I need a QB badly! finally traded for one and got vetoed!

[eaglesfreak 10]

Ok so my qbs are hasselbeck and trent edwards! So right there that's tellin u I need a qb!! My rbs and wrs are gore cjohnson parker andre johnson roddy white desean jax burleson manninham!! So I called a team whom had cutler and brady and told him I was interested! Since this team is hurtin at wr I offered him white or desaun and parker for cutler or brady! He said he rather have desaun and he would trade brady! So we agreed! 10 mins after its finalized a team in my division texts me and starts an uproar how its unfair and how he was goin to veto and call everyone and how I'm an irrogant pos and blah blah! In a matter of 2 hrs there was 4 vetos and 5 would make it vetoed! So I wake up and yup it was vetoed!! Now I'm pissed and the team whom I was tradn with is pissed!!! What can I do cause this is ridiculous!! And the team wants cutler instead of brady!!

[KSB2424 3,087]

!

[edjr 5,749]

#

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

Ok so my qbs are hasselbeck and trent edwards! So right there that's tellin u I need a qb!! My rbs and wrs are gore cjohnson parker andre johnson roddy white desean jax burleson manninham!! So I called a team whom had cutler and brady and told him I was interested! Since this team is hurtin at wr I offered him white or desaun and parker for cutler or brady! He said he rather have desaun and he would trade brady! So we agreed! 10 mins after its finalized a team in my division texts me and starts an uproar how its unfair and how he was goin to veto and call everyone and how I'm an irrogant pos and blah blah! In a matter of 2 hrs there was 4 vetos and 5 would make it vetoed! So I wake up and yup it was vetoed!! Now I'm pissed and the team whom I was tradn with is pissed!!! What can I do cause this is ridiculous!! And the team wants cutler instead of brady!!

 

 

I would!!!! go and!! punch the league!!! members in!! the!! face in!! front of!! the family!!!!!!!!!!

[eaglesfreak 10]

In all seriousness guys what's ur take on vetos?? Is this a wrong reasoning to veto this trade?

[Darth Fumble 0]

Walk away from that league - there are plenty of good leagues out there. Drop every player on your team and go.

 

Any league with vetoes is a red flag for me right there. Course, I only play with people I know in person so nodoby does any goofy stuff.

[Stewburtx8 67]

In all seriousness guys what's ur take on vetos?? Is this a wrong reasoning to veto this trade?

 

 

Just stop. Not sure why I'm responding to this, maybe cuz Im an Eagles fan. There are hundreds of posts about vetoes on this site and every single one says NO VETOES unless their is collusion. You joined the league that allows a voting veto system, there is nothing you can do now but deal with it. Trades will never go through in this format because everyone thinks they can predict the future and KNOW who got the better end of the deal.

[Bones40 0]

Never join a league with league voting vetoes. Ever.

[oldguru 0]

Never join a league with league voting vetoes. Ever.

 

Good advice.

[KSB2424 3,087]

Never join a league with league voting vetoes. Ever.

I'm in two money leagues. One has a voting policy and one does not. The one that does is like 10 years old and thats the way it's always been so people are good with it. I think there have been maybe 3 or 4 trades voted down in total ever. And those really where very odd looking. 95% of them get voted in.

 

So while I agree with you in theory, I think it depends on the owners you play with more than it does the trade policies you implore.

[Lion Fan 0]

Wow, cannot believe that trade was vetoed. In my league we only vote on trades that involve a team that is new to the league…and it must be obvious collusion to vote against it. The reason we vote on the trades involving "new guys" is that not everyone is comfortable with their "fantasy competence" and we don't want a potential smuck to give someone an unbalanced/unfair advantage.

[NewbieJr 541]

The other owners vetoed because it would have made both teams better. Their vetoes were self-serving and that is the very-reason veto-leagues are horrible. Leave it at once.

 

If you feel like finishing the seaon, demand to know why that trade should be vetoed.

[jerryskids 5,434]

Just stop. Not sure why I'm responding to this, maybe cuz Im an Eagles fan. There are hundreds of posts about vetoes on this site and every single one says NO VETOES unless their is collusion. You joined the league that allows a voting veto system, there is nothing you can do now but deal with it. Trades will never go through in this format because everyone thinks they can predict the future and KNOW who got the better end of the deal.

True. I think it is more fundamental than that tho. The problem with such a veto process is that the trade should, in theory, benefit both sides. Of which this is a textbook example. One team is thin at QB, another at WR, they trade and voila! problem solved. Only, the other 10 (or whatever) owners look at it and say "fock, both of those teams are killa now!" Then they rub their baginas, because they are poosies.

 

ETA: Newbie beat me to the point. but mine was more entertaining.

[eaglesfreak 10]

Should I revise it and add hasselbeck to the deal?? Hasselbeck desaun and parker for brady and 2 throw ins?

[dj milkmoney 0]

True. I think it is more fundamental than that tho. The problem with such a veto process is that the trade should, in theory, benefit both sides. Of which this is a textbook example. One team is thin at QB, another at WR, they trade and voila! problem solved. Only, the other 10 (or whatever) owners look at it and say "fock, both of those teams are killa now!" Then they rub their baginas, because they are poosies.

 

ETA: Newbie beat me to the point. but mine was more entertaining.

 

Hahaha! I agree that that's what it looks like. I also agree with demanding to know why the trade was vetoed. Make them give you a reason (which they will have a difficult time providing).

[eaglesfreak 10]

They say that a bench warmer in desaun 4 brady is too lopsided and it would make my team great!!! Should I propose this trade?? Hasselbeck desaun and parker 4 brady chambers and ahmed bradshaw??

[jerryskids 5,434]

Should I revise it and add hasselbeck to the deal?? Hasselbeck desaun and parker for brady and 2 throw ins?

Funny, I missed the Parker part of the original deal. That leaves you thin at RB with Gore out. I'd counter with Jackson for Brady straight up and tell the other owners to eat a bag of d1cks.

[eaglesfreak 10]

I forgot to add this..we start 2 rbs 2 wrs or 1 rb 3 wrs..

[jgcrawfish 232]

True. I think it is more fundamental than that tho. The problem with such a veto process is that the trade should, in theory, benefit both sides. Of which this is a textbook example. One team is thin at QB, another at WR, they trade and voila! problem solved. Only, the other 10 (or whatever) owners look at it and say "fock, both of those teams are killa now!" Then they rub their baginas, because they are poosies.

 

ETA: Newbie beat me to the point. but mine was more entertaining.

 

You get -1 for mooching off Newbie's thoughts, but you get +3 for creativity.

[PackYourNut 47]

Drop all your players and move on...

[Rusty Syringes 478]

I'd just drop major players one at a time and watch the hilarity ensue.

[larrybird 0]

Trade your best players week by week to whoever that douche is playing that initially vetoed your trade

[eaglesfreak 10]

I would do that but I paid $100 for league and I'm 2-1 right now..don't wanna waste the league away

[IronMikeBison 0]

u need the veto in every league in my opinion. you don't know if ppl have side deals going on especially if your in a money league and u know like half the ppl. if you know everyone then it's ok. but if u don't know every single person, you never know the under the table side deals going on.

[Bombers97 0]

Just re-submit the trade, over and over, until one of the five gets tired of it and it goes through.

[LOD01 195]

What a sissy boy, biatch league.

 

oohhh the guy just got Brady and is going to kick my ass, I'm voting to veto and calling everyone I can to help veto.

 

PUSSIES!!!!!!!

[Stewburtx8 67]

u need the veto in every league in my opinion. you don't know if ppl have side deals going on especially if your in a money league and u know like half the ppl. if you know everyone then it's ok. but if u don't know every single person, you never know the under the table side deals going on.

 

 

You need a commishioner veto in cases of collusion. You do NOT need a voting veto where anyone can sit at home on their computer and click a button to veto a trade.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,675]

vetoes are stupid, commissioner approval is a much better system if you are worried about shady things.

 

I wouldnt give up Deshawn for Brady right now anyways, In your situation I would consider it, cause you are deep at WR, but hell just change it to White instead, if they veto it they are dumb, even though I think Jax will outscore Roddy this year

[Bubonic Chronic 0]

Just stop. Not sure why I'm responding to this, maybe cuz Im an Eagles fan. There are hundreds of posts about vetoes on this site and every single one says NO VETOES unless their is collusion. You joined the league that allows a voting veto system, there is nothing you can do now but deal with it. Trades will never go through in this format because everyone thinks they can predict the future and KNOW who got the better end of the deal.

 

Oh, that makes it so simple. You only veto trades when collusion is involved. Of course, you've begged the question that is really at issue here: who decides whether collusion is involved?

 

In my experience, the parties to the trade rarely state that they have colluded with one another, so vetoing a trade generally requires a judgment call by somebody. The two most common methods I'm aware of is to give the commissioner sole veto authority or to allow a league vote. Personally, I think the chances of a trade being arbitrarily vetoed where there is no collusion is greater with one person making the decision than with a group of people voting. In other words, it's more likely that one person will act unreasonably than it is that a majority of the league will act unreasonably (unless, of course, you assume that commissioners are inherently more objective than the other members of the league, which might be a reasonable assumption if the commissioner didn't have a team in the league).

 

My league has always allowed a vote on all trades and no trade has ever been vetoed (and, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any collusion). So this approach has worked reasonably well for us, but of course every league is different.

[jerryskids 5,434]

Oh, that makes it so simple. You only veto trades when collusion is involved. Of course, you've begged the question that is really at issue here: who decides whether collusion is involved?

 

In my experience, the parties to the trade rarely state that they have colluded with one another, so vetoing a trade generally requires a judgment call by somebody. The two most common methods I'm aware of is to give the commissioner sole veto authority or to allow a league vote. Personally, I think the chances of a trade being arbitrarily vetoed where there is no collusion is greater with one person making the decision than with a group of people voting. In other words, it's more likely that one person will act unreasonably than it is that a majority of the league will act unreasonably (unless, of course, you assume that commissioners are inherently more objective than the other members of the league, which might be a reasonable assumption if the commissioner didn't have a team in the league).

 

My league has always allowed a vote on all trades and no trade has ever been vetoed (and, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any collusion). So this approach has worked reasonably well for us, but of course every league is different.

Your league, like my $$$ league, sounds like a long-standing league with people who know and respect each other. The abortion described here sounds otherwise.

 

Like you say, two owners rarely say "hey guys, we're colluding, please approve!@#" All we can judge by is the info provided, which was Desaun and Parker to a team thin at WR for Brady to a team thin at QB. I concede, without knowing scoring or starting requirements, that the team getting Brady looks focking stacked for the long haul. But so what? That's not collusion. If both teams benefit, how can you possibly conclude it is collusion?

[Bubonic Chronic 0]

Your league, like my $$$ league, sounds like a long-standing league with people who know and respect each other. The abortion described here sounds otherwise.

 

Like you say, two owners rarely say "hey guys, we're colluding, please approve!@#" All we can judge by is the info provided, which was Desaun and Parker to a team thin at WR for Brady to a team thin at QB. I concede, without knowing scoring or starting requirements, that the team getting Brady looks focking stacked for the long haul. But so what? That's not collusion. If both teams benefit, how can you possibly conclude it is collusion?

 

I don't disagree with you at all on the merits of this particular trade. In my opinion, it's clearly not collusion.

 

And you're right about my league. I'm just not convinced that giving commissioner sole authority to veto is superior unless you have a particular reason to believe the commissioner will act more reasonably than a majority of the league.

[RSersen 0]

In all seriousness guys what's ur take on vetos?? Is this a wrong reasoning to veto this trade?

 

Never veto, unless it's obvious collusion.

 

I wouldn't trade Brady for that, personally, but it's not my team. Maybe he doesn't like what he's seen from the Pats offense. Maybe he wants to upgrade himself at WR. Maybe he saw Parker's nice game in Cincy and thinks that it's the start of a hot streak.

 

Who knows? Not my team. The owners pay for their own teams, they should able to do what they want with their team. I've seen too many trades vetoed because "player A is worth much more than player B"...and then it ends up being the opposite by year's end.

 

The owners vetoing this trade don't know anything more about fantasy football than you, the other owner, or any one else. They should stop acting like they do.

 

All that said, these are the rules you agreed to. You can leave the league after the season, or even try to get the rules changed in the off-season...but for now, gotta suck it up and deal.

[We Tigers 71]

They say that a bench warmer in desaun 4 brady is too lopsided and it would make my team great!!! Should I propose this trade?? Hasselbeck desaun and parker 4 brady chambers and ahmed bradshaw??

I'll say you should stay in the league because the re-res in it think DeSean Jackson is a "bench warmer." He's the #6 receiver so far! You should be able to facepound these chumps.

[eaglesfreak 10]

UPDATE: Heres the deal...after talking to the team i TRYED trading with we decided on this trade...

I give up Hasselbeck Desean Jax and Parker for Brady Chambers and Maroney

 

If they veto this I'm deleting league and running away with the money since IM the commissioner with all the dough

 

and btw in our league Desean Jax is 3rd for WRs

[We Tigers 71]

...you have a problem with the rules in a league you commish. That's a new one.

[jerryskids 5,434]

UPDATE: Heres the deal...after talking to the team i TRYED trading with we decided on this trade...

I give up Hasselbeck Desean Jax and Parker for Brady Chambers and Maroney

 

If they veto this I'm deleting league and running away with the money since IM the commissioner with all the dough

 

and btw in our league Desean Jax is 3rd for WRs

Sweet jeebus... so, post us a response from the initial curmudgeon owner to the following question: "The initial trade was a win-win for both teams, on what basis do you justify a veto?"

[eaglesfreak 10]

...you have a problem with the rules in a league you commish. That's a new one.

 

I never had a problem in 4 yrs in this league with vetoes! We added a few new teams this yr and this is where the source of the problem is surfacing. I for one is all for vetoes but ONLY if teams can prove collusion. Not 1 trade has ever been vetoed in 4 yrs in this league..Next yr these new teams are out and i'm going to implement COMMISH VETO ONLY

 

Team accepted so new trade is Hasselbeck Desaun and Parker for Brady Chambers and Maroney...so basically its a 3 for 1 deal. And already the "pussie" team is complaining say I ruined the league lol drrrrrrama

[ILikeTacos 0]

Just stop. Not sure why I'm responding to this, maybe cuz Im an Eagles fan. There are hundreds of posts about vetoes on this site and every single one says NO VETOES unless their is collusion. You joined the league that allows a voting veto system, there is nothing you can do now but deal with it. Trades will never go through in this format because everyone thinks they can predict the future and KNOW who got the better end of the deal.

Agreed.

[gocolts 300]

Oh, that makes it so simple. You only veto trades when collusion is involved. Of course, you've begged the question that is really at issue here: who decides whether collusion is involved?

 

In my experience, the parties to the trade rarely state that they have colluded with one another, so vetoing a trade generally requires a judgment call by somebody. The two most common methods I'm aware of is to give the commissioner sole veto authority or to allow a league vote. Personally, I think the chances of a trade being arbitrarily vetoed where there is no collusion is greater with one person making the decision than with a group of people voting. In other words, it's more likely that one person will act unreasonably than it is that a majority of the league will act unreasonably (unless, of course, you assume that commissioners are inherently more objective than the other members of the league, which might be a reasonable assumption if the commissioner didn't have a team in the league).

 

My league has always allowed a vote on all trades and no trade has ever been vetoed (and, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any collusion). So this approach has worked reasonably well for us, but of course every league is different.

How about having a trustworthy commish.

[Bubonic Chronic 0]

How about having a trustworthy commish.

 

Oh, that makes it so simple. Of course, why not just have trustworthy league members? Then there will never be any collusion and no need to have any veto policy. The problem with this approach is that "trustworthy" people are trustworthy until they're not. They don't tell you in advance they're going to break your trust. People entrusted their life savings with Bernie Madoff. It's fair to say that somebody who trusts another person enough to give that person his life savings trusts that person more than the average fantasy football league participant trusts his commissioner. And yet despite people having such high levels of trust in Bernie Madoff, that trust was still broken.

 

In any event, my argument was based more on the notion that identifying collusion generally requires making a judgment call rather than merely being honest (although this particular case is somewhat different in that one of the traders is actually the commissioner). What might seem a blatant case of collusion to one person can look like a reasonable trade to another person. My point was that if I want a trade to go through, I'd rather that five people need to be convinced that it is a blatant case of collusion than only one person.