Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Let's make a hypothetical situation: $$$ league. Suppose someone currently on the edge of the playoffs offered Steven Jackson to a team currently in second place in playoff seedings for Ryan Grant and Patrick Crayton, and you choose to veto it because you feel the 2nd place owner is getting way too much in return. Then suppose that Ryan Grant becomes a top 10 FF RB the rest of the way, and Crayton becomes a top 10 FF WR. The trade would have propelled the owner getting Grant/Crayton into the playoffs, where in hindsight it is found that they would have won the championship. Since you vetoed the trade and essentially denied the owner the opportunity to not only make the playoffs but win the championship, how do you compensate them for your error? Do vetoing owners ante up and pay him the money he should have won out of your own pocket? Do you pay them anything at all? Do you even apologize and promise never use such poor judgment again? Edited November 16, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 who is Ryan Clark? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Let's make a hypothetical situation: $$$ league. Suppose someone currently on the edge of the playoffs offered Steven Jackson to a team currently in second place in playoff seedings for Ryan Clark and Patrick Crayton, and you choose to veto it because you feel the 2nd place owner is getting way too much in return. Then suppose that Ryan Clark becomes a top 10 FF RB the rest of the way, and Crayton becomes a top 10 FF WR. The trade would have propelled the owner getting Clark/Crayton into the playoffs, where in hindsight it is found that they would have won the championship. Since you vetoed the trade and essentially denied the owner the opportunity to not only make the playoffs but win the championship, how do you compensate them for your error? Do vetoing owners ante up and pay him the money he should have won out of your own pocket? Do you pay them anything at all? Do you even apologize and promise never use such poor judgment again? Who is this Ryan Clark you speak of and who does he play for? edt: dam avernus beat me. BB...You need to make a trip back to Sconny and get some cheese in you, you're losing it. Edited November 16, 2007 by BillyBalata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 My bad - that must have some kind of Freudian slip. Ryan Grant, not Ryan Clark (who the hell is Ryan Clark?). Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 if you mean Ryan Grant....that deal isn't vetoable... it's a 2-1 1st off and Crayton can produce and SJax is coming off an injury that has held him out since week 3 I think.... there are so many reasons not to veto this trade... and it is not collusion....it's just a scared owner dealing with someone who is ready to take on a risk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Guys, it doesn't matter who Ryan Clark is, though I suspect Bronco Billy meant Ryan Grant. The questions can be answered regardless. The point he's trying to make is that we shouldn't veto trades unless there is some obvious collusion going on. Let people manage their teams the way they want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scourge Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 This is rediculous. These leagues where the commissioner has single veto power over a trade based on how HE views a player's value is rediculous. You should always approve trades unless you are absolutely sure collusion is involved. If you approve a trade and the league goes nuts, then you should have it stated in your league's constitution that a majority vote of the uninvolved owners would overturn it. There better be damn good reason though if it gets to that point. The trade in particular that you are referring to should not be vetoed. The commissioner should approve this trade and all trades moving forward unless the trade was made between a team that was out of the running and a team still in the running and you can prove that it was done to stack a team. Does team A have depth at RB and need a receiver? If so, I would consider Crayton a low end #2 or high end #3. I assume you are talking about Ryan Grant? If so, I think this trade is fair. Commissioners with this kind of power trip should be terminated with extreme predjudice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Guys, it doesn't matter who Ryan Clark is, though I suspect Bronco Billy meant Ryan Grant. The questions can be answered regardless. The point he's trying to make is that we shouldn't veto trades unless there is some obvious collusion going on. Let people manage their teams the way they want to. don't be such a tightarse.... where is Grits?...he should be chiming in to remind me just how much of a horrible commish I am.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I veto every trade that helps my competition. I'm a dick that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 This isn't a debate about vetoing - though based upon experience on this board I am certain there are people who would definitely veto Grant/Crayton for S Jackson. The question is if you find that you were wrong in vetoing a trade after the season is over and that error cost someone prize money in the league, what do you do to compensate those people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 This isn't a debate about vetoing - though based upon experience on this board I am certain there are people who would definitely veto Grant/Crayton for S Jackson. The question is if you find that you were wrong in vetoing a trade after the season is over and that error cost someone prize money in the league, what do you do to compensate those people? Nothing. I'm failing to see the issue here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I veto every trade that helps my competition. I'm a dick that way. I WOULD NEVER JOIN YOUR LEAGUE!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Nothing. I'm failing to see the issue here. me too...just veto the darn thang... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Nothing. I'm failing to see the issue here. The issue is quite plain. People make decisions to veto a trade because in their opinion the trade is one sided. Those people chime in all the time on allegedly lopsided trades saying how they'd veto the trade. So suppose the trade wasn't one-sided as they thought, or that it did end up one-sded, but not in the way they thought when they first vetoed the trade. If that decision costs someone money in the league, don't they have an obligation to compensate the injured owner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The issue is quite plain. People make decisions to veto a trade because in their opinion the trade is one sided. Those people chime in all the time on allegedly lopsided trades saying how they'd veto the trade. So suppose the trade wasn't one-sided as they thought, or that it did end up one-sded, but not in the way they thought when they first vetoed the trade. If that decision costs someone money in the league, don't they have an obligation to compensate the injured owner? how did the owner get injured?... did the owner fall down the steps?...get beat up?...tear his ACL in a game of flag football?...get shot?... so many things to consider here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) how did the owner get injured?... :putsonlegalstockingcap: Ummm - not getting money they would have won if the trade would have gone through by definition is an injury. :takesofflegalstockingcap: Post edit: INJURY n. any harm done to a person by the acts or omissions of another. Injury may include physical hurt as well as damage to reputation or dignity, loss of a Legal right or breach of contract. If the party causing the injury was either willful (intentionally causing harm) or negligent then he/she is responsible (liable) for payment of damages for the harm caused. Legal definition of injury Edited November 16, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I wouldn't veto any trade but may put some up to a league vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 :putsonlegalstockingcap: Ummm - not getting money they would have won if the trade would have gone through by definition is an injury. :takesofflegalstockingcap: OHHHHHH.....I get it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 This isn't a debate about vetoing - though based upon experience on this board I am certain there are people who would definitely veto Grant/Crayton for S Jackson. The question is if you find that you were wrong in vetoing a trade after the season is over and that error cost someone prize money in the league, what do you do to compensate those people? Nothing can be done except , a , and a . Any maybe a sorry. Even if the trade wasn't vetoed there would be no assurances that said payers would have been started, would have still performed the same, etc. You can play "What If" all you want but it doesn't change the error nor will anything else. Suck it up to life...or if you were the boneheaded commish that pulled the veto, go hide in shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 :putsonlegalstockingcap: Ummm - not getting money they would have won if the trade would have gone through by definition is an injury. :takesofflegalstockingcap: I've seen people win league championships because a trade they wanted was vetoed and it ended up helping them in the end that they didn't lose the players they had and/or receive the players they wanted. This goes both ways. Better not to meddle in someone else's business to avoid situations like the one that Bronco Billy is presenting. And if I were to ever veto a trade that ended up costing someone a potential championship, I would apologize for meddling , but I would not pay them out of my pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 You can play "What If" all you want but it doesn't change the error nor will anything else. Aren't vetoing owners playing "what if" every time they veto a non-collusive trade? By playing "what if" by vetoing, doens't that obligate them to owe the injured owner something more than, "Gee, I screwed up by thinking I knew a lot more about FF than you. Sorry about you losing that prize money."? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The issue is quite plain. People make decisions to veto a trade because in their opinion the trade is one sided. Those people chime in all the time on allegedly lopsided trades saying how they'd veto the trade. So suppose the trade wasn't one-sided as they thought, or that it did end up one-sded, but not in the way they thought when they first vetoed the trade. If that decision costs someone money in the league, don't they have an obligation to compensate the injured owner? No, I don't think there's any obligation to compensate anyone in that scenario. Upset owners leave or forgive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 No, I don't think there's any obligation to compensate anyone in that scenario. Upset owners leave or forgive. You mean they aren't even owed their league dues when they can't run their team as they see fit and it costs them money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The issue is quite plain. People make decisions to veto a trade because in their opinion the trade is one sided. Those people chime in all the time on allegedly lopsided trades saying how they'd veto the trade. So suppose the trade wasn't one-sided as they thought, or that it did end up one-sded, but not in the way they thought when they first vetoed the trade. If that decision costs someone money in the league, don't they have an obligation to compensate the injured owner? Are you talking about a cabal of owners? Because it seems ridiculous that 1 owner can veto a trade, while it makes some sense that a group of owners can block deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Because it seems ridiculous that 1 owner can veto a trade, while it makes some sense that a group of owners can block deals. Please illuminate how it makes sense that a group of owners can block a trade. Every owner in the league not involved in the trade has a self-interest in not seeing a trade go through. That immediately biases them in any vote on a 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.