jsmoove05 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Im offering Fitzpatrick , Aaron Hernandez, Michael Bush and DJ Ware for Chandler TE and Stafford. I need a QB in the worst way my other QB is Tebow the guy I'm trading his RBs are Torian, Tolbert, Helu and Stewart. Bush , Hernandez and Fitz would be great for him this week and down the line. His other QB is Sanchez he has Stafford on a bye and the other TE he has Olsen is on a bye also. I feel like theres nothing wrong with this trade what would you guys do if you were the commish??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I am commish of my local league going on 20 years and have never vetoed a trade. Is it being vetoed by your commish? Have you been given a reason why? I wouldn't consider vetoing, its not like you're trading 4 studs for Stafford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favre4ever Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Fair enough.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If you have Fitz, you don't need a QB "in the worst way". Let's just get that out of the way. Surely he's cooled off a bit from his start, but he's still startable. Also, I think you're giving away too much with Hernandez and Bush. DMC's foot injury appears like it could be pretty bad and Bush could be gold going forward. That said, I know you're not asking for my opinion about whether you should make it. As to the question at hand, I have no idea at all why this trade should be vetoed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If I were a commish, I wouldn't have veto priviledges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If I were a commish, I wouldn't have veto priviledges. Well, then there's that as well. It astounds me that anyone with a competitive interest in the outcome of a league would have the right to say what other people could and couldn't do with their team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If this is causing a controversy, just have the other owner throw in the players he will have to dump to accomodate the extra players on his roster. Regardless of who they are, ithe extra players coming your waywill make it look better to dumbasses who veto trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I am commish of my local league going on 20 years and have never vetoed a trade. Is it being vetoed by your commish? Have you been given a reason why? I wouldn't consider vetoing, its not like you're trading 4 studs for Stafford. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If I were a commish, I wouldn't have veto priviledges. You know, been in both type of leagues. The ones that have good Commishes that once in awhile control things. Were the best ones. A good commish will allow most trades through. But if the trade is a bit fishy, have his opinion and have a council of guys that put their vote in. Some trades just get out of control in some leagues. Not fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsmoove05 Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) You know, been in both type of leagues. The ones that have good Commishes that once in awhile control things. Were the best ones. A good commish will allow most trades through. But if the trade is a bit fishy, have his opinion and have a council of guys that put their vote in. Some trades just get out of control in some leagues. Not fun. I just included DJ ware in the trade also and the commish still rejected the trade Im beyond furious right now. I just told him next year I'm outta the league its just ridiculous. Edited November 4, 2011 by jsmoove05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
take money Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I just included DJ ware in the trade also and the commish still rejected the trade Im beyond furious right now. I just told him next year I'm outta the league its just ridiculous. I would quit, too. That is BEYOND ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsmoove05 Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 I would quit, too. That is BEYOND ridiculous. Im thinking about including blount and fitzpatrick for stafford too much? or should i try to get a stewart or torian back in the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Im thinking about including blount and fitzpatrick for stafford too much? or should i try to get a stewart or torian back in the deal. I already think you're giving too much, so I wouldn't. What's so bad about Fitz? Like I said, I think Bush is going to be very nice down the stretch. As will Blount. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha-z Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I already think you're giving too much, so I wouldn't. What's so bad about Fitz? Like I said, I think Bush is going to be very nice down the stretch. As will Blount. IMHO. I would have to agree. Stand pat and beat your commish with a club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Geez, it never freaking ends with people thinking they have the right to make other team's decisions for them. I'm just going to start copying and pasting these 10 simple reasons why vetoes are stupid: 1) It’s not your job to be the value or fair police for other people’s teams 2) Seriously, you’re not the value or fair police 3) What part of “you’re not the value or fair police” did you not freaking understand!?! 4) Only the person who pays the team's league fees should have the right to manage that team 5) The cliché “unless you can prove collusion”, it ain’t none of your business to meddle in trades 6) Vetoes lead to animosity and retaliation on even “fair” trades, and destroy league trust if not the league entirely. 7) It’s a childish practice and always biased solely towards one’s own team's interests 8) You don’t know about the future as well as you think you do, and everyone disagrees on player’s value. Vetoing is only going to increase the chance that karma is gonna make you look like a fool about who comes out on top. 9) Trades are supposed to improve teams, or else they wouldn’t do it. There’s no such thing as a trade where at least one of your opponents doesn’t get perceivably stronger. Trades don’t have to be “fair” for it to be advantageous for that team, so “imbalance” is a total BS excuse, when the goal of the game is to build the strongest possible team. 10) Vetoes are totally ghey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaiderNation1 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Im am also a commish... I would not veto this trade... Nothing wrong with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsmoove05 Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Im am also a commish... I would not veto this trade... Nothing wrong with it The commish told me if gave him Beanie Wells and Fitzpatrick for stafford he would approve it. hmmm Im getting raped big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Your commish is a tool. Why do you have such a hard-on for Stafford? He is on a bye this week and he is fragile. I am rolling with Fitz in one of my leagues and I am fine with it. Who is your commish saying is getting screwed in this deal? I think you are giving up way too much to get Stafford in the original deal. He is saying the Stafford owner is getting the short end? What is his explanation? Edited November 4, 2011 by lkirc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsmoove05 Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Your commish is a tool. Why do you have such a hard-on for Stafford? He is on a bye this week and he is fragile. I am rolling with Fitz in one of my leagues and I am fine with it. Who is your commish saying is getting screwed in this deal? I think you are giving up way too much to get Stafford in the original deal. He is saying the Stafford owner is getting the short end? What is his explanation? Stafford is a beast man i love him and plus i calvin johnson also. Fitzpatrick is a good QB but when it comes to fantasy he doesn't put huge numbers in my league he's ranked liked the 11-12th QB. Im actually starting Tebow vs the raiders this week instead of Fitz vs Revis and the Jets. He is saying that stafford is top 5 in our league in overall scoring and that I'm only giving him a rb for this week and thats it. He is saying Im not giving up enough which I find funny. I told how do you know how long McFadden is out for. Mind you the guy I'm trading with has torian and tolbert as his RBS this week adding a Bush would help him huge this week and who knows if McFadden gets hurt again. Right now Im gonna start Gore, Wells and Blount I have Bush on my bench and wanna get some value for him but this commish is making it very tough. Edited November 4, 2011 by jsmoove05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Stafford is a beast man i love him and plus i calvin johnson also. Fitzpatrick is a good QB but when it comes to fantasy he doesn't put huge numbers in my league he's ranked liked the 11-12th QB. Im actually starting Tebow vs the raiders this week instead of Fitz vs Revis and the Jets. He is saying that stafford is top 5 in our league in overall scoring and that I'm only giving him a rb for this week and thats it. He is saying Im not giving up enough which I find funny. I told how do you know how long McFadden is out for. Mind you the guy I'm trading with has torian and tolbert as his RBS this week adding a Bush would help him huge this week and who knows if McFadden gets hurt again. Right now Im gonna start Gore, Wells and Blount I have Bush on my bench and wanna get some value for him but this commish is making it very tough. What about Hernandez? I think Hernandez, Fitz and Bush for Stafford and chandler is in the Stafford owners favor. Your commish is on crack. He needs to come here and explain himself. He is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vick4Prez Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'm commish as well, I would not veto that trade....it's fair all the way!!! You're commish is nuts!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dbaxx Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Geez, it never freaking ends with people thinking they have the right to make other team's decisions for them. I'm just going to start copying and pasting these 10 simple reasons why vetoes are stupid: 1) It’s not your job to be the value or fair police for other people’s teams 2) Seriously, you’re not the value or fair police 3) What part of “you’re not the value or fair police” did you not freaking understand!?! 4) Only the person who pays the team's league fees should have the right to manage that team 5) The cliché “unless you can prove collusion”, it ain’t none of your business to meddle in trades 6) Vetoes lead to animosity and retaliation on even “fair” trades, and destroy league trust if not the league entirely. 7) It’s a childish practice and always biased solely towards one’s own team's interests 8) You don’t know about the future as well as you think you do, and everyone disagrees on player’s value. Vetoing is only going to increase the chance that karma is gonna make you look like a fool about who comes out on top. 9) Trades are supposed to improve teams, or else they wouldn’t do it. There’s no such thing as a trade where at least one of your opponents doesn’t get perceivably stronger. Trades don’t have to be “fair” for it to be advantageous for that team, so “imbalance” is a total BS excuse, when the goal of the game is to build the strongest possible team. 10) Vetoes are totally ghey. 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.