ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 sorry i do not know if this is the wrong forum, and people may not care, but i wanted some insight on if it is rediculous that this trade got vetoed. I Gave Up : Calvin Johnson, Big Ben, Santonio Holmes I Got: Randy Moss, Chad Henne, Mike Sims-Walker they guy i am trading has Brett Farve, and wanted Big Ben in case Farve continues to suck. the guys in my league thought I was getting too good of a deal, is this madness? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted September 24, 2010 sorry i do not know if this is the wrong forum, and people may not care, but i wanted some insight on if it is rediculous that this trade got vetoed. I Gave Up : Calvin Johnson, Big Ben, Santonio Holmes I Got: Randy Moss, Chad Henne, Mike Sims-Walker they guy i am trading has Brett Farve, and wanted Big Ben in case Farve continues to suck. the guys in my league thought I was getting too good of a deal, is this madness? Pure madness Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewburtx8 67 Posted September 24, 2010 sorry i do not know if this is the wrong forum, and people may not care, but i wanted some insight on if it is rediculous that this trade got vetoed. I Gave Up : Calvin Johnson, Big Ben, Santonio Holmes I Got: Randy Moss, Chad Henne, Mike Sims-Walker they guy i am trading has Brett Farve, and wanted Big Ben in case Farve continues to suck. the guys in my league thought I was getting too good of a deal, is this madness? There is no insight needed. It doesn't matter what people think. It's getting ridiculous how many times people post these "trade vetoed" threads. Just stop. A trade should not be vetoed unless their is cheating. THE END. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Criper 24 Posted September 24, 2010 Was there collusion involved? Why would it possibly get vetoed? Are all trades subject to voting before they go through? If so, your league sux! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tecklc2112 7 Posted September 24, 2010 I actually think the other guy got the better end of the deal...Your league mates are a bunch of morons Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiotec 31 Posted September 24, 2010 House. Punch. Face. Wife. Kids. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 That trade is pretty unbalanced. I'd be forced to veto it as well. Your commish did the right thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 That trade is pretty unbalanced. I'd be forced to veto it as well. Your commish did the right thing. unbalanced towards who? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 unbalanced towards who? It's pretty obvious. If you don't know who got ripped off in that trade, then can I join your league please? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 It's pretty obvious. If you don't know who got ripped off in that trade, then can I join your league please? um ok? care to elaborate wise ass? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted September 24, 2010 It's pretty obvious. If you don't know who got ripped off in that trade, then can I join your league please? I would rather have Ben, Calvin, and Holmes. I think that the rest of the way out ben is going to score more fantasy points than Henne, I think that Holmes is going to score more fantasy points than sims-walker, and i think that Calvin Johnson is going to score more fantasy points than randy moss. I think that the only one that has even has a possibility of leaning the other direction would be moss outscoring calvin. I think that it is an upgrade at all 3 positions, yet you would veto that trade because you think the other team is getting too good of deal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare 0 Posted September 24, 2010 There are still leagues out there that veto trades? How old fashioned! Unless collusion is involved, no trade should be vetoed. Never. Ever. Ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 Just the fact that someone would post a "Trade Vetoed" thread is evidence alone that a trade is probably too lopsided for any league to allow it. To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through. The fact that someone was desperate enough for this trade to go through to biitch about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted September 24, 2010 Just the fact that someone would post a "Trade Vetoed" thread is evidence alone that a trade is probably too lopsided for any league to allow it. To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through. The fact that someone was desperate enough for this trade to go through to biitch about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was. To which side though? I would think that the majority would want the more talented, albeit suspended, players. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 Just the fact that someone would post a "Trade Vetoed" thread is evidence alone that a trade is probably too lopsided for any league to allow it. To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you'll be pissed if the trade doesn't go through. The fact that someone was desperate enough for this trade to go through to biitch about it not happening on a message board just proves how lopsided the trade truly was. what retarded logic, in fact it is the exact opposite. If I, or anyone, was going to trade $10 for $10 and someone said that it was not fair then one would be confused, pissed, ect. On the other hand if you knew you were trading $5 for $10 and someone said it wasn't fair you would understand. Does you brain function properly? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lion Fan 0 Posted September 24, 2010 I disagree with above comment. If both parties are trading bench players and getting guys who will be starters, then I'd be pissed too if a trade was vetoed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 what retarded logic, in fact it is the exact opposite. If I, or anyone, was going to trade $10 for $10 and someone said that it was not fair then one would be confused, pissed, ect. On the other hand if you knew you were trading $5 for $10 and someone said it wasn't fair you would understand. Does you brain function properly? For someone with a name like "ffexpert", you don't appear to be very smart in terms of what is a fair trade. That much is clear. If you don't understand why that trade had to be vetoed, then I don't know what to tell ya. Maybe start by asking yourself why you are so pisssed that the trade didn't go through? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 For someone with a name like "ffexpert", you don't appear to be very smart in terms of what is a fair trade. That much is clear. If you don't understand why that trade had to be vetoed, then I don't know what to tell ya. Maybe start by asking yourself why you are so pisssed that the trade didn't go through? That's funny since most everyone in this thread seems to completely disagree with you, so perhaps you, sir, have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, you cannot even articulate which way the trade is lopsided and why. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted September 24, 2010 you call yourself the ffexpert and then make a trade like that? rename yourself ffdouchebag Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 you call yourself the ffexpert and then make a trade like that? rename yourself ffdouchebag insightful? you must be an expert since you can tell if a trade is fair/good without even seeing the rosters involved? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 insightful? you must be an expert since you can tell if a trade is fair/good without even seeing the rosters involved? When the trade is that screwy, there really isn't any need to see the rosters. If we were trading $10 for $12, then the rosters matter. But not when someone is trading $3 for $25. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 When the trade is that screwy, there really isn't any need to see the rosters. If we were trading $10 for $12, then the rosters matter. But not when someone is trading $3 for $25. just say one meaningful thing in regards to fantasy football to defend this position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 just say one meaningful thing in regards to fantasy football to defend this position. I don't know what this even means, but I'm not named ffexpert. But here is what you need to realize. The trade was in fact vetoed. It happened. You are the one trying to claim that was actually happened isn't what should have happened, thus the burden is on you. Similar to if you were to claim the Patriots deserved to beat the Jets last weekend and I said the Jets deserved to win. Well, they actually won, thus the burden is on you to explain why the Patriots deserved to win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lion Fan 0 Posted September 24, 2010 Why do trades have to be even? The $10 for $10 example never applies. You're never going to have 2 or more players that are exactly equal in value. The only important component of a trade is if each owner believes it makes their team better. I think finding an owner that has given up after week 2 is pretty rare. I'd say 99.9% of people still think there is a chance for ff glory!!! :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 Why do trades have to be even? The $10 for $10 example never applies. You're never going to have 2 or more players that are exactly equal in value. The only important component of a trade is if each owner believes it makes their team better. I think finding an owner that has given up after week 2 is pretty rare. I'd say 99.9% of people still think there is a chance for ff glory!!! :-) A trade doesn't have to be $10 for $10. $10 for $8 is ok. Sometimes $40 for $35 is even ok. But $15 for $40 trades should always be vetoed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 I don't know what this even means, but I'm not named ffexpert. But here is what you need to realize. The trade was in fact vetoed. It happened. You are the one trying to claim that was actually happened isn't what should have happened, thus the burden is on you. Similar to if you were to claim the Patriots deserved to beat the Jets last weekend and I said the Jets deserved to win. Well, they actually won, thus the burden is on you to explain why the Patriots deserved to win. Yes, it was vetoed by the league, but the commish has decided to overrule the league veto because he feels it was only vetoed becuase it stood to make both teams better, and he felt the league vetoed it for that reason, not to prevent collusion (which is why trade vetoes exist). I just wanted to gage if others thought this was a vetoable trade as I am sure some people in my league will be butt hurt, and the large majority thought it was not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BattleshipLorenzen 3 Posted September 24, 2010 sorry i do not know if this is the wrong forum, and people may not care, but i wanted some insight on if it is rediculous that this trade got vetoed. I Gave Up : Calvin Johnson, Big Ben, Santonio Holmes I Got: Randy Moss, Chad Henne, Mike Sims-Walker they guy i am trading has Brett Farve, and wanted Big Ben in case Farve continues to suck. the guys in my league thought I was getting too good of a deal, is this madness? Despite what the nuts say, this trade is so close it should never be vetoed. Calvin and Randy could be argued either way: Calvin is younger and maybe less slouchy, while Randy has a better QB. Ben has been out and is surely rusty, while many like Henne's sleeper appeal, particularly now that he has Marshall to throw to. MSW is (was? Thomas perhaps now) the top receiver for a QB who has been terrible, while Holmes is the 1/2 for an offense that is generally very unpredictable passing. It's a wash. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 Why do trades have to be even? The $10 for $10 example never applies. You're never going to have 2 or more players that are exactly equal in value. The only important component of a trade is if each owner believes it makes their team better. I think finding an owner that has given up after week 2 is pretty rare. I'd say 99.9% of people still think there is a chance for ff glory!!! :-) well stated. I would never want to play in a league where people thought that trades have to be perfectly even especially when everyone has their own perceptions of player values. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BattleshipLorenzen 3 Posted September 24, 2010 Yes, it was vetoed by the league, but the commish has decided to overrule the league veto because he feels it was only vetoed becuase it stood to make both teams better, and he felt the league vetoed it for that reason, not to prevent collusion (which is why trade vetoes exist). I just wanted to gage if others thought this was a vetoable trade as I am sure some people in my league will be butt hurt, and the large majority thought it was not. Good job by the commish. Pansy-ass vetoes like that should be overruled, and it DOES happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 Despite what the nuts say, this trade is so close it should never be vetoed. Calvin and Randy could be argued either way: Calvin is younger and maybe less slouchy, while Randy has a better QB. Ben has been out and is surely rusty, while many like Henne's sleeper appeal, particularly now that he has Marshall to throw to. MSW is (was? Thomas perhaps now) the top receiver for a QB who has been terrible, while Holmes is the 1/2 for an offense that is generally very unpredictable passing. It's a wash. pretty much sums it up, thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 Yes, it was vetoed by the league, but the commish has decided to overrule the league veto because he feels it was only vetoed becuase it stood to make both teams better, and he felt the league vetoed it for that reason, not to prevent collusion (which is why trade vetoes exist). I just wanted to gage if others thought this was a vetoable trade as I am sure some people in my league will be butt hurt, and the large majority thought it was not. You keep saying "the large majority thought it was not" lopsided, but I only counted 2 people in this thread actually saying it shouldn't be vetoed. Pretty sure if you made a poll and you laid out your argument why it was fair, and I laid out my argument for why it needs to be vetoed, the results would be pretty close. The fact that one league has already voted to veto it should be evidence enough of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted September 24, 2010 You keep saying "the large majority thought it was not" lopsided, but I only counted 2 people in this thread actually saying it shouldn't be vetoed. Pretty sure if you made a poll and you laid out your argument why it was fair, and I laid out my argument for why it needs to be vetoed, the results would be pretty close. The fact that one league has already voted to veto it should be evidence enough of that. You didnt say anything fantasy football related, and i am not even sure which side you think is getting the better deal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 And if the commish can just over rule a decision made by the league, then THAT is a league you shouldn't want to play in. Can the commish also change the scoring system whenever he wants despite what the league as a whole decided? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 You keep saying "the large majority thought it was not" lopsided, but I only counted 2 people in this thread actually saying it shouldn't be vetoed. Pretty sure if you made a poll and you laid out your argument why it was fair, and I laid out my argument for why it needs to be vetoed, the results would be pretty close. The fact that one league has already voted to veto it should be evidence enough of that. Yes, because people in the league NEVER veto a trade because it makes other teams better, rather than because it is unfair.... and you are a terrible counter if you only see 2, but given your past statements, I would assume counting is not your strong suit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerkStore 13 Posted September 24, 2010 cbfalcon won this thread about 5 times already, he's now just running up the score Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 And if the commish can just over rule a decision made by the league, then THAT is a league you shouldn't want to play in. Can the commish also change the scoring system whenever he wants despite what the league as a whole decided? The commish uses the votes as a recommendation, but he has the final say. Many (if not most) leagues don't even use a vote because people can veto trades for the wrong reasons - so I do not understand your issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted September 24, 2010 Yes, because people in the league NEVER veto a trade because it makes other teams better, rather than because it is unfair.... and you are a terrible counter if you only see 2, but given your past statements, I would assume counting is not your strong suit. So if you aren't going to trust the motives of people in league votes, why do you even have them? Furthermore, why are you here soliciting opinions when you are the commish have already decided that you don't care what everyone else thinks? You will disregard any opinions/votes that don't fall in line with yours and do what you want anyhow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ffexpert 4 Posted September 24, 2010 So if you aren't going to trust the motives of people in league votes, why do you even have them? Furthermore, why are you here soliciting opinions when you are the commish have already decided that you don't care what everyone else thinks? You will disregard any opinions/votes that don't fall in line with yours and do what you want anyhow. 1) when i started the thread the commish had not ruled, so I was curious what people thought. 2) I am very open to other opinions, I just was asking for you to explain your position. Others have stated why they think it is fair, you have yet to defend your position. In fact, multiple posters are even confused which side you think the trade is lopsided towards... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Truck Jackson 0 Posted September 24, 2010 In case you aren't sure how this works, people don't like threads like this here for the 20 reasons posted above, and you are being trolled, and you just continue to feed him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lion Fan 0 Posted September 24, 2010 A trade doesn't have to be $10 for $10. $10 for $8 is ok. Sometimes $40 for $35 is even ok. But $15 for $40 trades should always be vetoed. Not trying to be an @as here. But could you assign a $ value to each of these players? I think that might help me (others) understand how you're getting to the huge gap that would deem it "unfair" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites