beast Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Fellow Fantasy Football Commisioners, Players, etc... The following trade was attempted in our 10 team, PPR non-keeper league: Team A offered Cotchery, Slaton, and Royal to Team B for TO, Thomas Jones, and Ray Rice. Team A QB: P.Manning, Edwards RB: SJax, R. Bush, S. Young, Slaton, M. Bush WR: TJ Housh, Cotchery, Royal, B. Johsnon, DeSean Jax TE: Winslow, Miller Team B: QB: Romo, Rivers RB: Thomas Jones, L. White, Maroney, McAllister, Rice WR: TO, Chambers, Welker, Stallworth, V. Jackson TE: Martin, Clark Now this trade offer has sparked a serious controversy about league integrity, etc.. since a trade had never been "voted down". Does anybody feel this is a "legit deal"? And would you have voted this down? I'm trying to make the correct decision in the league, and don't want people to have hard feelings, but it was voted on and more than half the owners called BS. What do I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 No, I would never veto that trade. What possible excuse are your owners using for justifying saying that the deal isn't "fair"? Which side of the deal do they think is getting seriously screwed? And a deal not appearing "fair" is no legitimate reason to veto a trade - especially a deal like this. Tell your other owners to mind their own freakin' teams and let these two owners who both see upside on their end of the trade (like I do, and it appears pretty obvious to be honest) on a trade that is pretty damn close run their teams as they see fit. I'll be honest with you, if I were one of the trading owners in this deal and it got overturned, I'd be vetoing every other trade that was proposed for the remainder of this season by any team and then I'd wait until a couple of hours before next year's draft & quit. What a pile of BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 No, I would never veto that trade. What possible excuse are your owners using for justifying saying that the deal isn't "fair"? Which side of the deal do they think is getting seriously screwed? And a deal not appearing "fair" is no legitimate reason to veto a trade - especially a deal like this. Tell your other owners to mind their own freakin' teams and let these two owners who both see upside on their end of the trade (like I do, and it appears pretty obvious to be honest) on a trade that is pretty damn close run their teams as they see fit. I'll be honest with you, if I were one of the trading owners in this deal and it got overturned, I'd be vetoing every other trade that was proposed for the remainder of this season by any team and then I'd wait until a couple of hours before next year's draft & quit. What a pile of BS. I agree very stongly with everything that Bronco Billy just posted. No way should that trade even be considered for a veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 There is no reason at all that this deal should be vetoed. While I'm not among those who feel that anything goes when it comes to trades unless you can prove collusion (which you pretty much never can), I do think that a trade has to be insanely one sided to warrant a veto. This isn't even close. The team giving up the best player in the trade (TO) is also giving up the worst (Rice since he seems to be the odd man out in a 3 player rotation). Every other player in the deal is solid. Out of curiosity, which team is getting hosed according to your league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I'd like someone (and since there are apparently several owners that fall into this category) to explain to me how and why that trade is BS and should be vetoed. Waiting patiently................................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I'm going to take a wild swing at the fences and guess that the owners who think the trade is unfair think that Team A is hosing Team B because he is getting Owens for "nothing". If this is the case, you might want to tell those owners to start paying attention to FF as a whole, and then to mind their own teams, and let much smarter owners than them make deals like this that make complete sense while they keep their noses out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Although lop-sided, trades should only warrant a veto is there are signs of collusion. Maybe team B just feels Cotchery, Slaton, and Royal will perform better for the remainder of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Just out of curiosity, beast, how is it that you as the commish of this league did not step up and stamp out this kind of nonsense right from the onset? Are you one of the owners that sees this trade as "unfair"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 it's not a veto type trade.....it's lopsided, but I don't see anyone smoking crack here... someone just thinks Slaton will be good for the longhaul....that's all... but he won't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I'm not sure how one can answer this question without knowing your league rules. In any event, that's an acceptable trade under any legitimate standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 No, I would never veto that trade. What possible excuse are your owners using for justifying saying that the deal isn't "fair"? Which side of the deal do they think is getting seriously screwed? And a deal not appearing "fair" is no legitimate reason to veto a trade - especially a deal like this. Tell your other owners to mind their own freakin' teams and let these two owners who both see upside on their end of the trade (like I do, and it appears pretty obvious to be honest) on a trade that is pretty damn close run their teams as they see fit. I'll be honest with you, if I were one of the trading owners in this deal and it got overturned, I'd be vetoing every other trade that was proposed for the remainder of this season by any team and then I'd wait until a couple of hours before next year's draft & quit. What a pile of BS. ... they paid their league fees let them manage their own teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Wow. That's a perfectly reasonable trade. Either you play with morons, you are a moron, or both. I strongly agree with everything BB said. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Wow. That's a perfectly reasonable trade. Either you play with morons, you are a moron, or both. I strongly agree with everything BB said. +1 that pretty much sums it up. Cotchery < TO Slaton > Jones ......with a ton more upside in Houston's rushing scheme Royal > Rice T.O may be enough to tilt this deal, but not drastically enough to overturn. But more to the point, trades should only be overturned if there is proof of collusion....period. Do you have proof of collusion? If not, tell the other owners mind their own freakin' business....and please vote to change your fektard "veto" rules next year, so this lame problem never arises again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 No, I would never veto that trade. What possible excuse are your owners using for justifying saying that the deal isn't "fair"? Which side of the deal do they think is getting seriously screwed? And a deal not appearing "fair" is no legitimate reason to veto a trade - especially a deal like this. Tell your other owners to mind their own freakin' teams and let these two owners who both see upside on their end of the trade (like I do, and it appears pretty obvious to be honest) on a trade that is pretty damn close run their teams as they see fit. I'll be honest with you, if I were one of the trading owners in this deal and it got overturned, I'd be vetoing every other trade that was proposed for the remainder of this season by any team and then I'd wait until a couple of hours before next year's draft & quit. What a pile of BS. They paid their fees let them manage their own teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beast Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share Posted September 24, 2008 They paid their fees let them manage their own teams. The general opinion is that the team giving up TO is getting fleeced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 The general opinion is that the team giving up TO is getting fleeced. The general feeling here is that your league is pathetic, and owners need to stop meddling in other teams trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beast Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share Posted September 24, 2008 The general feeling here is that your league is pathetic, and owners need to stop meddling in other teams trades. And that's why I came out here to see what other "outside" opinions are. I am not having a vote as I'm the one running the league, and to be perfectly honest, have never had an occasion where a majority of the owners were feeling a trade was BS... So, I have let the opinions be known...and one of the guys brought up-- "ask people if they think Slaton is better than SJax" because that is who the owner originally offered instead of Slaton. Obviously, past history shows that SJax "was" a stud, but St. Louis does suck right about now and who knows if they get that offense going... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 (edited) The general opinion is that the team giving up TO is getting fleeced. Not here it seems. Once again, and I don't share the opinion of Grits (well pretty much ever). Truly lopsided trades, ones where you simply can't make a rational fantasy reason for why they went down need to be vetoed. Sure, everyone paid their money, but that's not open season for two teams to combine. And no, collusion can never be proven so you have to judge it based on what any reasonable person who understands FF would say looking at the trade. Basically, someone needs to be giving up a stud and getting absolutely nothing back in exchange. That is simply not the case. As I look at it more, I agree that the guy giving up TO is buying high and selling low especially with the addition of T Jones. That's just an example of a savvy owner dangling pretty shiny things in front of a fish. That is neither an example of collusion or even someone throwing in the towel. That's a guy getting caught up in hype and another owner taking advantage of that. It is a competition after all. Edited September 24, 2008 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I'm going to assume that the 3 people voting that it is unfair are members of your league since there is no way that is unfair and veto eligible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOne Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I agree with the others, no cause to veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beast Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share Posted September 24, 2008 I agree with the others, no cause to veto. Thanks for all your input. The trade has been approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Team A offered Cotchery, Slaton, and Royal to Team B for TO, Thomas Jones, and Ray Rice. I see no problem with this trade. I think Team B will be much better off in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 it's a fairly lopsided trade IMO, but that depends on your assessment of slaton at this point. if team B really thinks he's the chit, that is his prerogative. no way that trade gets vetoed absent some evidence of collusion -- and since you haven't offered any, I would assume none exists. your leaguemates need to pull their panties out of their cracks and let other people manage their own teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 generally speaking, some of your league members suck. I'm glad you're not vetoing this trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Although lop-sided, trades should only warrant a veto is there are signs of collusion. Said it before - say it again. Wrong. 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.