vetoable, dumb or makin too much of it

[Guest RenoZ]

all in favor of the trade being collusion win...case closed

 

sucks to be you RenoZ (you definitely are hard headed)

 

You give military guys a bad name.

 

Again, show me one time that I said it was NOT collusion.

 

#101: "I've said before (and will provide links if needed), if the OP thinks it is collusion and has the power to veto, he probably should. If he thinks that it is a dumb trade, he probably shouldn't."

[darwin 0]

I want to add, that commissioners do NOT like to veto trades any more than people want thier trades vetoed. It is an unpleasant job that forments grudges and hurts friendships over a GAME. This is why it is important to have a good group in your league that all share a desire to keep things fair and prevent turmoil. I've had to veto 2 trades in 10 years. It's not a fun situation. But when underhand dealings are afoot, they have to be dealt with or the behavior spreads. I've seen it before.

 

We commishes do a thankless job and get nothing but complaints. The only time the commish is appreciated is when they try to push the job off to someone else. "Oh no! you're doing a great job! You keep doing it!"

[Guest RenoZ]

I want to add, that commissioners do NOT like to veto trades any more than people want thier trades vetoed. It is an unpleasant job that forments grudges and hurts friendships over a GAME. This is why it is important to have a good group in your league that all share a desire to keep things fair and prevent turmoil. I've had to veto 2 trades in 10 years. It's not a fun situation. But when underhand dealings are afoot, they have to be dealt with or the behavior spreads. I've seen it before.

 

We commishes do a thankless job and get nothing but complaints. The only time the commish is appreciated is when they try to push the job off to someone else. "Oh no! you're doing a great job! You keep doing it!"

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

When a veto needs to take place, it needs to take place.

[kwhiz73 0]

If you let all trades (like this one go through), you end up with groups of teams instead of individual team owners. 12 guys draft and 1 day later, they get togethor in little groups and re form the teams into a few powerhouse and leftovers. Nothing kills a league faster than allowing unregulated trading.

Groups of guys, pooling their money for a number of teams, and then stringing togethor a series of trades resulting in a team no one can beat. Unless their are two or three groups of teams just like that.

 

If that's the kind of league you want, fine. But most people don't want to join a league like that.

And this league has veto rules to prevent this, as do most. Clearly, the two owners involved are trying to subtly pool their resources.

 

Perhaps I fall into the naive category. Why would anyone even want to be in a league where, without checks and balances, this would happen? If my only choice of being in a ff league involved folks who colluded, cheated, etc.--I'm quite sure I would just pass on the whole concept. It's too bad when one feels like they actually need to monitor this type of thing.

[Guest RenoZ]

Perhaps I fall into the naive category. Why would anyone even want to be in a league where, without checks and balances, this would happen? If my only choice of being in a ff league involved folks who colluded, cheated, etc.--I'm quite sure I would just pass on the whole concept. It's too bad when one feels like they actually need to monitor this type of thing.

 

That's why the most enjoyable FF leagues are the ones that have been around for years and years with good friends. You just slowly weed out the morons (like this guy being discussed) and up with a perfect group.

[darwin 0]

Perhaps I fall into the naive category. Why would anyone even want to be in a league where, without checks and balances, this would happen? If my only choice of being in a ff league involved folks who colluded, cheated, etc.--I'm quite sure I would just pass on the whole concept. It's too bad when one feels like they actually need to monitor this type of thing.

 

No league sets out with a plan to be a league of cheats and colluders, it just sort of happens over the course of the year or many years. One owner gets pissed about something and holds a grudge, which comes out in later actions. The boundaries will always get pushed on the gray area of "cheating" in fantasy football as well as real life.

 

"That's why the most enjoyable FF leagues are the ones that have been around for years and years with good friends. You just slowly weed out the morons (like this guy being discussed) and up with a perfect group."

 

Amen! 12 years and running! We average one new member per year and are pretty careful about who it is.

[uxb666 0]

In our league constitution it states that Bad trades happen, it is not the role of the commissioners to make sure trades are equal. The function of the vetoes is simply to bring to the attention of the commissioners that there is a trade that may need further looking into. The commissioners role is to then try and determine if there is any sort of collusion going on, if not the trade stands and the commissioners tells the league so. I think these are good guidelines to govern by, else you take the fun out of trades.

 

As someone in the trade, isn't your goal to get as much value with little in return? If the trade is equal, what's the point?

 

T.

[phillybear 366]

As someone in the trade, isn't your goal to get as much value with little in return? If the trade is equal, what's the point?

 

Because it is now unacceptable in today's society to be anything but equal. Nobody comes in first, but everybody wins a trophy for participating. Everybody makes the sports team you try out for, as nobody gets cut. Nobody's feelings are allowed to be hurt. A perfect fantasy football season is where everybody finishes with a .500 record.

 

Just sit back and let the soothing The Clockwork Orange brainwashing continue. Got milk?

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

In our league constitution it states that Bad trades happen, it is not the role of the commissioners to make sure trades are equal. The function of the vetoes is simply to bring to the attention of the commissioners that there is a trade that may need further looking into. The commissioners role is to then try and determine if there is any sort of collusion going on, if not the trade stands and the commissioners tells the league so. I think these are good guidelines to govern by, else you take the fun out of trades.

 

As someone in the trade, isn't your goal to get as much value with little in return? If the trade is equal, what's the point?

 

T.

 

This, simply put, is a slippery slope.

 

The deal does not have to be equall. I posted as much and have gone to some lengths to agree with this statement, while making it clear that in the scenario I indicated the commish is only involved at the point that a league majority of 6+ votes against triggers the need for a commish ruling.

 

At that point, it is up to the commish to make the determination. That is part of why they are commish and the commish's ruling should be accepted by the league.

 

According to this logic and the logic of similar posters, and as was mentioned by one poster here that if the trade were Kennison for Tomlinson it would be A-OK, and despite the majority of the league protesting the deal, the commish should call them all sour grapes crybabies and allow the trade because "Bad trades happen, it is not the role of the commissioners to make sure trades are equal"

 

Well sorry, but that's utterly ridiculous. In this case it's not quite as bad as LT for Kennison, but it's damned close. A 3rd + 4th round pick for a 6th+15th round pick isn't just "not equal" - it's so not equal as to raise extreme suspicion. As indicated by myself and others, the team with Jacobs/AJohnson could have easily drafted Caddy & Kennison using his 5th and 14th round selections, and it STILL would have been a full round before those players would have come off the board. So the other argument of "maybe after the draft he had a change of heart on how how ranked them" is a joke as well.

 

The last point I saw of "people don't remember where they drafted players" or the "amnesia" clause doesn't hold water either - they drafted Jacobs in the 3rd round ad AJ in the 4th. Presumably they did so for a reason, which probably included rankings, ADP and their own projections. Not remembering that you took them in thr 3rd/4th doesn't excuse that you're trading them for players you passed over for 6 rounds and 13 rounds respectively. It's irrelevant that he took who where - wat is relevant here is what he didn't take either of those players not just there, but for 6 rounds for one and for 14 rounds for the other.

 

None of that holds water.

 

And as the commissioner, a role entrusted to you by your league seemingly for your organization, trustworthy-ness and ability to work through exactly these kinds of issues with sound reasoning, it is ABSOLUTELY your job to make this call - not saying it has to be perfectly equal as in you & Phillybear's slippery slope, but that it at least has to be close.

 

If this were a 3rd and 4th rounder being dealt for a 4th and 5th rounder it would raise an eyebrow, but that's where as commish I'd say, "well everyone has their own rankings...maybe he read something about the O-Line or RB of the RBs team and changed his mind"

 

But not with a 3-4 for a 6-13. That's nonsense.

[nadnewob 1]

Vetoes have no business in fantasy football. Who are any of you to tell another manager whom he can and cannot trade? Rediculous.

[kwhiz73 0]

Because it is now unacceptable in today's society to be anything but equal. Nobody comes in first, but everybody wins a trophy for participating. Everybody makes the sports team you try out for, as nobody gets cut. Nobody's feelings are allowed to be hurt. A perfect fantasy football season is where everybody finishes with a .500 record.

 

Just sit back and let the soothing The Clockwork Orange brainwashing continue. Got milk?

 

 

Thank you for the post. You said in a couple sentences what I unsuccessfully tried to say in several paragraphs.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

Thank you for the post. You said in a couple sentences what I unsuccessfully tried to say in several paragraphs.

 

what, that you can take any point down a slippery slope to the utmost extreme of generalizations instead of speaking to the issue at hand where it doesn't apply in the slightest and seemingly prove a point?

 

yeah, spot on.

[Celticspride 0]

Although this trade doesn't seem fair right now, its not that far-fetched to require a veto IMO. You could make the case (eventhough I don't personally believe it) that Andre Johnson's stats are going to take a hit with a new QB...Last season Kennison only had 860 yards and 5 TDs, but the two years before that he had over 1000 and 1100 yards and 8 and 5 TDs. So its not like he's throwing in a practice squad WR. And you could clearly make a case that Cadillac is more valuable than Jacobs. He has a 1,000 yard season on his resume and Jacobs has never been a featured back and could possibly lose carries to Droughns.

 

Again, I'm not saying its a good trade for that guy, but it shouldn't be vetoed.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

Although this trade doesn't seem fair right now, its not that far-fetched to require a veto IMO. You could make the case (eventhough I don't personally believe it) that Andre Johnson's stats are going to take a hit with a new QB...Last season Kennison only had 860 yards and 5 TDs, but the two years before that he had over 1000 and 1100 yards and 8 and 5 TDs. So its not like he's throwing in a practice squad WR. And you could clearly make a case that Cadillac is more valuable than Jacobs. He has a 1,000 yard season on his resume and Jacobs has never been a featured back and could possibly lose carries to Droughns.

 

Again, I'm not saying its a good trade for that guy, but it shouldn't be vetoed.

 

Again: a 3rd and 4th round pick being dealt for a 6th and 15th round pick.

 

The gy with Jacobs/AJ could have drafted Caddy in the 5th and Kennison in the 14th and would have still taken them a full round before they were actually drafted.

 

So if he wanted those players, he could have had them. That's what makes this vetoable - because it's either insanity/schitzophrenia on behalf of the Jacobs/AJ owner, or someone's cheating.

 

either way this is 100% vetoable if the league votes it down and the commish has to decide. Even if everything you indicate and speculate is true/will be true, the fact remains that the players in question were drafted too far apart to make this remotely fair. As one poster asked, what has happened in the last week or two to change the mind of the Jacobs/AJ owner to make him want to trade away two of his top 4 picks for players he passed over for 6 and 15 rounds respectively?

 

Makes no sense. The only logical conclusion here is collusion.

[larrymcirish 0]

Seriously, dude, get off your high horse and let guys trade who they want to trade.

 

I absolutely HATE when commissioners (and league members) try to cancel a trade because a team gets better. Isn't that the point of the trade?

 

i agree. especially in the 1st half or so of the season. i can't remember which week it is but we have a cutoff of trading about 3 weeks before playoffs so nothing funny goes down. we also monitor the wire so there is no fishy drops & pickups @ 3:00 a.m.

[Mundo867 0]

Wrong. it most certainly does matter what I think. in the league constitution the league members elected me as that governing party. So again - your reasoning here is flawed. It's not like as commish I just step in and shoot it down.

 

The context of my determination is that more than 1/2 the league has voted agian st this deal and in the constitution the league has authorized me to be the final authority on whether that deal in that circumstans is approved.

 

This whole, "who are you to decide whether it's a fair deal" is just a load of crap - I'll tell you who I am: I am the guy who the league elected to be the guy to make that determination. If I am involved in the deal, the co-commish is the one to determine it, and it it's a deal between I and the co-commish we have a 3rd league member as an alternate to make the determination.

 

This is why we have a league constitution and have a league voting process for trades. If you don't like it, great - don't play in my league. But don't go telling me I have no right to make the decision, because it is precisely my call to make once 6 of 12 league members voiced their opinion as to vote down the deal.

 

And again: think outside the box. 1/2 the league or more votes a deal down for imbalance, and the commish says, "well they're not cheating even though one guy is clearly raping the other, so I'm approving it" - hey, good luck filling your league next year because none of the people who voted it down will want to play in that league the next year.

 

Hey, did it ever occur to you that teams vote down trades that benefits a team because they never want to see THEIR OPPONENTS improve? If they did want to see other teams improve, they would be voting against their own team interests. Imagine if you could vote down other teams' free agent pickups?

 

Leagues that have idiotic voting rules like yours suck. At the end of the season, teams will just veto trades to cripple their opponents' ability to improve, even if trades may benefit both teams equally.

 

By the way, the commissioners of my two leagues lets all trades go that are not obviously collusion and we have a waiting list to join both leagues. So much for that stupid comment.

 

go vikes

[OD99 0]

Closing in on 4 full pages I say there has been WAY TOO MUCH MADE OF THIS.

 

Voting on trades is gay - have a commish who you trust and let him/her rule on trades.

 

I would let this go but rip on the owner who traded AJ

[Guest RenoZ]

It's odd how the opinions seem to fall when posters just randomly stumble into this thread. It is easy to band together and feel as though your league does things right when there are four posters in here and two agree with each other. Guess what? Half of the current posters in the thread feeling one way doesn't equate to half of the commissioners in the world feeling that way.

 

Nearly everybody that stops in this thread will feel as the last few have. Commissioners have NO business stating what trade is fair and what trade is not (unless collusion in blatantly obvious).

 

We can all agree on one thing: the mentioned "trader" is a moron.

Most of us can agree on one other thing: We're glad we are not in a league where ANYONE has veto power over trades.

[Celticspride 0]

Again: a 3rd and 4th round pick being dealt for a 6th and 15th round pick.

 

The gy with Jacobs/AJ could have drafted Caddy in the 5th and Kennison in the 14th and would have still taken them a full round before they were actually drafted.

 

So if he wanted those players, he could have had them. That's what makes this vetoable - because it's either insanity/schitzophrenia on behalf of the Jacobs/AJ owner, or someone's cheating.

 

either way this is 100% vetoable if the league votes it down and the commish has to decide. Even if everything you indicate and speculate is true/will be true, the fact remains that the players in question were drafted too far apart to make this remotely fair. As one poster asked, what has happened in the last week or two to change the mind of the Jacobs/AJ owner to make him want to trade away two of his top 4 picks for players he passed over for 6 and 15 rounds respectively?

 

Makes no sense. The only logical conclusion here is collusion.

 

How long ago was the draft? Perhaps he wasn't high on Caddy until he saw some pre-season action that changed his mind?...Maybe he watched Jacobs after drafting him and thought he looked slow?...or read something that indicated Droughns would be more involved in the offense and he decided to cut his losses?

 

I'm just saying that although this trade appears stupid, I still don't believe it deserves a veto. You definitely have more knowledge of the situation that any of us and probably know the guys involved, but without knowing anything else, I think vetoing this trade is an abuse of power.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

It's odd how the opinions seem to fall when posters just randomly stumble into this thread. It is easy to band together and feel as though your league does things right when there are four posters in here and two agree with each other. Guess what? Half of the current posters in the thread feeling one way doesn't equate to half of the commissioners in the world feeling that way.

 

Nearly everybody that stops in this thread will feel as the last few have. Commissioners have NO business stating what trade is fair and what trade is not (unless collusion in blatantly obvious).

 

We can all agree on one thing: the mentioned "trader" is a moron.

Most of us can agree on one other thing: We're glad we are not in a league where ANYONE has veto power over trades.

 

I love the "appeal to the masses" fallacy used to rail against those you disagree with, yet you employ it yourself in trying to speak for "half the commissioners in the world" feel.

 

The fact is that you & DankNuggs are the only two in agreement in here while about a dozen people have called you on your eroneous thinking, misleading statements, isolated quotes out of context and fallacious projection.

 

Keep responding though - every contribution from you seems to be another chapter from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

[DankNuggs 305]

I love the "appeal to the masses" fallacy used to rail against those you disagree with, yet you employ it yourself in trying to speak for "half the commissioners in the world" feel.

 

The fact is that you & DankNuggs are the only two in agreement in here while about a dozen people have called you on your eroneous thinking, misleading statements, isolated quotes out of context and fallacious projection.

 

Keep responding though - every contribution from you seems to be another chapter from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

 

Nope... Provided the owner who traded BJ/AJ has a rationale for doing so that isn't collusion, i think the trade is fine.

 

I think your league system is bad, and frankly creates these situations rather than having a structure that fairly deals with them.

 

 

You've set up a league that is a drama-coaster, the next deal may not be 40 spots of difference, it might be 10, 20, etc... the grey area you've instilled in the league only fuels the propensity of owners to challenge ALL trades they see as a threat.

 

It is a bad system, but you are commish, so you can deal with it.

 

 

I would never put up with this garbage in any respectable league.

[Guest RenoZ]

The fact is that you & DankNuggs are the only two in agreement in here while about a dozen people have called you on your eroneous thinking, misleading statements, isolated quotes out of context and fallacious projection.

 

Seriously? Have you read any of this thread? How about this ENTIRE page that says trades should NOT be vetoed?

 

Ummm...ya...uhh...that's what I've said for hours now.

[DankNuggs 305]

We commishes do a thankless job and get nothing but complaints. The only time the commish is appreciated is when they try to push the job off to someone else. "Oh no! you're doing a great job! You keep doing it!"

Sure, its like playing goalie in hockey...however this situation/analogy has the goalie lining up at center ice and taking a faceoff.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

Nope... Provided the owner who traded BJ/AJ has a rationale for doing so that isn't collusion, i think the trade is fine.

 

I think your league system is bad, and frankly creates these situations rather than having a structure that fairly deals with them.

You've set up a league that is a drama-coaster, the next deal may not be 40 spots of difference, it might be 10, 20, etc... the grey area you've instilled in the league only fuels the propensity of owners to challenge ALL trades they see as a threat.

 

It is a bad system, but you are commish, so you can deal with it.

I would never put up with this garbage in any respectable league.

 

Again - there's never been drama because there's never been a trade this bad in that league. Our league members have known each other at minimum of 12 years and in some cases date back to high school more than 20 years. All are experienced FFB managers and none would ever offer or accept a deal like this. Thus, my league's just fine, thanks.

 

You keep saying that unless collusion can be "proven" - what more proof do you need than a 3rd and 4th rounder being dealt for a 6th and 15th rounder? What possible justification can that owner have for PASSING UP BOTH OF THOSE PLAYERS for several rounds (15 rounds, in the case of Kennison) then suddenly changing his mind to believe they're worth the 3rd and 4th picks he actually did take?

 

And you continue to dodge the question: would you be ok with a Kennison for Tomlinson deal being made? The commish should just allow it regardless because you can't "prove" collusion? I'm sure you'll ignore this a 5th time though so I won't hold my breath. It's exactly the scenario you paint with your comments on why or when a deal should be handled by the commish. What's the difference between a 3rd/4th for a 6th/15th and a 1st for a 15th? Nothing - they're the same caliber of deal.

 

You're just badgering to badger now - you have lost this debate again and again and continue to find means of ad homenim attacks, attacking me and others for our league format or opinion on what a commissioner's role is rather than look at the basic premise of this topic. Now it's my league that's not "respectable" and it's a "drama" league.

 

You aren't helping yourself regain the credibility you've lost, so you may as well give up. Oh, and half the commissioners in the world agree with me.

[Guest RenoZ]

I would never put up with this garbage in any respectable league.

 

Nor would 94.75% of experienced FF'ers.

 

Link Proof

[Guest RenoZ]

...ad homenim...

 

On a side note, how was the first of Middle School Vocab class today?

[killersquids 3]

I still want to know when the draft was, but the bottom line is....agree to disagree. This happens every year. Questionable trade and veto vs. no veto.

 

It's easy to jump in and give your opinion, but if you don't know the facts that have been laid out then stfu and go back and read them. The fact is something smells rotten here. My guess is one of two things - either the jacobs/kennison owner is in cahoots with the other owner.....or more likely, this owner just doesn't give a fock about fantasy football and got talked into it.

 

Whatever the reason, something is going on here. Trades should rarely be vetoed, but can't you "no veto" guys smell something rotten going on here. The only way I would think about letting this go is if the draft was months ago and the boneheaded owner gave me a great argument.

 

At some point, you must veto a trade. At some point you must let a terrible trade thru.....it's up to each commish to determine where those lines are based on his own league. What if some guy has a strong gut feeling that larry johnson will get injured, he freaks out and trades him straight up for ladell betts b/c he just knows that portis will go down too? Let him run his own team???? fock no.....how about get your sh!t together or get the fock out of the league.

[usmcwar85 0]

On a side note, how was the first of Middle School Vocab class today?

 

well you called it 2 cents...there was the dodge..a lame one at that

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

On a side note, how was the first of Middle School Vocab class today?

 

Irony - this is your 20th personal attack in this topic. Coincedantally they seem to pop up every time somoene either points out your argumentation tactics or writes something that effectively disputes somethng you've said.

 

You hide behind ad hominem attacks more than anyone I've ever seen on this or any forum. it really is a detriment to the overall quality of this forum.

 

If only you'd learn to debate the point without attacking the person making it you might be better respected for your opinions. But you prefer the style of tossing a grenade over the fence, then ducking when anything comes back at you. Shoot and run, then hide behind a personal attack rather than defend your previous statements.

 

Reading back through the 4 pages it's obvious.

[Guest RenoZ]

well you called it 2 cents...there was the dodge..a lame one at that

 

Awesome, you're back.

 

Did you have to go out in the field to get a physical ass-whoopin before coming back here to get an intellectual one?

 

Where was my "dodge"? I've answered every question you TWO (yes, only TWO) numbskulls have asked.

 

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer mine from the top of this very page. Go ahead. You first.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

well you called it 2 cents...there was the dodge..a lame one at that

 

Yep - and combined with yet another personal attack. Predictable on both counts by following the pattern throughout the 4 pages to this point.

 

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

Awesome, you're back.

 

Did you have to go out in the field to get a physical ass-whoopin before coming back here to get an intellectual one?

 

Where was my "dodge"? I've answered every question you TWO (yes, only TWO) numbskulls have asked.

 

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer mine from the top of this very page. Go ahead. You first.

 

Really? Funny - I just looked for your eloquent and informative response to the challenge you've been given 6 times now from I and others and couldn't find anything by way of response to it - the question of "what if this were Tomlinson for Kennison, but no collusion could be proven."

 

And predictably here you are, again making personal attacks and avoiding that challenge.

 

Calling people names doesn't win you the debate, nor does it make you look more intellient. I'd suggest that it has the opposite effect, actually.

[Guest RenoZ]

Irony - this is your 20th personal attack in this topic. Coincedantally they seem to pop up every time somoene either points out your argumentation tactics or writes something that effectively disputes somethng you've said.

 

You hide behind ad hominem attacks more than anyone I've ever seen on this or any forum. it really is a detriment to the overall quality of this forum.

 

If only you'd learn to debate the point without attacking the person making it you might be better respected for your opinions. But you prefer the style of tossing a grenade over the fence, then ducking when anything comes back at you. Shoot and run, then hide behind a personal attack rather than defend your previous statements.

 

Reading back through the 4 pages it's obvious.

 

I didn't mean to avoid you in favor of your "lil' buddy." Now, it's your turn...go ahead and point out a question that you asked that I neglected to answer.

 

Please do so in language that us "common folk" can understand?

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

I didn't mean to avoid you in favor of your "lil' buddy."

yet another personal attack. Wow. You must be going for the record.

 

Now, it's your turn...go ahead and point out a question that you asked that I neglected to answer.

 

For the 7th time? Is the necessary? if so, look up one post.

 

Please do so in language that us "common folk" can understand?

 

Sorry, I thought I'd been speaking English.

[killersquids 3]

I've got a great example: this happened two years ago. Midway thru the season there was a very lopsided trade. The owner who got raped in the deal was 100% not in collusion. It was his first year doing fantasy football and he simply didn't know what he was doing. So should this trade have been let thru? btw, it was much worse than the trade here and with bigger named players.

 

I know you "no veto" guys would say let it go, but that is garbage, you must find out the facts and talk to owners and then make an intelligent decision. 98% of trades go thru without much thought, but trades like these need to be investigated and sometimes, ultimately overturned.

 

 

ETA: an example of how bad the trade was (as if this happened today)....terell owens for ashley lelie.

[DankNuggs 305]

Seriously? Have you read any of this thread? How about this ENTIRE page that says trades should NOT be vetoed?

 

Ummm...ya...uhh...that's what I've said for hours now.

He wants to win an unwinnable argument, so he goes adhominem, which is exactly what he was complaining about..

 

 

Its what a poor debater goes to when out of ammunition.

[DankNuggs 305]

I've got a great example: this happened two years ago. Midway thru the season there was a very lopsided trade. The owner who got raped in the deal was 100% not in collusion. It was his first year doing fantasy football and he simply didn't know what he was doing. So should this trade have been let thru? btw, it was much worse than the trade here and with bigger named players.

 

I know you "no veto" guys would say let it go, but that is garbage, you must find out the facts and talk to owners and then make an intelligent decision. 98% of trades go thru without much thought, but trades like these need to be investigated and sometimes, ultimately overturned.

ETA: an example of how bad the trade was (as if this happened today)....terell owens for ashley lelie.

It isn't your job to 'care' for the owners team as if it were your own...

 

 

It isn't the job of the other owners to operate the team under the prism of the commishs view of the FF world.

[Guest RenoZ]

"what if this were Tomlinson for Kennison, but no collusion could be proven."

 

Only because I am sick of typing the same shat, here is the direct quote:

 

"I've said before (and will provide links if needed), if the OP thinks it is collusion and has the power to veto, he probably should. If he thinks that it is a dumb trade, he probably shouldn't."

 

Tomlinson for Kennison (at the beginning of the year like this)...no veto. I wouldn't even think about changing our league rules like that. I sure as fock would be pissed, though, and boot the focker from the league next year. The original poster states in Post #1 that he doesn't believe it is collusion. End of story.

[usmcwar85 0]

It isn't your job to 'care' for the owners team as if it were your own...

It isn't the job of the other owners to operate the team under the prism of the commishs view of the FF world.

 

so we should just sit back and watch owners get ripped off and not know any better?? thats like sitting back and watching the slow kid get bullied during recess...

[DankNuggs 305]

Again - there's never been drama because there's never been a trade this bad in that league. Our league members have known each other at minimum of 12 years and in some cases date back to high school more than 20 years. All are experienced FFB managers and none would ever offer or accept a deal like this. Thus, my league's just fine, thanks.

 

You keep saying that unless collusion can be "proven" - what more proof do you need than a 3rd and 4th rounder being dealt for a 6th and 15th rounder? What possible justification can that owner have for PASSING UP BOTH OF THOSE PLAYERS for several rounds (15 rounds, in the case of Kennison) then suddenly changing his mind to believe they're worth the 3rd and 4th picks he actually did take?

 

And you continue to dodge the question: would you be ok with a Kennison for Tomlinson deal being made? The commish should just allow it regardless because you can't "prove" collusion? I'm sure you'll ignore this a 5th time though so I won't hold my breath. It's exactly the scenario you paint with your comments on why or when a deal should be handled by the commish. What's the difference between a 3rd/4th for a 6th/15th and a 1st for a 15th? Nothing - they're the same caliber of deal.

 

You're just badgering to badger now - you have lost this debate again and again and continue to find means of ad homenim attacks, attacking me and others for our league format or opinion on what a commissioner's role is rather than look at the basic premise of this topic. Now it's my league that's not "respectable" and it's a "drama" league.

 

You aren't helping yourself regain the credibility you've lost, so you may as well give up. Oh, and half the commissioners in the world agree with me.

 

All I said is that the owner of BJ/AJ deserves the chance to defend his rationale for the trade instead of letting the league owners vote on how he can manage his roster.

 

 

ADP means absolutely NOTHING.

 

We are talking about RB3's and WRs with a larger gap.

 

 

 

My credibility on this site means about as much ADP (a collection of idiots who bask in the mediocrity of the "HERD MENTALITY")

 

 

 

 

ME>YOU