Please help settle this Veto argument.

[barrett14 0]

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?

[Law 220]

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.

[barrett14 0]

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.

[JTB 52]

Um, who is to be getting the short end of the deal?

[handbanana 47]

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?

[AnaheimRams 28]

Vetoing trades is stupid. Voting on vetoing trades is even worse.

 

Don't play with idiots that would do this. Problem solved.

[handbanana 47]

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.

[JTB 52]

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.

[handbanana 47]

Hey dicklips, if you don't like my reply to your question don't ask for it.

 

Ummmmmmm.......... it wasn't my question asshat.

[JTB 52]

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

[barrett14 0]

lol

[AnaheimRams 28]

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.

[JTB 52]

This is like watching a drunk in a bar argue with the jukebox.

Pinball, not the jukebox.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Pinball, not the jukebox.

Ha ha!! I hate those uppity pinball machines too...

 

Just standing there in the corner... judging me.

[JTB 52]

Ha ha!! I hate those uppity pinball machines too...

 

Just standing there in the corner... judging me.

Try keeping up.

[R8RMick 242]

Trade veto questions should be banned on this board.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Try keeping up.

You really should read through this thread a few times.

[handbanana 47]

JTB, put the pipe down, and slowly back away...........

[tanatastic 2,061]

The trade is fine. No veto. Not saying its even or equal but it's not grossly crazy.

[justforbeer 39]

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.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

You really should read through this thread a few times.

JTB is a fockin' dumbass. Par for the course with that guy

[JTB 52]

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.

[Einstein's Dog 20]

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.

[IMMensaMind 459]

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.

[nobody 2,044]

Obvious collusion

[nadnewob 1]

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.

[Captain Goomy Noomy Roo 47]

 

 

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!

[barber2309 26]

 

 

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.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

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.

[bscheibs 8]

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."

[Woble Eth 11]

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?

[bigblue08 1]

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.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

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?

[Ramrock 13]

Nothing wrong with this trade,

[Woble Eth 11]

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.

[t-birdie 8]

Since when did TY Hilton become a stud? He's boom or bust. His median fantasy score is 4 points.

[t-birdie 8]

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.

[westlak 1]

I don't find this to be out of line

[JT 137]

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.

[cooolbreeze 0]

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.