I dont ever VETO but this trade is uneven..

[eaglesfreak 10]

NOTE: this is a PPR league

 

TEAM A trades Thomas Jones and recieves Michael Crabtree and Steve Smith (giants) thoughts??

[mobb_deep 917]

That trade is pretty unbalanced. I'd be forced to veto it as well. Your commish did the right thing.

[eaglesfreak 10]

im the actual commish..but the co commish actually decides on if a trade goes thru or not..just trying to get other commishes opinion

[mobb_deep 917]

Just the fact that someone would post a "VETO" 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.

[DEEZNUTS 18]

i'm a commish...

usually, it's hands off - let teams trade. this does appear a uneven, but i'd have to take the teams records into consideration. are one of these teams out of playoff contention?

[eaglesfreak 10]

i'm a commish...

usually, it's hands off - let teams trade. this does appear a uneven, but i'd have to take the teams records into consideration. are one of these teams out of playoff contention?

 

both r 4-4 but the team trading the wrs has made questionable trades in past...after he trades his #1 and #3 WR the only 3 WRs hes got is Steve Smith carolina Steve Johnson and Mike Williams (seattle)..thomas jones is the other teams 4th RB

[DickThuy 0]

both r 4-4 but the team trading the wrs has made questionable trades in past...after he trades his #1 and #3 WR the only 3 WRs hes got is Steve Smith carolina Steve Johnson and Mike Williams (seattle)..thomas jones is the other teams 4th RB

Is this a serious thread? Btw Eaglesfreak your city is a pile of filth

[mobb_deep 917]

Is this a serious thread? Btw Eaglesfreak your city is a pile of filth

 

For someone with a name like "DickThuy", 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?

[eaglesfreak 10]

i'm just looking for other commissioners point of view...if this trade went down in a PPR league what would you do? Whats the crime in just asking for opinions?

[eaglesfreak 10]

For someone with a name like "DickThuy", 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?

btw bro trade didnt get vetoed yet..the co commish is looking into it since he makes the final decision

[cbfalcon 824]

If it was anyone other than Thomas Jones for Crabtree and Smith, I'd probably let it go. But that trade is as unfair as it gets.

 

I'm with Mobb. Gotta veto that one.

[Giants Fan 85]

both r 4-4 but the team trading the wrs has made questionable trades in past...after he trades his #1 and #3 WR the only 3 WRs hes got is Steve Smith carolina Steve Johnson and Mike Williams (seattle)..thomas jones is the other teams 4th RB

 

So the trade helps both teams?

[eaglesfreak 10]

So the trade helps both teams?

well the team thats trading the wrs is SOOO weak at WRs now

[Giants Fan 85]

well the team thats trading the wrs is SOOO weak at WRs now

 

IMO ... it doesn't matter. Unless you think the team trading away the WRs is just tanking his team to help out the other team ... don't veto.

[mobb_deep 917]

If it was anyone other than Thomas Jones for Crabtree and Smith, I'd probably let it go. But that trade is as unfair as it gets.

 

I'm with Mobb. Gotta veto that one.

 

 

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.

[rdrs4life 0]

I believe I am posting in a troll thread....or so I hope.

[TV's Frank 0]

Is there evidence that one of the owners is paying the other one off under the table? Or that the two are conspiring together to make one good team? If not, there's no justification for vetoing a trade. Fleecing suckers is what capitalism is all about.

[schmitty34 2]

That trade is pretty unbalanced. I'd be forced to veto it as well. Your commish did the right thing.

 

Do you have your responses saved in a word document and then just copy and paste? Or do you re-type it every time?

[mobb_deep 917]

Is there evidence that one of the owners is paying the other one off under the table? Or that the two are conspiring together to make one good team? If not, there's no justification for vetoing a trade. Fleecing suckers is what capitalism is all about.

 

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.

[mobb_deep 917]

Do you have your responses saved in a word document and then just copy and paste? Or do you re-type it every time?

 

don't know what this even means, but I'm not named schmitty34.

 

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.

 

[TV's Frank 0]

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.

 

 

Why? Because you say so? So it all comes down to your personal opinion about what is and isn't fair? You get to decide who is worth $15 and who is worth $35?

 

If you don't have proof (or at least a fairly good idea) that someone is cheating (ie collusion) then there's absolutely no justification for vetoing a trade, no matter how much you personally may not like it. People pay their fees and they ought to be free to manage their teams any way they damn well please within the rules.

[eaglesfreak 10]

Why? Because you say so? So it all comes down to your personal opinion about what is and isn't fair? You get to decide who is worth $15 and who is worth $35?

 

If you don't have proof (or at least a fairly good idea) that someone is cheating (ie collusion) then there's absolutely no justification for vetoing a trade, no matter how much you personally may not like it. People pay their fees and they ought to be free to manage their teams any way they damn well please within the rules.

 

the stat i'm looking at is performance...Steve Smith has 117 pts Crabtree has 87 pts and Thomas jones has 71 pts....very lopsided

[rdrs4life 0]

I am so lucky to not be in a league with any of you veto-ing idiots.

[TV's Frank 0]

the stat i'm looking at is performance...Steve Smith has 117 pts Crabtree has 87 pts and Thomas jones has 71 pts....very lopsided

 

Never said it wasn't lopsided. It's definitely lopsided. So what? The question is, are the two teams colluding or cheating in any other way? If so, then, yes, it should be vetoed.

 

But if you've got no reason to believe that's there's cheating going on, then it's simply a matter of a better player fleecing another player, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's part of the game.

[t-birdie 8]

well the team thats trading the wrs is SOOO weak at WRs now

 

But he wasn't weak before with Crabtree and SSmith? I'm not sure who's getting the better of who (again). I'd take Thomas Jones in a heartbeat in that trade.

[Jeepz 0]

Is there evidence that one of the owners is paying the other one off under the table? Or that the two are conspiring together to make one good team? If not, there's no justification for vetoing a trade. Fleecing suckers is what capitalism is all about.

This is my take on it. KC is a running machine, and Jones could end up a top-20 RB. Maybe that's solid production on his roster, I don't know. Sure, Crabs and Smith (North) is a steep price, but evidently he feels it's worth it. Also, as I've found out in trying to deal Roethlisberger, there needs to be a market for a player, and the right circumstances of players/need. Do you know if he shopped around Crabs and Smith to anyone else? Maybe there weren't any other takers for the RB he was looking for, and TJ is simply the next available player down on his "Need" list? I can easily conceive a scenario where he was shopping those two WRs for a solid RB, and kept working his way around the league, ending up over-spending for TJ rather than re-evaluating what his offer was.

 

Do I think he got fleeced? Absolutely. Do I think it's veto-able on the info we have. Nope. Unless you think he's tanking on purpose, let him make his own mistakes.

[Jeepz 0]

But he wasn't weak before with Crabtree and SSmith? I'm not sure who's getting the better of who (again). I'd take Thomas Jones in a heartbeat in that trade.

To add to that, he's got the 17th WR in PPR in an unexpected Johnson, he's got Smith (South) who could easily finish the second half of the season averaging in the top-20WR range, and who knows about Williams but he's had a couple of solid games recently, and maybe he's willing to ride them in exchange for what he sees as a very solid RB2

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

I wouldnt veto the trade personally

 

the dude needs a RB, to me Crabtree is a wr4 at best in a ppr there are much better options. So it comes down to a RB2 for a WR2, I dont see the problem

 

could he have gotten more? Maybe, but thats not for you to determine

[t-birdie 8]

Crabtree and SSmith are the same as 20 other WRs most of which are probably on the waiver wire. Thomas Jones gets 20 carries a week. How many 20 carry RBs are on the waiver wire?

 

Thomas Jones wins this trade in a walk (to a person that needs a RB). Those WRs are easy to replace. #30 and #36 WR. There are 7 waiver-wire WRs in my league with similar points.

[schmitty34 2]

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.

 

This reminded me of something. I once tried to trade a $20 bill for a $10 bill because the $10 bill was nice a crisp, and I hated the wrinkled old $20 bill sitting in my pocket. I was so happy when one of my friends reminded me that it doesn't matter how the bill looks like, it's still worth more than the nice clean $10. Few!

[cbfalcon 824]

Never said it wasn't lopsided. It's definitely lopsided. So what? The question is, are the two teams colluding or cheating in any other way? If so, then, yes, it should be vetoed.

 

But if you've got no reason to believe that's there's cheating going on, then it's simply a matter of a better player fleecing another player, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's part of the game.

 

If they are making such lopsided trades, why would you think they aren't cheating?

[southcarolina 166]

I wouldnt veto the trade personally

 

the dude needs a RB, to me Crabtree is a wr4 at best in a ppr there are much better options. So it comes down to a RB2 for a WR2, I dont see the problem

 

could he have gotten more? Maybe, but thats not for you to determine

 

I agree with this post 100%. Hell Crabtree is going to be having Troy Smith throwing him the ball for the near future. Im not even sure i'd call him a WR4 at this point.

[madd futher mucker 36]

Not enough information to even comment on this. What are the records and rosters of the two teams involved in the trade. What were each of their motivations for making the trade. THESE ARE THE IMPORTANT DETAILS - NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. As commissioner, YOU are responsible for finding out this stuff.

 

But just because you or mobb_deep or anyone else think this trade is unbalanced does not make this trade vetoable. Just based on the (imcomplete) info you provided, there is no basis for a veto. The stats by themselves do NOT matter. TRADES DO NOT NEED TO BE FAIR!

 

So what information can you provide that suggests this trade should be veotoed??? So far I don't see any.

[cbfalcon 824]

TRADES DO NOT NEED TO BE FAIR!

 

This is the worst statement ever made.

 

If something isn't fair, it is unfair. Who wants to play in an unfair league where certain teams have unfair advantages? Not I.

[southcarolina 166]

This is the worst statement ever made.

 

If something isn't fair, it is unfair. Who wants to play in an unfair league where certain teams have unfair advantages? Not I.

 

So please define the minimum level of fairness a trade must meet in order to not be vetoed.

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

So a guy traded WR depth to help his backfield...

 

Yeah, it should be veto'd...

[madd futher mucker 36]

This is the worst statement ever made.

 

If something isn't fair, it is unfair. Who wants to play in an unfair league where certain teams have unfair advantages? Not I.

 

You, sir, have the most WARPED idea of fantasy football rules I've ever seen. In your mind, tradebacks with your 'friends' to cover bye weeks are just fine, but you think you can judge what is and what isn't a 'fair' trade, and any trade you deem to be 'unfair' you think should be vetoed. Yea, right.

 

The picture I'm getting here is that the only trades that would go through in your leagues are the ones where either someone colluded with you or the ones that you perceive do not hurt you team even though you are not directly involved in them.

[We Tigers 71]

I'm vetoing this thread.

[mobb_deep 917]

Why? Because you say so? So it all comes down to your personal opinion about what is and isn't fair? You get to decide who is worth $15 and who is worth $35?

 

If you don't have proof (or at least a fairly good idea) that someone is cheating (ie collusion) then there's absolutely no justification for vetoing a trade, no matter how much you personally may not like it. People pay their fees and they ought to be free to manage their teams any way they damn well please within the rules.

 

8 titles over 12 years and you call this trade fair? You must be playing with family members.

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

You, sir, have the most WARPED idea of fantasy football rules I've ever seen. In your mind, tradebacks with your 'friends' to cover bye weeks are just fine, but you think you can judge what is and what isn't a 'fair' trade, and any trade you deem to be 'unfair' you think should be vetoed. Yea, right.

 

The picture I'm getting here is that the only trades that would go through in your leagues are the ones where either someone colluded with you or the ones that you perceive do not hurt you team even though you are not directly involved in them.

 

It's tough to imagine a troll having nearly 6,000 posts; but with the rubbish that cbfalcon posts, it's hard to believe that there is a human being with a fully functional brain posting his responses. Has to be a troll.