teams who are eliminated from playoff contention.

[tbone138 6]

Your a douche bag and I'm right. Your wrong and should shut your pie hole you piece of garbage.

 

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.

[Cel 0]

That is about the most homosexual thing I have ever heard. There is nothing wrong with the trade as it was obviously not collusion. There is no room for vetoes in fantasy football and only babies whine about this sort of thing. Does it suck for the rest of the league that he has the top 2 RB's? Sure it does, but maybe someone else should have went out and gotten LJ. NO VETOES!!!!

 

Someone else did go out and get LJ, they vetoed it. I'm willing to bet the OP was one of the vetoes. Mr. 0-8, with his history of bad trade attempts -this one is awful-, shows he's trying to tank the league.

 

Veto.

[R8RMick 242]

This trade is a joke. With that line-up, and maybe a couple savvy waiver wire moves at WR playing the match-ups, this guy could make a strong run at the playoffs. Even at 0-8, and especially if it's a twelve team league. My guess is that he's scored pretty well every week, but has just gone up against teams that had great weeks.

 

I'm 6-2 in my yahoo league, but THIRD from the bottom in scoring. Another guy is 2-6, and has outscored me by 100 points. This guy is not playing with a full deck if he thinks trading LJ for anybody less than LT or Peyton is going to improve his team. The rest of that trade is just fluff, even Colsten. You can't play apples and oranges with a FF stud like LJ.

 

And it's a money league? Considering the situation, there's no freaking way this trade would pass in either league I'm in.

[Ground and Pound 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

 

That would give you LJ and LT....fair or not...no vote league is going to allow that...which is why league vote veto leagues are GHAY!!!!

 

Vote Leagues only exist when the league is Commishoned by a Pansy...tell your commish to grow a pair

[Mephisto 15]

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.

 

He offered Me -

 

L. Johnson, M. Muhammad, J. Shockey

 

for

 

Parker, Colsten, Coles

Should this trade have been vetoed and was it unfair?

 

Thanks

 

Using my league scoring system:

 

LJohnson = 22.0 ppg

MMuhammed = 9.1 ppg

JShockey = 8.3 ppg

 

 

WParker = 14.7 ppg

MColston = 16.0 ppg (and a HUGE advantage in Yahoo at TE. Focking HUGE.)

LColes = 12.6 ppg

 

Given that he already has who is the #4 RB in my league in Kevin Jones at 16. ppg (LJ is #2), it didn't cost him as much at RB as some of you complete whiners are contending. Throw in the HUGE upgrade at TE (Colston is currently the #3 WIDE RECEIVER in my league and is scoring 7+ ppg more than the top TE)... the upgrade in Coles, he gets to start what amounts to an extra TOP FLIGHT wide receiver and sacrificed very little at RB in order to do so.

 

MY analysis of this trade is as follows:

 

LJ/Shockey = Parker/Colston.

 

Where the 0-fer team gains is Coles... he sacrificed what amounted to a bench WR and got 12 points per game in return in Coles. Why do I say that? Because of Yahoo's positional glitch on Colston, dude gets to start an extra STUD wide receiver... something no other team in the league can do.

 

This is precisely why most people, including many of those who veto and are favoring veto in this thread are morons. Why? They look at how the trade affects THOSE TEAMS THAT ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE TRADE. That is completely wrong. In fact, it's childish and it's cheating.

 

Trades are not about "Team X having LJ and LT is no way fair!" Trades are about "what has each team done to make a change for improvement."

 

Anyone who argues that Team 0fer didn't get a rather significant upgrade in this trade is just a buffoon... because when you analyze it without worrying about what the bitchass owners are going to complain about, it's rather clear.

 

The new LJ owner sacrificed a STUD WR that he could start at the TE position... a serious downgrade at TE. The #8 WR in my league in Coles in exchange for the #34 WR in Muhammed... downgrade... to gain MAYBE 7 ppg at RB. One might argue that Team A gave up quite a bit to acquire LJ for the sake of having two top RBs playing on the same roster. LJ isn't going to score 4TDs every game, folks. In fact, in 3 of his 7 games he has ZERO rushing TDs. In 5 of his 7 games he has ZERO receiving TDs.

 

When some of you morons stop analyzing trades based upon how they affect the other owners in the league instead of how it impacts the two trading parties... you may understand how fantasy football is supposed to be played.

 

This trade is a joke. With that line-up, and maybe a couple savvy waiver wire moves at WR playing the match-ups, this guy could make a strong run at the playoffs.

 

And maybe with this move, he does the same thing only does it better. That's why it's HIS FOCKING TEAM and not yours, the commissioner's, nor anyone else's.

 

Ass.

 

 

Someone else did go out and get LJ, they vetoed it. I'm willing to bet the OP was one of the vetoes. Mr. 0-8, with his history of bad trade attempts -this one is awful-, shows he's trying to tank the league.

 

Veto.

 

And you have no idea what you're talking about. All you see, like most of the others is... "OH MY GOD, ONE TEAM HAS LT AND LJ!!! NO FAIR!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!"

 

Moron.

[Llexlon 0]

Using my league scoring system:

 

LJohnson = 22.0 ppg

MMuhammed = 9.1 ppg

JShockey = 8.3 ppg

WParker = 14.7 ppg

MColston = 16.0 ppg (and a HUGE advantage in Yahoo at TE. Focking HUGE.)

LColes = 12.6 ppg

 

Given that he already has who is the #4 RB in my league in Kevin Jones at 16. ppg (LJ is #2), it didn't cost him as much at RB as some of you complete whiners are contending. Throw in the HUGE upgrade at TE (Colston is currently the #3 WIDE RECEIVER in my league and is scoring 7+ ppg more than the top TE)... the upgrade in Coles, he gets to start what amounts to an extra TOP FLIGHT wide receiver and sacrificed very little at RB in order to do so.

 

MY analysis of this trade is as follows:

 

LJ/Shockey = Parker/Colston.

 

Where the 0-fer team gains is Coles... he sacrificed what amounted to a bench WR and got 12 points per game in return in Coles. Why do I say that? Because of Yahoo's positional glitch on Colston, dude gets to start an extra STUD wide receiver... something no other team in the league can do.

 

This is precisely why most people, including many of those who veto and are favoring veto in this thread are morons. Why? They look at how the trade affects THOSE TEAMS THAT ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE TRADE. That is completely wrong. In fact, it's childish and it's cheating.

 

Trades are not about "Team X having LJ and LT is no way fair!" Trades are about "what has each team done to make a change for improvement."

 

Anyone who argues that Team 0fer didn't get a rather significant upgrade in this trade is just a buffoon... because when you analyze it without worrying about what the bitchass owners are going to complain about, it's rather clear.

 

The new LJ owner sacrificed a STUD WR that he could start at the TE position... a serious downgrade at TE. The #8 WR in my league in Coles in exchange for the #34 WR in Muhammed... downgrade... to gain MAYBE 7 ppg at RB. One might argue that Team A gave up quite a bit to acquire LJ for the sake of having two top RBs playing on the same roster. LJ isn't going to score 4TDs every game, folks. In fact, in 3 of his 7 games he has ZERO rushing TDs. In 5 of his 7 games he has ZERO receiving TDs.

 

When some of you morons stop analyzing trades based upon how they affect the other owners in the league instead of how it impacts the two trading parties... you may understand how fantasy football is supposed to be played.

And maybe with this move, he does the same thing only does it better. That's why it's HIS FOCKING TEAM and not yours, the commissioner's, nor anyone else's.

 

Ass.

And you have no idea what you're talking about. All you see, like most of the others is... "OH MY GOD, ONE TEAM HAS LT AND LJ!!! NO FAIR!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!"

 

Moron.

Mephisto makes some excellant points. I couldn't have said it better. Since he said it so well I am just going to say all of you who would veto it are a bunch of manginas and should go to the bedroom and lick your wifes toes and be the b*tches that you really are. I have never in my life heard such whining about trades.

[tbone138 6]

Douche bag losers spend too much time replying to stupid threads. Veto.

 

Mephisto makes some excellant points. I couldn't have said it better. Since he said it so well I am just going to say all of you who would veto it are a bunch of manginas and should go to the bedroom and lick your wifes toes and be the b*tches that you really are. I have never in my life heard such whining about trades.

[Mephisto 15]

Mephisto makes some excellant points. I couldn't have said it better. Since he said it so well I am just going to say all of you who would veto it are a bunch of manginas and should go to the bedroom and lick your wifes toes and be the b*tches that you really are. I have never in my life heard such whining about trades.

 

I will quit playing fantasy football before I would EVER play in or run a league where people vote on trades.

[jackie sherrill 0]

Vetoing is stupid, leagues that allow league votes are stupid, because there will be those numbnuts that vote against it because it makes a team stronger. WTF? Isn't that the focking reason to make a trade? You never know what a player is going to do going forward, and two people never place the same value on a player. Vetoes are for ignorant leagues, let owners run their own focking teams! Jeebus Christ people, get a focking clue!

 

ETA: By using the reason of a few of the idiot vetoers in this thread that said the reason to veto was it made the team too strong. After week 1, I had LJ, and traded Willie Parker and Bryan Westbrook for Shaun Alexander. That left me with McNabb, LJ, SA, and several other good players. My league thank goodness was smart, it made me strong, but also helped the other guy because he only had SA and some scrub RB. Well, I'm living the "you never know". Alexander has done nothing, and either of the other RB I traded would have helped me, a lot. What if my league would have had idiots like Coop and Tbone and got it vetoed? I'd be laughing in their dumbass faces every day about it!

[Llexlon 0]

Douche bag losers spend too much time replying to stupid threads. Veto.

tbone138 I bet you got your name because you like to take a bone in your azz. maybe at 1, 3 and 8 o'clock. Say hi to my kids.

[Evil Genius 0]

Personally, I don't like the veto system, because there are always those chumps who will veto everything. I never vetoed a thing until semi-anonymous clowns started doing it to me....so, invariably I stoop and payback. I hate being made to feel cheapened like this - it plays to everyone's most basic instincts and that's the opposite of why I play Fantasy sports - to further lend intricacy to my passions - not debase them.

 

That said, the 'fairness' of a trade (and whether this matters to some is moot) is relative to the composition of the deal, the motives of the owners and perhaps most importantly, Timing.

 

The fact that buddy is 0-8 really makes this lopsided deal too much. Lop-sided is okay, sometimes. Just after Week Five, I traded Caddy, T. Jones and Grossman for LT and Delhomme. Only a few groans, then, even though I was adding LT to a backfield that included Westbrook and Steven Jackson (and we play flex, so I can play all three!). It was the timing of this deal that made it escape the ire of my Leaguemates - LT had had two soft weeks, Delhomme was terrible. Conversely, Caddy had just ran for good yardage and Grossman hadn't blown up in Arizona, T.Jones to cover a bye-week dilemma. All was seemingly okay, though I knew I had got a sweet deal. Several weeks later, everyone is bitching about it, and I suppose with good reason - I'm a juggernaut now, even with Delhomme sucking spuzzem again.

 

Back to the deal in question: LJ is behaving like the monster we all knew he was at draft time, and the last 3 weeks for LT I don't need to describe. Could the timing be any better for you (and worse for everyone else)? Simply, could you blame these guys for their vetos, if that is their recourse? And lastly - come on - the 0-8 guy really cares enough to make this deal, for whatever reason? Simply - he couldn't give a $hit and we all know it.

 

So let's just be honest - the Timing killed this deal, if it ever had a chance at another, less conspicuous time.

[Mephisto 15]

Personally, I don't like the veto system, because there are always those chumps who will veto everything. I never vetoed a thing until semi-anonymous clowns started doing it to me....so, invariably I stoop and payback. I hate being made to feel cheapened like this - it plays to everyone's most basic instincts and that's the opposite of why I play Fantasy sports - to further lend intricacy to my passions - not debase them.

 

That said, the 'fairness' of a trade (and whether this matters to some is moot) is relative to the composition of the deal, the motives of the owners and perhaps most importantly, Timing.

 

The fact that buddy is 0-8 really makes this lopsided deal too much. Lop-sided is okay, sometimes. Just after Week Five, I traded Caddy, T. Jones and Grossman for LT and Delhomme. Only a few groans, then, even though I was adding LT to a backfield that included Westbrook and Steven Jackson (and we play flex, so I can play all three!). It was the timing of this deal that made it escape the ire of my Leaguemates - LT had had two soft weeks, Delhomme was terrible. Conversely, Caddy had just ran for good yardage and Grossman hadn't blown up in Arizona, T.Jones to cover a bye-week dilemma. All was seemingly okay, though I knew I had got a sweet deal. Several weeks later, everyone is bitching about it, and I suppose with good reason - I'm a juggernaut now, even with Delhomme sucking spuzzem again.

 

Back to the deal in question: LJ is behaving like the monster we all knew he was at draft time, and the last 3 weeks for LT I don't need to describe. Could the timing be any better for you (and worse for everyone else)? Simply, could you blame these guys for their vetos, if that is their recourse? And lastly - come on - the 0-8 guy really cares enough to make this deal, for whatever reason? Simply - he couldn't give a $hit and we all know it.

 

So let's just be honest - the Timing killed this deal, if it ever had a chance at another, less conspicuous time.

 

 

That was a whole lot of words just to end up being wrong.

[Evil Genius 0]

I certainly can entertain being wrong. I have been wrong many times - just ask my Ex-Wife.

 

But I was conjecturing about the emotional motivations behind the Vetoes. It's conjecture - by definition, it's pretty hard to be wrong - or at least absolutely so.

 

Now, reading your more detailed analysis earlier in the thread, Mephisto, I think you're not entirely off base. But thinking of the league on the whole, and Everyone's sense of fairness IS a consideration. In fact, as a Commissioner in a couple leagues this year, it's one of my chief concerns.

 

Not everyone has the maturity to let two teams perform ad hoc trades like it's all just a business decision between corporate entities. Frankly, I have the sensibilities of my Friends to concern me. I don't play these games with strangers - not anymore - because it just ain't as fun.

 

I have lost a buddy over stupidity in Fantasy before, and almost lost another over ethical crap and tactics gone too far. It ain't worth it, IMO.

[Mephisto 15]

Now, reading your more detailed analysis earlier in the thread, Mephisto, I think you're not entirely off base. But thinking of the league on the whole, and Everyone's sense of fairness IS a consideration. In fact, as a Commissioner in a couple leagues this year, it's one of my chief concerns.

 

I have yet to see anyone who would consider objecting to this trade define "everybody's sense of fairness" as anything other than this trade doesn't benefit me, therefore, I object. 99 times out of 100, that's the criteria on which most vetoers base their alleged "sense of fairness."

 

I'm even going to go out on a limb and, based upon what you've written here, say that your evaluation of the "sense of fairness" is in that same vein. It's not about whether or not the TRADE ITSELF is fair, it's about whether or not the rest of the league will be upset in some way, shape, or form by the trade.

 

If that's the evaluation criteria, then you shouldn't be running a league. You shouldn't even be participating in fantasy football because it's flat-out wrong. You're coddling the masses because they are upset at the perceived imbalance of a trade (in this case) when the fact remains that trade is CLEARLY on the up-and-up. Further, I think I made a decent case for showing how the new LJ owner overpaid to acquire him.

 

The focus remains on the fact that "ONE GUY HAS LT AND LJ ON HIS ROSTER" as if that's somehow unfair. Wow, what a bunch of children.

 

I have no problem dealing with 10 owners who are pissed off with their perceptions of a trade's value. As long as the trade is fair & legal, my "chief concern" is how those two owners feel, not how the other 10 feel.

[wild_and_crazy_guy 5]

There are only 2 reasons you would need a veto rule. The first is if your league has owners who can't be trusted (either their integrity or competence). If you don't trust the people in your league, they should not be in. The second reason would be because your league is set up so that once a team falls behind in the standings, they are out of the money and lose interest. In addition to your final season payout, you have to have some kind of weekly payout to high game each week. This keeps each team trying to win, and not making stupid trades. If you do both of these things, there is no reason for a veto rule.

 

I have no doubt that the other owners who are judging the "fairness" of this trade have each made stupid roster/draft moves that they later regretted...somebody who drafted Edge or Cadillac in the first round. Now they are empowered to stop a trade that 2 other owners want to do? That's lame. Change your league rules, and kick out the people you don't trust.

[mikeod11 0]

Just to add to what everyone else is saying, allowing vetoes of trades ruins fantasy football and prohibiting teams out of the playoffs from trading is insane, I wouldn't go near a league like that.

[Blaneyfan 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

 

No, that trade is not vetoeable, (is that a word?), and a prime example of why you don't have league vetoes.

I also have to admit that I'm surprised a couple include the 0-8 record as part of the reason they would veto. There is nothing better if you are out of it to spoil someone elses party by upsetting them and maybe keeping them out of the playoffs or something. You would think from reading a couple of these posts that you should give up when you are 0-8.

 

Off topic, but I am suprised he is 0-8 with that team. Not the greatest but I would have thought he could have won a couple. Or are his "coaching" skills lacking?

 

Cheers

[R8RMick 242]

This is precisely why most people, including many of those who veto and are favoring veto in this thread are morons. Why? They look at how the trade affects THOSE TEAMS THAT ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE TRADE. That is completely wrong. In fact, it's childish and it's cheating.

 

Trades are not about "Team X having LJ and LT is no way fair!" Trades are about "what has each team done to make a change for improvement."

 

Anyone who argues that Team 0fer didn't get a rather significant upgrade in this trade is just a buffoon... because when you analyze it without worrying about what the bitchass owners are going to complain about, it's rather clear.

 

And maybe with this move, he does the same thing only does it better. That's why it's HIS FOCKING TEAM and not yours, the commissioner's, nor anyone else's.

 

Ass.

 

Moron.

 

 

Hey Einstien, would you like to tell me how dumping the consensus Number One FF pick is going to help this guy's team? Jesus Christ, you're like a terrier with a freaking bone. You remind me of some left-wing liberal democrat on a crusade against vetoing trades. Trades are made to help each team EQUALLY, or they are not fair trades. C'mon genius, show me how this trade benefits both of those teams EQUALLY. No wait! Let me throw out your response!

 

"Tool!"

"Asshat!"

"Moron"

 

You're really gonna have to come up with some better insults, if you want to impress me. Christ, what sort of berating and flagellating do the managers in 'your' league have to put up with?

[Demon 0]

Your a douche bag and I'm right. Your wrong and should shut your pie hole you piece of garbage.

 

 

Wow, I havent been blasted by such a well thought out comeback in AGES! Damn, I was obviously wrong because, well wait, you havent put up any reason I was wrong?! Colston being able to be used as a TE is a HUGE advantage for this year, which launches a good ff receiver to an absolute STUD te. Go on thinking you are right while not having the ability to back up your reasoning. I am sure the people that live in your world all agree with you.