Avernus Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 alright, I never really veto trades...but this was flickin bad....and note that this was before this sundays games.... Team A is 3-3 at the time and Team B is 4-2....here are their rosters Team A: Kitna, Hasselbeck, Garrard Bush, McGahee, MJD, Betts, Jordan Evans, Welker, Berrian, VJax, Ward VDavis and Dallas Clark Chargers and Steelers on D Team B: VYoung, Rivers Rudi, Jamal, JJ RMoss, Smitty, Stallworth, Porter, Glenn Crumpler, Olsen Broncos and Giants on D scoring is PPR and favors players who perform out of position...for example the pts per 10 yds receiving for a RB are 2 instead of 1 and the bonus is 10 pts at 100 rec yds instead of 5 and the receiving TD is 9-12 pts depending on the distance...it also favors QB's who run etc. etc. note: these two owners are buddies and are both in their 1st year in our league...Team B is in because Team A knows him...and this is Team B's 1st trade ... so Team A gives Hasselbeck, Ward, Bush andWelker for RMoss... FWIW me and the co-commish rejected this trade and it was our 1st rejected trade ever... was this veto worthy?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Is there collusion that you can prove? I know it is incredibly difficult to do so but can you? Otherwise, how can you overturn a trade because it is one-sided? Just playing Devil's Advocate here...I'd not like the trade if I were in this league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 23, 2007 Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 I have let some lopsided trades....actually I allow a lot of lopsided trades... as commish, you don't want to intervene...but I don't see how a trade like this should see the light of day.. he traded him half a starting lineup for a WR....not a stud RB or Brady.... If he threw in players like LenDale White or MJD...then that would sound reasonable....but Bush is a starter right now, Hasselbeck would start at QB, Ward would likely start at WR and Welker would be an auto-start.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 So you rejected the trade because the original owner of Randy Moss wasn't getting enough in return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Boy Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I see absolutely nothing wrong with this trade. It appears to help both teams. Isn't this what trades are suppose to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 23, 2007 Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) I see absolutely nothing wrong with this trade. It appears to help both teams. Isn't this what trades are suppose to do? I don't think you get my point.... lopsided trades happen.....but this was a bit much.... Edited October 23, 2007 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 It looks like the team paying for Moss could afford it, cause at the end of the day - you cannot put depth into your starting lineup. Both teams look to have improved themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Boy Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Avernus, I'm serious man. I think Grits & I are trying to figure out which side you think got shafted. I can't figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Team A could afford it if they wanted to. It seems like a lot, but I think you made a mistake in vetoing it. You've now introduced subjectivity into the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Avernus, I'm serious man. I think Grits & I are trying to figure out which side you think got shafted. I can't figure it out. Add me to that list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Team A could afford it if they wanted to. It seems like a lot, but I think you made a mistake in vetoing it. You've now introduced subjectivity into the process. agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOne Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Doesn't sound like you think they've colluded, which means the trade should have been allowed to go ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) Avernus, I'm serious man. I think Grits & I are trying to figure out which side you think got shafted. I can't figure it out. To be honest I wasn't sure which side you thought got screwed here either...I commish two leagues and would let it go through. I would wonder why the guy giving up his roster wouldn't ask the other guy, "Whoever you cutting in this 4 for 1 deal would you include them with Moss." Even if he ends up cutting them. But he certainly doesn't have to, it is a big blockbuster deal, pretty exicting for the league I would think. Unless there are waiver limits which our league doesn't use. Edited October 24, 2007 by satelliteoflovegm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I just looked at the rosters and with all due respect it was a great deal. It made both teams better. I think some people just want trades that are lateral. My 2nd tier receiver for your 2nd tier runningback. It just rarely happens that way. It was a ballsy move for both guys...great deal! I mean really just a great trade. It's a shame it was vetoed, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Absolutely nothing worth vetoing. I would have tried to get away with giving a bit less for Moss but this isn't all that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 To be honest I wasn't sure which side you thought got screwed here either...I commish two leagues and would let it go through. I would wonder why the guy giving up his roster wouldn't ask the other guy, "Whoever you cutting in this 4 for 1 deal would you include them with Moss." Even if he ends up cutting them. But he certainly doesn't have to, it is a big blockbuster deal, pretty exicting for the league I would think. Unless there are waiver limits which our league doesn't use. he admitted to helping him out because he didn't know... the owner didn't pay up by the deadline which was week 7...sportsline showed that he read the message and it was weeks ago... but that's another story....I had 2 reasons for vetoing, but the fact that he hasn't paid a dime and skipped out on draft day without paying made me think twice about allowing... the fact that the trade was horrible is another story... here's the points each player has put up.. Bush 7 16 23 0 25 21 23 Hasselbeck 20 23 32 30 -2 40 11 Ward 14 10 1 0 0 0 14 Welker 19 17 12 9 5 43 41 RMoss 41 37 35 37 7 17 38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) he admitted to helping him out because he didn't know... the owner didn't pay up by the deadline which was week 7...sportsline showed that he read the message and it was weeks ago... but that's another story....I had 2 reasons for vetoing, but the fact that he hasn't paid a dime and skipped out on draft day without paying made me think twice about allowing... the fact that the trade was horrible is another story... You add to the story but it doesn't change my thoughts. He admiting to helping him out cause he didn't know what? The total points thing might matter in a total points league not h2h. He can't play all the guys at once. If I covet a player, I will make a bold offer. Randy Moss is EXPLOSIVE. Bush, Hasslebeck, and Ward are plodders as far as scoring. Welker has been hot two weeks now but Moss has been outstanding each week. Moss will win games on his own and has. It is the difference between winning when Moss scores 35-50 points and being in a game were the others get the normal solid numbers. A close game in the 60's or Moss and one other player scores 75 for you. If he hasn't paid apply the rules in place. But don't use one power to punish an unrelated occurence. If he needs to pay address that as a seperate issue. Unless you said, prior to the trade, no pay, no roster moves. I'm okay with ANY commish decision if you set the terms in place before the move. Edited October 24, 2007 by satelliteoflovegm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) the fact that the trade was horrible is another story... So far about 8 Huddlers disagree with this. Your decision, however but I would suspect you are starting to doubt your call. Edited October 24, 2007 by satelliteoflovegm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 So far about 8 Huddlers disagree with this. Your decision, however but I would suspect you are starting to doubt your call. ahaha...you suspect?... no, we come up with decisions that keep things fair with so much money on the line... this is the 1st vetoed trade and we've been up and running since 2001... sorry...but I have nothing to doubt.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 You add to the story but it doesn't change my thoughts. He admiting to helping him out cause he didn't know what? The total points thing might matter in a total points league not h2h. He can't play all the guys at once. If I covet a player, I will make a bold offer. Randy Moss is EXPLOSIVE. Bush, Hasslebeck, and Ward are plodders as far as scoring. Welker has been hot two weeks now but Moss has been outstanding each week. Moss will win games on his own and has. It is the difference between winning when Moss scores 35-50 points and being in a game were the others get the normal solid numbers. A close game in the 60's or Moss and one other player scores 75 for you. If he hasn't paid apply the rules in place. But don't use one power to punish an unrelated occurence. If he needs to pay address that as a seperate issue. Unless you said, prior to the trade, no pay, no roster moves. I'm okay with ANY commish decision if you set the terms in place before the move. the idea of him paying by week 7 played a role in this...and it is a seperate issue... but it still plays a factor in a deal like this....especially with it being so lopsided..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 ahaha...you suspect?... no, we come up with decisions that keep things fair with so much money on the line... this is the 1st vetoed trade and we've been up and running since 2001... sorry...but I have nothing to doubt.. 2001, that's cute. Fine, but you asked the question, if your cool with it, great. I disagree along with others. Some doubt...c'mon...a smidge...a c-hair...a tad...lil' bit...no, okay you're good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 2001, that's cute. Fine, but you asked the question, if your cool with it, great. I disagree along with others. Some doubt...c'mon...a smidge...a c-hair...a tad...lil' bit...no, okay you're good. disagreeing is fine....he could have helped him out and that's fine.... but they went overboard.... and yeah 2001...I started my own league after being in a boring league where nobody traded.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Boy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 You still haven't said which side got the best of it in your eyes. No way this trade should've been vetoed. IMHO You asked and I don't think 1 person agreed with a veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 so Team A gives Hasselbeck, Ward, Bush andWelker for RMoss... I would do that trade in a heartbeat. Team A is giving up a bunch of no-name useless roster fodder for a difference maker. Moss can actually win you a week all on his own. The rest of those under-performing bums? no-chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 I would do that trade in a heartbeat. Team A is giving up a bunch of no-name useless roster fodder for a difference maker. Moss can actually win you a week all on his own. The rest of those under-performing bums? no-chance. 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.