ndancosse 0 Posted September 12, 2008 ok guys ..there was a trade in my league ..the rules are if 5 of the 12 owners vote no ..its vetoed ... well after 7 voters it was vetoed ...neither owner is pissed as far as i know but 1 owner feels that since he didnt offer the trade and the other did than him accepting it meant both owners are comfy with it and therefore it should have gone thru ... now the reason he stated he didnt offer the trade was because IMO he is the 1 who will make out and again IMO he will make out well ...so he was stating it wasnt his idea ..get my drift? ok heres the trade : Alcatraz boys offer ... Chad Ocho Cinco and Laurence Maroney to Playmakers Playmakers give up : Lee Evans and Sidney Rice to Alcatraz boys after 7 voters it was vetoed ... do any of you think this is an equal trade ..and please give me either yes or no please? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yamokosk 0 Posted September 12, 2008 Trade was not fair but I don't think it was on the level of collusion, but it is awful close though. That being said I would have allowed it. Vetoing is reserved for collusion, not bonehead trades. If an owner is dumb enough to pull a trigger on this type of a trade, don't invite him back into the league next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Blake Hall 0 Posted September 12, 2008 No way. Playmakers are getting a steal. Lee Evans is decent, but not even close to Ocho Cinco. Sidney Rice is garbage. http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=323451 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bgards79 0 Posted September 12, 2008 Trade was not fair but I don't think it was on the level of collusion, but it is awful close though. That being said I would have allowed it. Vetoing is reserved for collusion, not bonehead trades. If an owner is dumb enough to pull a trigger on this type of a trade, don't invite him back into the league next year. I agree with the above. Veto power is supposed to be used in an effort later in the season to keep one out-of-contention team from helping another. Squashing a trade in week 2 is ridiculous. If "PlayMakerz" is high on Sidney Rice after seeing him get in the endzone last week then that is his problem. Again like the guy above me said, Vetoing is reserved for collusion NOT bad trades. The league that I commish, we do not put trades to a league vote. Myself and my Co-Commish would decide if any vetoing is called for. If he and I are split on the decision we have a third party already set in place who would be the deciding factor. I have Commish'd for 5 years and I don't think I have ever killed a trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray_T 591 Posted September 12, 2008 ok guys ..there was a trade in my league ..the rules are if 5 of the 12 owners vote no ..its vetoed ... well after 7 voters it was vetoed ...neither owner is pissed as far as i know but 1 owner feels that since he didnt offer the trade and the other did than him accepting it meant both owners are comfy with it and therefore it should have gone thru ... now the reason he stated he didnt offer the trade was because IMO he is the 1 who will make out and again IMO he will make out well ...so he was stating it wasnt his idea ..get my drift? ok heres the trade : Alcatraz boys offer ... Chad Ocho Cinco and Laurence Maroney to Playmakers Playmakers give up : Lee Evans and Sidney Rice to Alcatraz boys after 7 voters it was vetoed ... do any of you think this is an equal trade ..and please give me either yes or no please? Rice is a borderline starter at best right now. Evans is a #2 Fantasy WR. Ocho Cinco is an elite #1 WR and Maroney is a #2 RB capable of starting. It looks rather lopsided to me. Lee Evans and Sidney Rice together arent even worth Ocho Cinco by himself. The Fact the guy got Maroney on top of this for free is kinda stupid. I dont like to veto deals, but I agree that this may have been a good veto. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bgards79 0 Posted September 12, 2008 Rice is a borderline starter at best right now. Evans is a #2 Fantasy WR. Ocho Cinco is an elite #1 WR and Maroney is a #2 RB capable of starting. It looks rather lopsided to me. Lee Evans and Sidney Rice together arent even worth Ocho Cinco by himself. The Fact the guy got Maroney on top of this for free is kinda stupid. I dont like to veto deals, but I agree that this may have been a good veto. IMO, being a bit lopsided does not warrant a veto. Who are we to say how these players stats will look at the end of the year?? If both owners agree on the deal then let the deal thru. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray_T 591 Posted September 12, 2008 IMO, being a bit lopsided does not warrant a veto. Who are we to say how these players stats will look at the end of the year?? If both owners agree on the deal then let the deal thru. This is more than a bit lopsided. It is Very Lopsided. It would have been a bit lopsided (in my opinion) even if the one owner was getting CJ without Maroney. also, as noted, the team profiting is very strong already. I know this shouldnt be a part of the decision process, but as a commish, your job is also to protect parity in the league to some degree. Not that it matters here, as it is a league vote, and not the job of the commish to make this call. but it is lopsided to the point where a good explanation as to why should be made by the owner giving up CJ and Maroney (hopefully he got to lay out his explanation to the league before the vote happened). Either way, if I was commish, I'd reserve my decision based on that explanation with the thought that a veto is likely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
