Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) 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? why would they conspire when we've never vetoed a trade?... there you go...custom made for ya grits... and not that he didn't pay...I told them in a PM that was read because only one person can check a PM and it read that one person read it that payment was due week 7 and everyone else has paid.... I heard nothing about a payment...they could have even bullchitted me and that would be fine....give me something...but I got nothing except being ignored.... they said they will be dropping the money by the end of the week.....that's all I need....or have ever required... and you haven't taken into account how much of a clown you are, you're already trying too hard as it is..I've already said this stuff, but your ignorance shines...yet again.. I rate your post a 4.785, so go back to the advice forums and play to your strengths Edited October 24, 2007 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Kitna isn't an auto-start right now IMO... the last 2 games he put up -4 and 0 points.... there goes that Opinion again....and in some QB rankings that I know of for the rest of season Hass is ranked 7 with Kitna ranked 9 would you have allowed the trade to go thru if it were kitna instead of hass? not that it should matter when 2 guys are ranked so closely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I also have an update....RMoss was traded for Hasselbeck, Bush and Ward... so Ward comes back and shows that he may be getting back to form so Welker is able to be pulled out of the equation.... i thought that trade was supposed to be looked at PRIOR to this past weeks performances? Welker & Injured Ward>>>>>Healthy Ward ???? at least that seems to be how you/your league looked at it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor_stoppage Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 and you haven't taken into account how much of a clown you are, you're already trying too hard as it is..I've already said this stuff, but your ignorance shines...yet again.. I rate your post a 4.785, so go back to the advice forums and play to your strengths Man. For a guy who posted asking for opinions, you sure are prickly. I would not have vetoed that trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog 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. Let players play. The veto was BS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Let players play. The veto was BS yup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 uh avernus, you were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 Man. For a guy who posted asking for opinions, you sure are prickly. I would not have vetoed that trade. I'm not going to sit there and take personal insults... I asked about the trade...Grits is "prickly"... and you are the same.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelhead Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I would not have vetoed it. It's all about what owners think their players are worth. I'm trying to snag Moss in my own league and I'm throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'm not going to sit there and take personal insults... I asked about the trade...Grits is "prickly"... and you are the same.. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor_stoppage Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) I'm not going to sit there and take personal insults... I asked about the trade...Grits is "prickly"... and you are the same.. In my best Artie Lange voice... "WAAAAAAAAA!, I think someone was mean to me on the internet, WAAAAAAAA!" Edited October 24, 2007 by doctor_stoppage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 In my best Artie Lange voice... "WAAAAAAAAA!, I think someone was mean to me on the internet, WAAAAAAAA!" Don't you mean Ted Lange? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K.Trey 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.... Moss is outscoring every RB in my league, so the "Stud RB" thing is out the window, and it is not the job of the commish to decide if a trade is even or fair, only to determine cheating or collusion. There was absolutly no call for this trade to be vetoed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Moss is outscoring every RB in my league, so the "Stud RB" thing is out the window, and it is not the job of the commish to decide if a trade is even or fair, only to determine cheating or collusion. There was absolutly no call for this trade to be vetoed. . but, but, but ... it's not fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 In my best Artie Lange voice... "WAAAAAAAAA!, I think someone was mean to me on the internet, WAAAAAAAA!" ahah nope...the fact is that he offered nothing here.... the point has been made, but people want to start namecalling and kicking....so I am not going to say "okay, I stink"....don't start getting all pissy because I'm going to say something back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 Moss is outscoring every RB in my league, so the "Stud RB" thing is out the window, and it is not the job of the commish to decide if a trade is even or fair, only to determine cheating or collusion. There was absolutly no call for this trade to be vetoed. the two of them are buddies and these 3 newcomers have only dealt with one another and are helping eachother.... he admitted to helping him out....and that's fine...but I think this trade was too obvious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Boy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I would not have vetoed it. It's all about what owners think their players are worth. I'm trying to snag Moss in my own league and I'm throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the guy. Absolutely! If I'm getting rid of a stud, you better believe I'm getting all I can. Then if I really want a certain player, I might be willing to give up much more than someone else. That's one of the things that makes fantasy football fun. I hate seeing commissioners controlling and monitoring all of the teams in the league. LET THEM PLAY! I feel bad for the guy who got vetoed. I really wish he knew it was unanimous here in The Huddle that he was wronged. Avernus = very bad commish. Commissioners in The Huddle spoke & you refused to listen and do the right thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Boy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 the two of them are buddies and these 3 newcomers have only dealt with one another and are helping eachother.... he admitted to helping him out....and that's fine...but I think this trade was too obvious... What you're failing to realize is: NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH YOU AND YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 You know what guys? It's pretty apparent that Avernus is on an island here, even though he chose to bring this situation up for opinion and critique. But it changes nothing about how he runs his league. We may not like it, but there's no point in continuing, unless we are in that league and were affected by his decision. He's been a good member of this community for a while now...when this issue blows over, he still will be. Let's keep the comments related to the issue at hand and not make them personal, OK? THAT's the crap which will linger... Skewer me if you want to for writing this but really...what's the point of laying it all on when nothing will change and none of us are affected by it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 You know what guys? It's pretty apparent that Avernus is on an island here, even though he chose to bring this situation up for opinion and critique. But it changes nothing about how he runs his league. We may not like it, but there's no point in continuing, unless we are in that league and were affected by his decision. He's been a good member of this community for a while now...when this issue blows over, he still will be. Let's keep the comments related to the issue at hand and not make them personal, OK? THAT's the crap which will linger... Skewer me if you want to for writing this but really...what's the point of laying it all on when nothing will change and none of us are affected by it? well said but you forgot to add that he was wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelhead Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 You know what guys? It's pretty apparent that Avernus is on an island here, even though he chose to bring this situation up for opinion and critique. But it changes nothing about how he runs his league. We may not like it, but there's no point in continuing, unless we are in that league and were affected by his decision. He's been a good member of this community for a while now...when this issue blows over, he still will be. Let's keep the comments related to the issue at hand and not make them personal, OK? THAT's the crap which will linger... Skewer me if you want to for writing this but really...what's the point of laying it all on when nothing will change and none of us are affected by it? agreed. People need to calm down. The point has been made. In my league 2 guys always make 2-3 trades with each other every year. Some look pretty lopsided but I let them go. If the one guy wants to be an idiot who am I to stop. These 2 watch the games together on Sundays (I used to be there too before I moved away) so it's natural for them to talk alot about trading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKIDKOKID Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The Wolf said what I was thinking. Avernus is a long standing member and fellow Huddler who was looking for affirmation of his decision and has not received even one vote for his veto ruling. Not even one. That should tell you something. If it does not, then you are too stubborn to learn from your mistakes and you will repeat them again one day. As a commish for about 13 years now - I have allowed many trades to go through that didn't look of equal value, but as long as collussion could not be proven...your own personal opinions as to the fairness of a trade should NOT come into your decision to veto a trade. You also cannot veto a trade (as many others have stated before me) if you are doing so only on the sour grapes basis - trade benefited another gutsy owner (who actually got off their rear and proposed the deal) but not your team. Anyway, you should be able to see that all who have responded have disagreed with you - that should be some sort of indication to you. It matters NOT that others in your league agreed as I would imagine they only wanted to veto the trade because the 2 guys swinging the deal were ahead of them in the standings...and even those who want to veto it are probably only doing so because they can see that BOTH owners have improved their teams and in doing so, they see themselves falling further behind the league leaders. KO'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 FWIW I agree with you Av. What am I agreeing with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 The Wolf said what I was thinking. Avernus is a long standing member and fellow Huddler who was looking for affirmation of his decision and has not received even one vote for his veto ruling. Not even one. That should tell you something. If it does not, then you are too stubborn to learn from your mistakes and you will repeat them again one day. As a commish for about 13 years now - I have allowed many trades to go through that didn't look of equal value, but as long as collussion could not be proven...your own personal opinions as to the fairness of a trade should NOT come into your decision to veto a trade. You also cannot veto a trade (as many others have stated before me) if you are doing so only on the sour grapes basis - trade benefited another gutsy owner (who actually got off their rear and proposed the deal) but not your team. Anyway, you should be able to see that all who have responded have disagreed with you - that should be some sort of indication to you. It matters NOT that others in your league agreed as I would imagine they only wanted to veto the trade because the 2 guys swinging the deal were ahead of them in the standings...and even those who want to veto it are probably only doing so because they can see that BOTH owners have improved their teams and in doing so, they see themselves falling further behind the league leaders. KO'd alright, I respect your decision and just to add, team B is 2-5 and team A is 4-3....teams that are already in 1st or 2nd place have made plenty of deals and nobody hold it back....we don't have a league like that, it's rather competitive... we just saw it as a couple of kids who are new and only one of them paid...and then they pull off a crazy trade like this....if they paid, I think the other owners would have given some slack.. but you gave a good explanation and even though I don't know who you are, the response can be respected... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 My only question is why would they accept just Moss? Why wouldn't the other owner thrown in whoever thye felt was needless/worthless? He obviously can't keep that many players so instead of dumping em, trade em back. Makes no sense to me, especially for the guy trading 5 players or however many it was. Other than that, I think the trade should have went through. 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.