Bronco Billy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 While delivered with his usual douchey tone, Bronco Billy makes the right point. Muck just said it nicer. When people even think about vetoing a trade like this, they deserve - no, they beg for being abused. This is freakin' ridiculous, Hugh, and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The guy getting Winslow, Driver and Finley is taking advantage of the other guy (imo). This is object lesson #1 as to why you NEVER veto trades (unless collusion can be proven). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 When people even think about vetoing a trade like this, they deserve - no, they beg for being abused. This is freakin' ridiculous, Hugh, and you know it. Agreed. I was just you for fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 ya know, in leagues like this it is the busybodies who want to veto everything that ruin the experience far more than the dupes who don't really know what they are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Agreed. I was just you for fun. And don't think I don't appreciate it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 As is said almost every time someone asks the question as to whether a trade should be vetoed, the answer is in the following question. Can you prove collusion or other cheating? The answer to your veto question is the same answer as the collusion question. Yes to collusion, yes to veto. No to collusion, no to veto. You do not veto trades that are questionable or of dubious value to you, you are not running that team. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSaint Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Don't Veto. Trade has to be hands down shady to overturn. Everyone's opinion is different on what a player is worth regardless of what a website or magazine says which is basically last years stats with a little future insight mixed in. In one of my leagues, all trades have to be accompanied by a brief description on why the trade will benefit each persons team. That rule was the result of a "questionable" trade a couple of years ago in which a team that was completely out of contention, around week 9 I think, made what appeared to be a questionable trade. On top of that, the 2 players involved in the trade in that league also traded in another league shortly after with the other team getting what seemed to be an upper hand on the trade. There are very few situations where I would consider vetoing a trade, but this is definately not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I veto your league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 9-1-2009 1:24 AM first Trade Veto Thread of the Season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Tie them both up and throw them in the water. Whichever one sinks is the witch. I thought witches float. Like apples. Or wood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 9-1-2009 1:24 AMfirst Trade Veto Thread of the Season I was wondering about that. Next up: Collusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I thought witches float. Like apples. Or wood. Oops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy n Dirty Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Just to settle this once and for all... Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us. Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches? Peasant 1: Burn them. Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches? Peasant 1: More witches. Peasant 2: Wood. Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn? Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood? Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood? Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her. Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone? Peasant 1: Oh yeah. Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water? Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond! Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water? Peasant 1: Bread. Peasant 2: Apples. Peasant 3: Very small rocks. Peasant 1: Cider. Peasant 2: Gravy. Peasant 3: Cherries. Peasant 1: Mud. Peasant 2: Churches. Peasant 3: Lead! Lead! King Arthur: A Duck. Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically... Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood. Sir Bedevere: And therefore... Peasant 2: ...A witch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWmaker Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 This is what we have in our rules (The bottom of the narrative addresses this situation): "Here is an excerpt from an article on vetoing trades. MUFFL will utilize the principles contained in the article as a guide in this area. Note that references are from the 2000 season. “I got a call from a guy named Nelson who was distressed because his commissioner had overruled his trade. Many leagues have rules that allow the commissioner or other owners to veto trades that appear to be one sided. In some cases, even if it’s not explicitly mentioned in the rules, a bold commissioner, flush with power, will veto a trade. In Nelson’s case, he received a phone call from the team with Edgerrin James. The other team was desperate after starting the season 0-2, and didn’t relish the idea of losing James to the bye week and going 0-3. So, he offered James and Jake Plummer for Brad Johnson and Robert Smith. Of course, Nelson accepted the offer. Upon hearing about the trade, Nelson’s league went into a frenzy. They felt that the trade was so one-sided that the integrity of the league was compromised. The other owners demanded that the commissioner revoke the trade, and the commissioner complied. While the trade is certainly in Nelson’s favor, I have a serious problem with this commissioner. In fact, if he were in my office now, I would verbally berate him to the point that my voice would reach octaves normally associated with dog whistles. The commissioner should have recognized jealousy when he heard it. Most likely, at the heart of the other teams’ bitching was that they didn’t get the trade offer themselves. Lets say that Nelson hadn’t gotten the trade offer, but a different owner had. Would the other owner have declined, citing the need to maintain league balance? Ha! Of course not. As if that’s not reason enough to allow the trade to go through, the commissioner may well have sent James’ team to an 0-3 record (thanks to James’ bye), thus negating the wishes of that owner, who was trying to maintain a competitive record. And lastly, is any commissioner so clairvoyant that he knows—with absolute certainty—that the trade will wind up being as one-sided as it appears when the trade is made? Of course not. Who made him sooooo smart that his idea of James’ future is better than the guy that is trading him? There are future injuries, luck, and myriad unforeseen events that shape every trade. There are only three instances in which a commissioner should veto a trade: 1. Collusion: If there is substantial proof that the teams involved in a lopsided trade have agreed to work together, the trade should be blocked. 2. Rookies: When a veteran fantasy footballer makes a lopsided trade with a first-year fantasy footballer, it’s okay to veto the trade. However, having said that, the better commissioner will be more diplomatic, and ask the newbie to reconsider the trade, and explain why. 3. Injuries: Any time a team trades an injured player, the injury should be disclosed. If the team receiving the injured player doesn’t know about the injury, it’s within a commissioner’s powers to veto the trade. Other than those three instances, trades should not be overturned - even the ‘bad’ ones.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 There are only three instances in which a commissioner should veto a trade:1. Collusion: If there is substantial proof that the teams involved in a lopsided trade have agreed to work together, the trade should be blocked. 2. Rookies: When a veteran fantasy footballer makes a lopsided trade with a first-year fantasy footballer, it’s okay to veto the trade. However, having said that, the better commissioner will be more diplomatic, and ask the newbie to reconsider the trade, and explain why. 3. Injuries: Any time a team trades an injured player, the injury should be disclosed. If the team receiving the injured player doesn’t know about the injury, it’s within a commissioner’s powers to veto the trade. Other than those three instances, trades should not be overturned - even the ‘bad’ ones.” I dont like #2 rule, if the person is that ignorant or dumb then they shouldnt be doing this because it takes away fun from the other 11 players. #1 is the only thing in my league, when I do see a lopsided trade I investigate and make sure they are both aware of the trade being lopsided and if no collusion is determined the traded passes 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
femmefootball Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The guy getting Winslow, Driver and Finley is taking advantage of the other guy (imo). +1, I'd do that in a heartbeat and giggle at the guy wanting Gates so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Next up: Collusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I thought witches float. Like apples. Or wood. I thought Witches Burned. Like Richard Pryor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahl63 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Don't veto the trade as it probably isn't collusion. It isn't the WORST trade ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I dont like #2 rule, if the person is that ignorant or dumb then they shouldnt be doing this because it takes away fun from the other 11 players. #1 is the only thing in my league, when I do see a lopsided trade I investigate and make sure they are both aware of the trade being lopsided and if no collusion is determined the traded passes 100%. +1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Ease up Gooddell...Commissioners do not need to be so anylitical with numbers. Why are you wanting to tell two willing parties 'no'? This early in the season, noone knows what is going to happen. No need to veto anything as long as they are not dumping players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 So maybe the guy who traded Gates needed a WR3 and didn't have squat. Nothing wrong with having Driver as a WR3, plus the fact that he has a TE coming into the league with hugh upside. I don't think this is a bad trade at all. Of course I don't know your roster/lineup requirements, but that shouldn't even matter. Don't veto the trade or you'll have every uneven trade coming back to haunt you further into the season. Do you really want that? Trust me, it's not fun at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I am very sad that this cat hasn't posted again in this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I am very sad that this cat hasn't posted again in this thread Well, 42 posts telling him he was wrong probably gave him the hint... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphy Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 That trade is whack!!! I give it a big fat VETO!!!! And to do that to your own brother.......very weak 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.