12D3 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I have noticed differing opinions on when to vote down a trade in leagues that have that option. I personally feel that the option is there to prevent straight up cheating. I have met others that feel they should be able to vote down a trade if they feel it improves another team too much. How do you guys feel? Is it fair to vote down a trade just because it helps a rival team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 No vetoes ... period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Pretty much agree with Grits with one caveat. Obvious, proveable collusion MIGHT give grounds to veto a trade. I have noticed differing opinions on when to vote down a trade in leagues that have that option. A totally bogus option Avoid leagues with this option if you like to trade [i personally feel that the option is there to prevent straight up cheating. The one and only potential reason to veto I have met others that feel they should be able to vote down a trade if they feel it improves another team too much. The only opinions that matter are the owners involved in the trade, the rest be damned. Value is to subjective, the whole point of a trade is to better ones team. The next time you talk to one of those shmoe's that believe vetoing trades is an ok strategy, tell them they are F'n shmucks. How do you guys feel? Is it fair to vote down a trade just because it helps a rival team? Thats how it makes me feel. NOT FAIR and absolute total F'n BS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 a week ago, if i offered you austin collie for ryan grant, would you have taken it? how about now? no one knows what's going to happen. a trade that's seemingly lopsided in favor of one owner today could be lopsided in favor of the other owner next week. if an owner consistently makes awful trades, kick out the owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12D3 Posted September 17, 2010 Author Share Posted September 17, 2010 I completely agree. Like I said, I'm only for using it to avoid cheating, ie owners stacking a team with cleary bogus trades. Other than that, everyone should be able to make any trade they want. In the leagues I'm in, it's getting kind of absurd how people vote down trades for no good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 From Dash-4 rules: Trades 1. There are unlimited allowable trades for the season. Trades will be made and posted via the MFL internet site. Trade Deadline for the season is before the kickoff of NFL week 11. Trading is allowed at all times before the trade deadline. 2. Any trade may be voided by a majority vote of the owners, if and only if they suspect collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favre4ever Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Another words there is no rule against stupidity...You must look at a trade for what it's worth and not look at what there team will look like after a trade...Yah but now he's got the 2 best RB's and the best QB and were all gonna get killed..Tough Sh!t! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 if you think somebody is cheating - you need to call them out. otherwise - you would not undo a players lineup or waiver if you don't think its the player made a good move - why would you do it with a trade. Case in point - there was a trade in our league a few years ago (during the off-season) that sent Addai to an owner for a package of players including Turner and DeAngelo. He even got hooked up beyond this. At the time - DeAngelo was disappointing and Carolina had drafted Jonathan Stewart. Turner was still a backup. People went crazy. They thought that the guy getting Addai was rapping the DeAngelo/Turner owner (again - he got even more than that... Grant might have been involved too) If there were vote - the trade, it would have been vetoed. Well, the following year DeAngelo and Turner were top five players - but if it were up to owners in the league, the trade would have been vetoed because everybody thought the guy getting these cats was getting screwed and that the guy dealing them was getting crazy hooked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryTheRock Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Three days ago a trade was accepted... Ryan Grant (after injury)and Santonio Holmes (still suspended) for Ricky Williams and Knowshon Moreno (This guy proposed the trade!) This I voted to veto. There is money on the line in this league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Three days ago a trade was accepted... Ryan Grant (after injury)and Santonio Holmes (still suspended) for Ricky Williams and Knowshon Moreno (This guy proposed the trade!) This I voted to veto. There is money on the line in this league. i will guess that your league has specific roster requirements hence the position for position trade....one question...is there any keeper aspect? 2nd I will bet the guy with Moreno is worried about the Maroney acquisition and lastly i will venture a guess that his WRs are a bit thin and that he thinks Holmes could have nice value when he comes off suspension...so basically he is tryin to take advantage of the poor Jets showing and Holmes suspension to offset what he could believe is a downturn for Moreno.,,imo no way should that trade be vetoed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I will not play in a league where trades can be vetoed. Collusion is a different matter. That's team pooling by 2 or more owners and definitely cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 There is no reason other than collusion to veto a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I don't play in leagues that vote on trades. I do commish a couple of leagues and retain the right as commish to review all trades. I have never vetoed a trade in my ten years of commish duties. I have had some conversations with owners letting them know it may be a wise idea to sweeten the pot on one side or the other to keep the controversy to a minimum. This seems to work. All the people in leagues I commish are OK with me having this power even though I have never had to use it. Everyone has an agenda when it comes to fantasy football. Individual owners voting on trades leads to trouble, conflict and drama. Let owners manage their own teams. If you make suggestions to try to prevent controversy, most owners understand. I had to throw one guy out of a league for getting pissed about a waiver claim and waiving his entire team mid-season, but other than that we have been fairly drama free. As a commish, if you deal with things directly and quickly, you tend to avoid the behind the scenes rubbish that builds up. I also commish a league I don't have a team in. That helps alot as owners know I don't have an agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Couple random thoughts here.... I've been in leagues where there are brothers in the same league and also roommates in the same league. The older brother had a dominant personality and the younger brother would ultimately give in if the older brother pestered him hard enough on trades. Collusion? Probably not.. Fair to the rest of us? Probably not. I know the comment should be made that you need to pick your leagues more carefully, but these are local leagues with friends, so you really don't want to quit the league if you can avoid it. For situations like this, limited veto ability is required IMO. I like the rule where every owner can veto up to three trades a year, and if a trade is vetoed, no players involved in that trade can be traded for each other again for one month. In theory, there should be no vetoes, ever. If only the world were perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Stanky Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 The only time I will veto, or vote against a trade, is when I can prove colusion was involved. Otherwise, who am I to say what is a good or bad trade? I'm no expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 The only time I will veto, or vote against a trade, is when I can prove colusion was involved. Otherwise, who am I to say what is a good or bad trade? I'm no expert. +1 I am commissioner of one league where its up to me to decide if a trade goes through. I have never vetoed a trade (regardless of what I thought of it) and I wont unless there is obvious collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Stanky Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I've been the commish of my local going on 10 years now and I've only vetoed 2 trades. In both cases one of the parties admitted that they were giving up and just unloading their good players to another team. I really don't understand why anyone would do this. Furthermore, I don't know how anyone would just take someones good players knowing that they were just being given to them. Doesn't everyone want to win fair and square? I guess not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 The only time I will veto, or vote against a trade, is when I can prove colusion was involved. And in these cases, not only should the trade be revoked, but the owners should be immediately removed from the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAssface76 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 You have to leave an option for veto on total stupidity/ childish behavior. Example from a baseball league i was in (in football terms), a 14 yr old kid basically tried to trade Manning,AJ,CJohn and AP for SJax, Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis because "He is my favorite player" and "i'm not gonna make the playoffs anyway, why do i care?" When there is several hundred dollars at stake you can't let someones stupidity/childish behavior ruin it for everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 You have to leave an option for veto on total stupidity/ childish behavior. Example from a baseball league i was in (in football terms), a 14 yr old kid basically tried to trade Manning,AJ,CJohn and AP for SJax, Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis because "He is my favorite player" and "i'm not gonna make the playoffs anyway, why do i care?" When there is several hundred dollars at stake you can't let someones stupidity/childish behavior ruin it for everyone else. How is it that you are in a league that awards several hundred dollars and has a 14 yr old who uses a criteria for selecting players that is barely better than using his favorite color? And how did that kid acquire all of those good players in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Collusion is the only reason to veto a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLGRAF Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I think a good way to operate would be to allow trades to be overturned based upon a majority league vote, but also, to tell everyone that if a majority believe a trade was collusive, then both owners involved in that trade would be removed from the league the following year. If you had strong rules and made them clear from the get go, you would probably never seen unfair trades even attempted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAssface76 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 @ Bronco Billy- Dude this was in baseball, where everyone has a couple of studs because there is so many slots to fill. I just gave you an example in football terms. I dont like playing with kids but it was the managers son, so what can ya do. Something on that lvl should always be vetoed, as it was in our league, which i won. Surelly would'nt have if that trade went through. I think it was like pujols, utley and someone other stud bat and i think rivera for cabrera and pat burrell. He even admitted that the only reason he did it was he like cabrera and was'nt going ot make the playoffs. You can't seriously suggest that as a legit trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 If I vote, I generally vote against trades unless there is a rule saying I need to suspect collusion to vote against them. In that circumstance, I have never voted against a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 No vetoes ... period. what he said 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.