BillyBalata Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 sorry...but I have nothing to doubt.. But yet...you asked the question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 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 I think you think that the team getting bush/hass/welker/ward made out on the deal... but look at it a bit and try to look past just current peformance Hass is depth and he could afford to get rid of him(especially if it was a deal breaker) Bush looks like he is going to have to carry the full load and some worry that he wont be able to plus the NO offense has been less then stellar and the guy does have depth at RB Ward has been a major disappointment(but i think the moss team is buying a bit low on ward) Welker is a proverbial SELL HIGH GUY... There is still risk with moss and the owner trading him could see him as a sell high player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 But yet...you asked the question... yeah, because he's making a stink out of it....I never really have a case like this.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 I think you think that the team getting bush/hass/welker/ward made out on the deal... but look at it a bit and try to look past just current peformance Hass is depth and he could afford to get rid of him(especially if it was a deal breaker) Bush looks like he is going to have to carry the full load and some worry that he wont be able to plus the NO offense has been less then stellar and the guy does have depth at RB Ward has been a major disappointment(but i think the moss team is buying a bit low on ward) Welker is a proverbial SELL HIGH GUY... There is still risk with moss and the owner trading him could see him as a sell high player I don't think Welker is a sell high candidate at all... Ward has been hurt... Hasselbeck has no run game and average defense unless they play very bad teams...so they throw...he was Team A's most productive player and Bush was #2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziachild007 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Not sure what your scoring is but, in mine Moss is the #5 overall scorer. Welker (#17), Bush (#55), Hasselbeck (#10), Ward (#215) are all gonna put up some points, but even with that said I would have allowed it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 Not sure what your scoring is but, in mine Moss is the #5 overall scorer. Welker (#17), Bush (#55), Hasselbeck (#10), Ward (#215) are all gonna put up some points, but even with that said I would have allowed it as well. I've allowed some lopsided trades.... and I know he was helping him out....but as I said, it was a bit much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping King Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 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.... You let your personal evaluation of talent get in the way of your responsibilities as a commissioner. Plenty of people are going to view Moss as more valuable than almost all the “stud” RBs you would have liked him to trade for instead. I have been a commissioner of my league for around 10 years now and in that time I have brought up one trade for veto. It was due to me being pissed about the trade and I was completely wrong to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Boy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The beauty of having depth is being able to make a 3 or 4 player trade for one guy who could drastically improve your starting lineup. These are the kind of trades I love to make. It's the kind of trade that can lead you to a bowl win. Another great thing about it is it helps both teams. It really bothers me when owners/commissioners want to overturn trades because they think it helped a team too much. Oh no! So & so is too strong now..... That's the whole point of trading...TO IMPROVE YOUR TEAM! Man up & do what's right. It was a solid trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I don't think Welker is a sell high candidate at all...Ward has been hurt... Hasselbeck has no run game and average defense unless they play very bad teams...so they throw...he was Team A's most productive player and Bush was #2... there lies the problem(see bold)... for everyone that thinks welker is the read deal you can probably find someone that thinks he is a sell high candidate .and yeah ward has been hurt but does that mean he wont be productive again this season? Hass will be getting hackett back and he should be an upgrade over the other teams 2 inconsistent QBs and I can see why that team traded Hass when he had Kitna and Garrard.... i think the dude(s) have every right to be pissed....stop thinking because when you do that you inflict your personal bias of player value into the equation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) fwiw almost half of welkers catches and half his recv yards and 4 of his 5 td's have come in the last 2 weeks...notice that Watson was out last week and i believe got hurt in the cowboy game...when watson returns i bet you see welker come back down to earth after looking into it a bit more: Welker had 3 catches for 42 yards prior to Watson getting hurt vs Dallas after watson was hurt and out of the game welker added 8catches for 82 yards and 2 TDs then this past week he added 9 for 138 and 2 more td;s....so in basically 5 1/2 quarters while watson has been out of the lineup welker has 36% of his catches and 42% of his yards on the entire season....yet against such poor defenses like Clev and Cincy he has a combined 7 catches for 41 yards and NO TD's(while watson was healthy) Edited October 24, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'm not clear why you asked if the trade was veto worthy if you refuse to accept the opinion of every single person that has replied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'm not clear why you asked if the trade was veto worthy if you refuse to accept the opinion of every single person that has replied. Uh...yeah. Not sure why this thread exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtra Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I don't think Welker is a sell high candidate at all...Ward has been hurt... Hasselbeck has no run game and average defense unless they play very bad teams...so they throw...he was Team A's most productive player and Bush was #2... If the trade was made before Sunday you have to take that last 40 of welkers out,which does make it look more like a sell hi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiea Sparks Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I agree with the other posters here. This trade is balanced when you look at the whole picture and should not have been vetoed. I don't blame him for making a stink of it. Look at it this way, if you were the owner of Moss what would it take for you to trade him away? Or if you wanted Moss what would you offer. You'll probably find your answer is very similar to this trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 sorry...but I have nothing to doubt.. Then why did you ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) Bush, Ward, Welker total points:222(WITH welker having that one insane game which was 31 points above his season avg) Moss Total Points:174 yes i kept hass out of the equation because he was purely depth since he owns kitna Edited October 24, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 You let your personal evaluation of talent get in the way of your responsibilities as a commissioner. Plenty of people are going to view Moss as more valuable than almost all the “stud” RBs you would have liked him to trade for instead. I have been a commissioner of my league for around 10 years now and in that time I have brought up one trade for veto. It was due to me being pissed about the trade and I was completely wrong to do it. It was a group decision..... this was the second time that more than one person thought a trade should have been vetoed....but was the first time one was actually vetoed... this isn't just "my" personal evaluation...I can't control the league, I just run it... I also have an update....RMoss was traded for Hasselbeck, Bush and Ward... this was fine and nobody had a problem with it... my league is VERY active with trading....and I've never seen a trade this bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 Bush, Ward, Welker total points:222(WITH welker having that one insane game which was 31 points above his season avg)Moss Total Points:174 yes i kept hass out of the equation because he was purely depth since he owns kitna Kitna isn't an auto-start right now IMO... the last 2 games he put up -4 and 0 points.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It was a group decision..... this was the second time that more than one person thought a trade should have been vetoed....but was the first time one was actually vetoed... this isn't just "my" personal evaluation...I can't control the league, I just run it... I also have an update....RMoss was traded for Hasselbeck, Bush and Ward... this was fine and nobody had a problem with it... my league is VERY active with trading....and I've never seen a trade this bad... So if "more than one person" doesn't like the way an owner is managing his starting lineups do you step in and adjust starting line ups too? Bogus veto. If I was the Randy Moss owner I'd have a problem with you wielding your commissioner power to reduce the value I get for RMoss ... it would also be my last year in your bush league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 Then why did you ask? I wanted other opinions because it was a big discussion on sunday amongst leaguemates.... I saw another commish post and figured I'd throw it out there to see if people agree... plus me and that owner have been PM'ing back and forth about it since Sunday...I figured why not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 So if "more than one person" doesn't like the way an owner is managing his starting lineups do you step in and adjust starting line ups too? Bogus veto. If I was the Randy Moss owner I'd have a problem with you wielding your commissioner power to reduce the value I get for RMoss ... it would also be my last year in your bush league. really, you point out the facts that you want...paying up is another factor if you want to go there...but you won't... and from the way I see how you act on these forums, you probably wouldn't be wanted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 really, you point out the facts that you want...paying up is another factor if you want to go there...but you won't... and from the way I see how you act on these forums, you probably wouldn't be wanted... 'paying up' doesn't appear to be much of a factor as you allowed the same trade to go throw sans Welker Fact of the matter is you decided to use your commissioner powers to shoot down a trade two other owner agreed too simply because YOU felt the trade was not balanced. I wonder if your reaction would have been different had YOU been involved in the trade, I expect so. No fear ... I wouldn't be in a league where the commissioner manages everybody else's teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 'paying up' doesn't appear to be much of a factor as you allowed the same trade to go throw sans Welker Fact of the matter is you decided to use your commissioner powers to shoot down a trade two other owner agreed too simply because YOU felt the trade was not balanced. I wonder if your reaction would have been different had YOU been involved in the trade, I expect so. No fear ... I wouldn't be in a league where the commissioner manages everybody else's teams. yeah I allowed the trade because they have the money and have made that clear... and your last line is hilarious.... bye now, you offer nothing to this thread anymore....or ever.... if you're not going to take account for what I've already said, I refuse to repeat myself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hey Vern. I'm not gonna pile on as everyone else has pretty much summed up my thoughts on this anyway. One question: you mention that one of the partners in trade are not paid up. Is there a rule prohibiting any transactions on the part of an unpaid owner? If so, according to the rules, the veto should stand. If not, well, it's all ready been said in the 47 posts before me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 yeah I allowed the trade because they have the money and have made that clear... and your last line is hilarious.... bye now, you offer nothing to this thread anymore....or ever.... if you're not going to take account for what I've already said, I refuse to repeat myself... You have said NOTHING that has made A SINGLE responder on this thread think that the trade should have been vetoed. You give as one excuse for shooting the trade down that one owner didn't pay Then you allow the same trade less one player despite the fact that one owner still has not paid ... so it wasn't really a factor at all So what have I "not taken in to account"? The fact that you have some other owners have conspired together to shoot down this trade? 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.