cmcmeech21 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I am in a standard performance league with a group of guys that all know each other but this year things are getting a little out of whack. I started the season with Delhomme and Bulger. So after week 3 I started scouting for a new quarterback. I have tried: Branch 4 Rivers (before rivers "big" game and before the injury) (his other qbs are anderson and kitna) - Vetoed Big Ben 4 Curtis and Crayton (the week after Craytons big game) (his starting qb is Manning) - Vetoed Matt Schaub 4 Branch and Crayton (before his big game) - Declined. Brees - will only trade for Branch and Santonio Holmes or LT for Brees and Harrison (And this is before he produced one decent game)(His starter is Farve) I am I wrong here? I dont get it? I am trying to go after "solid" starter not over achievers or offering terry glenn for Brady!! I think this are legit trades and I am being kept down bc with a solid quarterback I could really have a chance. Hell, I started Gus who got me NEGATIVE 11 points this week and Still Won. My Team is LT L. Jordan A. Peterson Leonard Wright Moss Holmes Branch Crayton Curtis V. Jackson Gates Watson Bears Minn Stover Folk The only ones I didnt draft was Folk, V. Jackson, Wright and Leonard. I think I am being cheated. I am offering very fair trades, i believe. Please tell me if I am wrong. Please offer any opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Who vetoed those trades? Looks fair to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 If they're being "vetoed" then I'd look for a new league next season. If they're getting declined, then that's another thing. But as for the offers, they're fair. No one is walking away with a one sided trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 bluntly, your commish sux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dread Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Other teams voting on trades is assinine...the commish should be looking for collusion in the trades nothing else. It's hard enough to pry a player from another team without the other owners deciding the the trade will hurt their own team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 (edited) This is why owners should have no authority to veto a trade unless it is collusive. Play out this year & then let the league know that you don't plan on playing again next season. If you stick with the league knowing the way that the owners act, you'll have no one but yourself to blame next season when the same thing happens. If they ask why you're leaving the league, tell them exactly why and how you feel about this kind of nonsense. Edited October 16, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 As for those trades being vetoed, that is totally lame and you should avoid this league again. As for the declined trades, it's hard to fault someone for that. Lot's of guys don't like to trade. However, I can't imagine someone coveting the likes of Matt Schaub that much. Don't get me wrong, he's putting up nice enough numbers. However, even in a large league he's only a borderline starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I have to agree with the above. No player or commissioner should ever have the ability to veto a trade based on how they feel about it. Only collusion should nullify a trade. I would seriously consider finding another league next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 (edited) They all look fair to me, but I see what's going on. You have a strong team it looks like to me, you could even be the top dawg right now. So they see no reason to make you stronger at your only weak spot and thus want you to give a lot to get little in hopes of weakening you. That's what I see. Tell me your not in first place? Edited October 16, 2007 by Hat Trick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I have to agree with the above. No player or commissioner should ever have the ability to veto a trade based on how they feel about it. Only collusion should nullify a trade. I would seriously consider finding another league next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 When you find blitz and kid in agreement on a topic, any topic, you must go with that opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Not real fond of veto leagues.... I can see why they are in place, but that veto should only be applied in the most extreme trades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmcmeech21 Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Thanks for all the responses. Im glad I am correct in my view and feelings on this matter. Yes, I am currently in first with a 5 - 1 record with only a couple of real threats to competition if my team keeps playing. (and if I find a QB) ANOTHER TRADE VETOED!!!! Big Ben for Patrick Crayton and Vincent Jackson (Trade was accepted and quickly Vetoed by this early afternoon and this was before the Chambers Nonsense) Oh well. Maybe I can get Briese or Huard to play for my team since they on the WW. We will see. The lower level teams with first dips have been grabbing potential useful players for weeks now so no one else can get to them. Not that it has been helping them much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Thanks for all the responses. Im glad I am correct in my view and feelings on this matter. Yes, I am currently in first with a 5 - 1 record with only a couple of real threats to competition if my team keeps playing. (and if I find a QB) ANOTHER TRADE VETOED!!!! Big Ben for Patrick Crayton and Vincent Jackson (Trade was accepted and quickly Vetoed by this early afternoon and this was before the Chambers Nonsense) Oh well. Maybe I can get Briese or Huard to play for my team since they on the WW. We will see. The lower level teams with first dips have been grabbing potential useful players for weeks now so no one else can get to them. Not that it has been helping them much. Briese is on your WW and you haven't picked him up yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzook76 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 People are vetoeing trades because they don't want to see you get any better. Especially if you are 5-1. Its just logic. I have people in league that will veto a number 4 WR for another number 4 WR. Its ridic. But the way our trades go. 5 people need to object to the trade to make it official. But at least three people object to every trade. Its a guarantee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 What a stupid, stupid league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) If they're being "vetoed" then I'd look for a new league next season. If they're getting declined, then that's another thing. But as for the offers, they're fair. No one is walking away with a one sided trade. I have to agreed. Can you be a little more precise on who is vetoing? Or are these just people declining your offers? Because if its the league voting those down, I'd quit that league. Edited October 17, 2007 by DKF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmcmeech21 Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 The rivers trade and the two big ben trades were vetoed. The matt schaub trades was declined by his owner, which I have heard through the grapevine ... isnt bc the trades are bad but bc he doesnt want to help my team get any better. Figures he has a shot to win if I dont have a QB. I have declined the brees (before last week performance) offers bc they are unfair or stupid... brees and harris for LT or Brees 4 S.holmes and a 5th round draft pick. Also, I passed up on Griese and Huard in previous weeks hoping for a trade. If only i knew what I know now. Im only in a 10 man league, which requires only 4 "no" votes to vetoed a trade. I am definitely not playing again next year if this stupid, stupid bs frickn rule isnt change. It used to be 6, which was fine bc only trades that were truely lopsided would get vetoed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeljordan ca Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 What a stupid, stupid league. some real good info here...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 which I have heard through the grapevine ... isnt bc the trades are bad but bc he doesnt want to help my team get any better. Figures he has a shot to win if I dont have a QB. And which is precisely what I suspected and said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdrtoys Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Tell the commish that if he doesn't get a handle on things (unfair vetoing) that you will not play next year...se if he has the jules to do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC_Ute Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Unfortunately, the same thing recently happened in my league. I wasn't involved in the trade, but it still seemed pretty ridiculous: Thomas Jones (NYJ - RB) Patrick Crayton (Dal - WR) Trade (vetoed) Team 1 Brandon Marshall (Den - WR) Sammy Morris (NE - RB) Trade (vetoed) Team 2 Vetoing a trade involving a bunch of #2's and 3's (being generous)? I guess I don't understand why you would even care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capostatus Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 yea......i have a cheatin commish in 1 league. and guess what hes in 1st place now traded ben roethlisberger/santana moss for peyton manning/deuce mcallister (before he got hurt).......wasnt even vetoed the commish didnt have the balls to respond when i called him out either i drafted bulger & delhomme in that league too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I'd let them know now that you are done at the end of the year... no reason to wait... let them know that they are aszhats... as for this season... give a look to Boller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilly Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 To me, this looks like collusion AGAINST you by the other owners. If the commish won't fix this, then just drop all your players to the waiver wire, quit, and let him deal with the fallout. Total b.s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.