Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Commish needs your help on trade veto!


beast
 Share

Legit or not?  

71 members have voted

  1. 1. Is this a fair deal

    • Yes
      58
    • No
      13


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

:wacko: ... they paid their league fees let them manage their own teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

:wacko:

 

They paid their fees let them manage their own teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information