tmr8188 2 Posted August 30, 2012 I've lurked for awhile but this trade was just vetoed in my 12 team ppr league. Team A's roster: QB Philip Rivers, SD QB RB Matt Forte, Chi RB RB/WR Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG RB P WR Andre Johnson, Hou WR P WR/TE Mike Wallace, Pit WR TE Antonio Gates, SD TE D/ST Seahawks D/ST D/ST K Garrett Hartley Bench Jeremy Maclin Bench Darrius Heyward-Bey Bench Matt Ryan Bench Kevin Smith Bench Alex Smith Bench Mark Ingram Team B's roster: QB Ben Roethsberger RB Arian Foster RB/WR LeSean McCoy WR Julio Jones WR/TE Percy Harvin TE Martellus Bennett D/ST Cowboys K Rob Bironas Bench CJ Spiller Bench Anquan Bolden Bench Kendall Wright Bench Greg Little Bench Russell Wilson Bench Rashad Jennings Heres the trade Team A: trades Ahmad Bradshaw trades Antonio Gates trades Jeremy Maclin trades Matt Ryan Team B: trades Ben Roethlisberger trades LeSean McCoy trades Martellus Bennett trades Anquan Boldin Doesn't sit right with me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SexyRexy 60 Posted August 30, 2012 I've lurked for awhile but this trade was just vetoed in my 12 team ppr league. Team A sends: trades Ahmad Bradshaw trades Antonio Gates trades Jeremy Maclin trades Matt Ryan Team B gets: Ben Roethlisberger LeSean McCoy Martellus Bennett Anquan Boldin Doesn't sit right with me. i'd let it go through. The RB is skewed to McCoy and the TE is screwed to Gates. Also Ryan > Big Ben. and Maclin > Boldin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JtmoneyJag 25 Posted August 30, 2012 I've lurked for awhile but this trade was just vetoed in my 12 team ppr league. Team A sends: trades Ahmad Bradshaw trades Antonio Gates trades Jeremy Maclin trades Matt Ryan Team B gets: Ben Roethlisberger LeSean McCoy Martellus Bennett Anquan Boldin Doesn't sit right with me. Team A gets a better RB and team B gets better WR, QB and TE. So was it vetoed because of what team B is getting? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmr8188 2 Posted August 30, 2012 Team A gets a better RB and team B gets better WR, QB and TE. So was it vetoed because of what team B is getting? It was vetoed because the commissioner thought that it made team A the clear cut favorite to win. I'll edit in the team rosters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditka vs. ______ 0 Posted August 30, 2012 Trade vetos are lame and should be done away with. If you make a bad trade because you're clueless, get better at the game. If there is collusion or cheating going on, the commissioner can overturn the transaction. To allow other team owners to decide the fate of your team is ridiculous. This is clearly a trade between 2 teams that are trying to make their teams better, and not a transfer of top talent from 1 team to the other. Anyone who vetoes a trade like this is doing it for their own benefit because they are afraid of their competition improving their team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warren2600 3 Posted August 30, 2012 Team A gets a better RB and team B gets better WR, QB and TE. So was it vetoed because of what team B is getting? this hurts my head. i love when people try and veto because it doesn't seem like a fair trade to them. it's not trade rape or collusion so why veto? horrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditka vs. ______ 0 Posted August 30, 2012 It was vetoed because the commissioner thought that it made team A the clear cut favorite to win. I'll edit in the team rosters. Sounds like a commissioner on an ego trip. Of course there is a team getting better, that's the whole point of the trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fantasy master 0 Posted August 30, 2012 Team A wins by a mile in my opinion but as a commish for over 15 years I wouldn't veto it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmr8188 2 Posted August 30, 2012 I edited in the rosters. I'm team B. edit: holy hell random editing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fantasy master 0 Posted August 30, 2012 I've lurked for awhile but this trade was just vetoed in my 12 team ppr league. Team A's roster: QB Philip Rivers, SD QB RB Matt Forte, Chi RB RB/WR Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG RB P WR Andre Johnson, Hou WR P WR/TE Mike Wallace, Pit WR TE Antonio Gates, SD TE D/ST Seahawks D/ST D/ST K Garrett Hartley Bench Jeremy Maclin Bench Darrius Heyward-Bey Bench Matt Ryan Bench Kevin Smith Bench Alex Smith Bench Mark Ingram Team B's roster: QB Ben Roethsberger RB Arian Foster RB/WR LeSean McCoy WR Julio Jones WR/TE Percy Harvin TE Martellus Bennett D/ST Cowboys K Rob Bironas Bench CJ Spiller Bench Anquan Bolden Bench Kendall Wright Bench Greg Little Bench Russell Wilson Bench Rashad Jennings Heres the trade Team A sends: trades Ahmad Bradshaw trades Antonio Gates trades Jeremy Maclin trades Matt Ryan Team B gets: Ben Roethlisberger LeSean McCoy Martellus Bennett Anquan Boldin Doesn't sit right with me. No more lurking by thge way.....Your opinion matters come on in and answer some posts! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JtmoneyJag 25 Posted August 30, 2012 It was vetoed because the commissioner thought that it made team A the clear cut favorite to win. I'll edit in the team rosters. But team B is getting the better trade IMO from purely a trade stand point. I don't think you vetoe because of the team, you vetoe because the trade isn't fair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SexyRexy 60 Posted August 30, 2012 I edited in the rosters. I'm team B. edit: holy hell random editing no way in hell this trade should have been veto'd...its not up to the commish to say "oh it makes team a the clear cut favorite" that's part of the game. it's a fair trade, and if it makes you a favorite to win, then good for you. that's the point of the game. i'd make a huge stink about this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
envoy9 5 Posted August 30, 2012 I see no reason to veto this deal. Reminds me of 2004 our keeper league vetoed Brees for Andre Johnson because everyone thought the owner getting Brees was being raped... You never know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JtmoneyJag 25 Posted August 30, 2012 Team A wins by a mile in my opinion but as a commish for over 15 years I wouldn't veto it. He wins from a team stand point, but they are punishing him for drafting well. The trade though, guy is getting a round 3 QB, Round 4 RB and round 4-5 (I've seen him go in the 3rd) TE for pretty much a #1 pick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditka vs. ______ 0 Posted August 30, 2012 It was vetoed because the commissioner thought that it made team A the clear cut favorite to win. I'll edit in the team rosters. I'd actually pick Team B after the trade to win. Looks like a good trade for both teams. And who wouldn't want to see a team with 2 of the top 3 RB's give one of them up in a trade? If I'm competing against these teams, I'd want this trade to go thru. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 822 Posted August 30, 2012 I'd quit any league that vetoed trades other than obvious cheating. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmr8188 2 Posted August 30, 2012 I'd actually pick Team B after the trade to win. Looks like a good trade for both teams. And who wouldn't want to see a team with 2 of the top 3 RB's give one of them up in a trade? If I'm competing against these teams, I'd want this trade to go thru. Yeah I have a tendency to blow my auction budget on RBs. I blew my budget on Arian Foster and Adrian Peterson last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JtmoneyJag 25 Posted August 30, 2012 I don't want to go into a rant and would agree most trades should not be vetoed, but last year in one of my leagues, a guy was making some of the most lopsided trades I have ever seen. It wasn't collusion, but the guy just didn't care and thought it was funny. That may be an exception to vetoing and yes, it was a $ league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
travis_henrys_baby_momma 10 Posted August 30, 2012 If you are Team B you should STFU and be happy it was vetoed. Seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JtmoneyJag 25 Posted August 30, 2012 If you are Team B you should STFU and be happy it was vetoed. Seriously. I completely disagree. He is upgrading his QB and TE significantly. He is also getting the better WR out of the deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditka vs. ______ 0 Posted August 30, 2012 I don't want to go into a rant and would agree most trades should not be vetoed, but last year in one of my leagues, a guy was making some of the most lopsided trades I have ever seen. It wasn't collusion, but the guy just didn't care and thought it was funny. That may be an exception to vetoing and yes, it was a $ league. IMO - this is the what vetos should be used for, not to block trades that you don't like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2 Posted August 30, 2012 Lame league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozenbeernuts 1,652 Posted August 30, 2012 I've lurked for awhile but this trade was just vetoed in my 12 team ppr league. Team A's roster: QB Philip Rivers, SD QB RB Matt Forte, Chi RB RB/WR Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG RB P WR Andre Johnson, Hou WR P WR/TE Mike Wallace, Pit WR TE Antonio Gates, SD TE D/ST Seahawks D/ST D/ST K Garrett Hartley Bench Jeremy Maclin Bench Darrius Heyward-Bey Bench Matt Ryan Bench Kevin Smith Bench Alex Smith Bench Mark Ingram Team B's roster: QB Ben Roethsberger RB Arian Foster RB/WR LeSean McCoy WR Julio Jones WR/TE Percy Harvin TE Martellus Bennett D/ST Cowboys K Rob Bironas Bench CJ Spiller Bench Anquan Bolden Bench Kendall Wright Bench Greg Little Bench Russell Wilson Bench Rashad Jennings Heres the trade Team A: trades Ahmad Bradshaw trades Antonio Gates trades Jeremy Maclin trades Matt Ryan Team B: trades Ben Roethlisberger trades LeSean McCoy trades Martellus Bennett trades Anquan Boldin Doesn't sit right with me. What a douche. Thankfully I have never had one of my trades vetoed. Though last year one of my commish said he almost vetoed a trade because he thought it was unfair. Traded Vick and Mcgahee for DMC and I dont remember. Yeah guess who got the better end of the deal... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dalemite 0 Posted August 30, 2012 Go to his house, knock on his door and punch him in the face in front of his wife and kids. Problem solved. Why the F did this loser of a commish even allow a draft? He should have made up a bunch of teams that he thought was equal in power and then assign them to the league members. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozenbeernuts 1,652 Posted August 30, 2012 Go to his house, knock on his door and punch him in the face in front of his wife and kids. Problem solved. Why the F did this loser of a commish even allow a draft? He should have made up a bunch of teams that he thought was equal in power and then assign them to the league members. Some how I think the 'mish's team would exceed the other teams, at least in pre draft rankings. He would prob make up some lame rankings to explain how raping everyone is not such a bad idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreenTD 56 Posted August 30, 2012 Looks like a power hungry commish to me. I see nothing remotely wrong with the trade. Like someone else said, the commish should be happy that your team doesn't have 2 of the Top 3 running backs on your squad anymore. If it were me, I'd message the other owners in the league & ask them if its a fair trade via a vote. If they agree it's fine, challenge the dbag commish & force him to put the trade through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
420allstars 13 Posted August 30, 2012 Seems pretty ghey to me.. cant see the reason for a veto Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the_future420 3 Posted August 30, 2012 Somebody already posted that you should knock on the commish's door and punch him infront oh his wife and kids. Nothing more to be said here. Terrible league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nadnewob 1 Posted August 30, 2012 I dont care if team B traded Nate Burleson for Megatron..... ITS HIS TEAM, and what if Burleson blows up? ITS HIS TEAM. NEVER, EVER, play in a league that allows vetoes, it's for amatuers and should not be allowed. Commish holds only Veto power and it will only be enacted in the event of obvious, exteme collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 918 Posted August 30, 2012 I'd be forced to veto as well. Your commish did the right thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cheesesteaks 0 Posted August 30, 2012 I agree that this trade should not have been vetoed. Yes team B wins the trade, but team A gets a top 3 RB. Vetoes should only be used under very lopsided trades or collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SexyRexy 60 Posted August 30, 2012 I dont care if team B traded Nate Burleson for Megatron..... ITS HIS TEAM, and what if Burleson blows up? ITS HIS TEAM. NEVER, EVER, play in a league that allows vetoes, it's for amatuers and should not be allowed. Commish holds only Veto power and it will only be enacted in the event of obvious, exteme collusion. that is exactly how i run my league...i hold veto power but never have used it...and only would consider it if i were to smell collusion... luckily my league is honest and we don't get any of that crap. i was approached to collude in a league once and told them to shove it. OP, no joke...throw a ###### fit...and if your commish pulls a power play then drop all your players and leave the league... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TwentyFourSeven 23 Posted August 30, 2012 Ahhhh 'tis the season! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigblue08 1 Posted August 30, 2012 I'd be forced to veto as well. Your commish did the right thing. It's the commissioner's responsibility to ensure the competitive balance of the league. You'll thank him later for vetoing this trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SexyRexy 60 Posted August 30, 2012 It's the commissioner's responsibility to ensure the competitive balance of the league. You'll thank him later for vetoing this trade. no...it's the commish's responsibility to set up the league, receive payment, and monitor trades, not veto a trade bc he thinks it makes another team "too good". that's bull. there was nothing wrong with that trade to warrant a veto. you want to ensure competitive balance? then make sure people set their lineups and if they don't force players into their lineup. that's all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditka vs. ______ 0 Posted August 30, 2012 It's the commissioner's responsibility to ensure the competitive balance of the league. You'll thank him later for vetoing this trade. Wow! This is just crazy talk. I would walk out on any league that had a commissioner that thought they had the right to wield this much power. Why would he thank a guy who just prevented a trade that he wanted to go thru? If you need someone to oversee your team and league for you so that all the teams have "competitive balance" you must suck at this game. Should the commish also choose which team gets the top waiver wire pick-up in the spirit of "competitive balance"? Does the commish draft your teams for you in order to make sure all teams have "competitive balance"? DOES EVERY TEAM IN YOUR LEAGUE GET A PARTICIPATION TROPHY AT THE END OF THE YEAR BECAUSE NO SCORES WERE KEPT ANYWAY, AND YOU WERE ALL PLAYING JUST FOR THE FUN OF THE GAME? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigblue08 1 Posted August 30, 2012 It's the commissioner's responsibility to ensure the competitive balance of the league. You'll thank him later for vetoing this trade. It's apparent that the commissioner weighed all the aspects of the trade: season projections, player histories, offensive line play, strength of schedule, etc. to determine that the trade was unfair. While it's a close call, it is also the right call. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditka vs. ______ 0 Posted August 30, 2012 It's apparent that the commissioner weighed all the aspects of the trade: season projections, player histories, offensive line play, strength of schedule, etc. to determine that the trade was unfair. While it's a close call, it is also the right call. How could you possibly know that the commissioner did all of these things? None of this was discussed previously on this thread. There is only 2 logical explanations as to how you can come up with this reasoning. A: You're nuts. B: You're either the commissioner who vetoed the trade, or someone from this league who told the commissioner to veto the trade because your team is not good enough to compete. Offensive line play? Strength of schedule? This is all completely absurd. It sounds to me like the only collusion going on in this league is amongst the commissioner and players who are afraid of getting beat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozenbeernuts 1,652 Posted August 30, 2012 It's apparent that the commissioner weighed all the aspects of the trade: season projections, player histories, offensive line play, strength of schedule, etc. to determine that the trade was unfair. While it's a close call, it is also the right call. Stirring up a little trouble there mr. blue? Warning: Do Not Feed the Lions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waxg 3 Posted August 30, 2012 Really depends on your league's rules. I don't think it should have been vetoed but if the commish has the right to veto you have to deal with it. It gets to a certain point in any league where you have to strip the commish of his/her veto power. If it's the same group every year, the risk of collusion goes down, there's no reason to veto any trade. Period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites