barrett14 0 Posted November 5, 2013 The following trade was between two guys in my league. One of the guys has one win and is out of it, while the other guy is doing well. Team 1: TY Hilton Vernon Davis FOR Team 2: Alshon Jeffery Darren McFadden Marvin Jones. The trade was vetoed and the guy that was supposed to get TY Hilton and Vernon Davis is very upset. Should this trade have been vetoed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Law 220 Posted November 5, 2013 I have a hard time vetoing any trade that even raises a doubt. If it's that bad, there's no doubt it's that bad. This one, I'm not sure it's that bad. Team 2 is getting a #1 WR and a top 5 TE while giving up two #2 WRs on their one team and a hurt RB. McFragile might be out a couple of weeks, or more. So, basically, you're looking a top level starters for two guys who are #3 (or even #4) WRs in fantasy. Not sure it's unfair, or that I'd vote against it, but I'd understand those who were upset. In my league, I approve trades or not. This one, I'd have real questions about the intent on the one giving up Hilton and V Davis. If explained well, I'd have to let it through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barrett14 0 Posted November 5, 2013 I have a hard time vetoing any trade that even raises a doubt. If it's that bad, there's no doubt it's that bad. This one, I'm not sure it's that bad. Team 2 is getting a #1 WR and a top 5 TE while giving up two #2 WRs on their one team and a hurt RB. McFragile might be out a couple of weeks, or more. So, basically, you're looking a top level starters for two guys who are #3 (or even #4) WRs in fantasy. Not sure it's unfair, or that I'd vote against it, but I'd understand those who were upset. In my league, I approve trades or not. This one, I'd have real questions about the intent on the one giving up Hilton and V Davis. If explained well, I'd have to let it through. We have a quote from the one giving up TY and Davis "I was just trying to help out". Then he came back later and tried to say he's just improving his team. According to last week's rest of the way rankings on this website, they had Jeffery and Marvin Jones as tier 5 receivers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted November 5, 2013 Um, who is to be getting the short end of the deal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
handbanana 47 Posted November 5, 2013 Assuming that the guy who is doing well is receiving Davis and Hilton, that looks like a very lopsided deal that I would have no problem voting in favor of a veto. A stud WR who is now basically the only WR option for Luck and a stud TE for a marginal #2WR without Cutler, a spot play in Jones and a never healthy McFadden? That smacks of collusion. How does the guy getting Jeffrey, Jones and McFadden get better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted November 5, 2013 Vetoing trades is stupid. Voting on vetoing trades is even worse. Don't play with idiots that would do this. Problem solved. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
handbanana 47 Posted November 5, 2013 Vetoing trades is stupid. Voting on vetoing trades is even worse. Don't play with idiots that would do this. Problem solved. People cheat all the time, and a lot of people with take what they can get away with. But yeah, if I played with guys I thought were colluding, that would be my last year in the league, period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted November 5, 2013 Assuming that the guy who is doing well is receiving Davis and Hilton, that looks like a very lopsided deal that I would have no problem voting in favor of a veto. A stud WR who is now basically the only WR option for Luck and a stud TE for a marginal #2WR without Cutler, a spot play in Jones and a never healthy McFadden? That smacks of collusion. How does the guy getting Jeffrey, Jones and McFadden get better? Hey dicklips, if you don't like my reply to your question don't ask for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
handbanana 47 Posted November 5, 2013 Hey dicklips, if you don't like my reply to your question don't ask for it. Ummmmmmm.......... it wasn't my question asshat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted November 5, 2013 Ummmmmmm.......... it wasn't my question asshat. 1. You asked if the trade should be vetoed 2. I asked for a simple yet important, clarification 3. You got upset Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted November 5, 2013 1. You asked if the trade should be vetoed 2. I asked for a simple yet important, clarification 3. You got upset This is like watching a drunk in a bar argue with the jukebox. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted November 5, 2013 This is like watching a drunk in a bar argue with the jukebox. Pinball, not the jukebox. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted November 5, 2013 Pinball, not the jukebox. Ha ha!! I hate those uppity pinball machines too... Just standing there in the corner... judging me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted November 5, 2013 Ha ha!! I hate those uppity pinball machines too... Just standing there in the corner... judging me. Try keeping up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
R8RMick 242 Posted November 5, 2013 Trade veto questions should be banned on this board. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,248 Posted November 5, 2013 Try keeping up. You really should read through this thread a few times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
handbanana 47 Posted November 5, 2013 JTB, put the pipe down, and slowly back away........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tanatastic 2,061 Posted November 5, 2013 The trade is fine. No veto. Not saying its even or equal but it's not grossly crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justforbeer 39 Posted November 5, 2013 Allow the trade. Then let the team that gave away his roster know that he just got himself booted from the league for 2014. If he asks why, tell him he can team up with the guy he just traded with, because it is clear they are already working together. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,354 Posted November 5, 2013 You really should read through this thread a few times. JTB is a fockin' dumbass. Par for the course with that guy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted November 5, 2013 You really should read through this thread a few times. I know. I got the 2 posters mixed up. My point is, after realizing, I kept it up only to catch worms in my web.....again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Einstein's Dog 20 Posted November 5, 2013 To the OP, yes the commish should veto this. The trade smells of collusion. Maybe not in the form of outright payoffs, but of a more subtle nature of favors, some extended now for the unspoken right for the same courtesy (bogusness) to be extended back at some future date. The commish did the right thing and put a stop to this now. It seems to me the player who is out of it - probably the guy giving up Ty and Davis, is either friends with, or is trying to garner future favors. The standard needed for collusion for a trade involving a mathematiclly eliminated opponent is extremely low. If I were the commish of something like this, I would not only veto it, I would publically admonish the two involved. If someone is out of it, they do not trade with people in contention. It is a basic tenet of the etiquette of the game. To the OP, how do you let the jackwagon that tried to get Ty and VD whine to you? How do you not berate him? You simply do not have trades between contenders and people mathematically eliminated (unless this is a keeper league, which I suspect it isn't). What they did was wrong and both parties should be held accountable. By passively listening to him whine you are implicitly accepting and encouraging jackwagon behavior. You need to man up and tell him what he did was wrong, quit hiding behind your commish's pant leg. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 460 Posted November 5, 2013 If the trade was proposed prior to Wayne's injury, then this trade is fine. Post injury, this trade is collusion - but we'd need more information. Does this trade cripple the team losing Davis, or did he have weakness at RB and strength @ WR and TE? That would determine for me whether or not this was BS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,056 Posted November 5, 2013 Obvious collusion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nadnewob 1 Posted November 5, 2013 sigh..... the trade is not unfair and owners can do whatever they want regarding trades. this is clearly NOT obvious collusion, based on the deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Goomy Noomy Roo 47 Posted November 5, 2013 We have a quote from the one giving up TY and Davis "I was just trying to help out". Then he came back later and tried to say he's just improving his team. According to last week's rest of the way rankings on this website, they had Jeffery and Marvin Jones as tier 5 receivers. With this quote... VETO and tell Team 2 to go get his shine box! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barber2309 26 Posted November 5, 2013 We have a quote from the one giving up TY and Davis "I was just trying to help out". Then he came back later and tried to say he's just improving his team. According to last week's rest of the way rankings on this website, they had Jeffery and Marvin Jones as tier 5 receivers. Jeffery and Jones aren't tier 5 WR's. That said, the quote "I was just trying to help out" basically indicates collusion. Had that quote not been made, the veto would have been over the top, even if the trade is unequal. Since the quote was made, intent was clear and this was collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,354 Posted November 5, 2013 Veto only if collusion. I suppose it's up to you and the league to define the precise meaning of "collusion" and when that threshold is reached. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bscheibs 8 Posted November 5, 2013 RE all the veto threads. Why are you playing in leagues where you at best don't trust the people you're playing with or at worst you're playing with cheaters? Find another league. And to all the commissioners with the "should I veto this trade" question, get over yourselves. And if you can't, then do what you want, but "go sell crazy somplace else. We're all stocked up here." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woble Eth 11 Posted November 5, 2013 Why is an un-balanced trade collusion? Why is stupidity collusion? In every single trade I have ever made in 20+ years of indulging in this hobby, I have never made my top final offer right out of the gate. If the other team is inexperienced enough, or blinded enough in accepting that first offer, hey good for me. Don't be a hater - hate yourself for not approaching the guy before I did. I am never going to offer my best offer right off the bat unless I really want the player, or I am forced to do so after a few rejections. At the end of the day you are never sure how the other owner values his players or the players you are offering. Now, I read above the "help you out" comment - if that is true and documented, that is an entirely different story. That would require a foot in the ass and wouldn't be acceptable under any circumstances. Otherwise, good Lord, veto these threads. Get some decent owners for chribbssstsake. A dancing banana is in order, no? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigblue08 1 Posted November 5, 2013 It's close, but if I were the commissioner of the league, I would veto the trade as well. After analyzing both owners' lineups and the traded players strength of schedule, it is clear one team is gaining a tremendous advantage. If I were the poster, I would go with the commissioner to each of the owners' homes and punch them in the face in front of their wives and kids. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,354 Posted November 5, 2013 It's close, but if I were the commissioner of the league, I would veto the trade as well. After analyzing both owners' lineups and the traded players strength of schedule, it is clear one team is gaining a tremendous advantage. If I were the poster, I would go with the commissioner to each of the owners' homes and punch them in the face in front of their wives and kids. So? Are you joking with this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ramrock 13 Posted November 5, 2013 Nothing wrong with this trade, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woble Eth 11 Posted November 5, 2013 It's close, but if I were the commissioner of the league, I would veto the trade as well. After analyzing both owners' lineups and the traded players strength of schedule, it is clear one team is gaining a tremendous advantage. If I were the poster, I would go with the commissioner to each of the owners' homes and punch them in the face in front of their wives and kids. What does one team gaining a tremendous advantage have to do with it? It is not your job to protect stupid owners from themselves. It is all about perceived needs and values and that in itself is subjective. So every time the masses decides one team "wins" a trade it is up for a veto?! Isn't a trade offfered / accepted because a team wants to get better in the end? The conversation used to be "Wow man, you got the worse end of that deal, for sure.." Now it is "WAAAHHHH!!!!! VETO!!!! COLLUSION!!!!! WAHHHHHHH!!!!" Silly really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t-birdie 8 Posted November 5, 2013 Since when did TY Hilton become a stud? He's boom or bust. His median fantasy score is 4 points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t-birdie 8 Posted November 5, 2013 Agreed on the "I just wanted to help out" comment. If he said or wrote that anywhere, he needs to have "collusion" explained to him. If he's incapable of understanding it, he needs to be kicked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westlak 1 Posted November 5, 2013 I don't find this to be out of line Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JT 137 Posted November 5, 2013 If your player evaluation skills are such that you can accurately project future performance, you would obviously win the league every year. In the event that you don't and/or aren't being pursued for NFL GM jobs, I say let owners manage their teams. There's nothing alarming about this deal and it's not your job to nitpick trades to see if someone is gaining an advantage through shrewd dealings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cooolbreeze 0 Posted November 6, 2013 Why is an un-balanced trade collusion? Why is stupidity collusion? In every single trade I have ever made in 20+ years of indulging in this hobby, I have never made my top final offer right out of the gate. If the other team is inexperienced enough, or blinded enough in accepting that first offer, hey good for me. Don't be a hater - hate yourself for not approaching the guy before I did. I am never going to offer my best offer right off the bat unless I really want the player, or I am forced to do so after a few rejections. At the end of the day you are never sure how the other owner values his players or the players you are offering. Now, I read above the "help you out" comment - if that is true and documented, that is an entirely different story. That would require a foot in the ass and wouldn't be acceptable under any circumstances. Otherwise, good Lord, veto these threads. Get some decent owners for chribbssstsake. A dancing banana is in order, no? This is the best post on this topic I have seen. People get mad because you found the sucker before they did. You cant tell others how to run their team. But, once they admit they are "helping out" then you must veto. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites