Trade Veto? - Jennings for Cobb - KEEPER league

[Bronco Billy]

lemme guess, you're the one getting jennings, other guy's either a n00b or a halfwit. meh, trade shouldn't be overruled. but I do think yer league is a joke and you're contributing to that.

 

 

If this is a ppr league I take the Cobb end of that deal and don't even think twice about it. If it's not a ppr, I still like the Cobb end better. GB is doing all sorts of things for Cobb just to find a way to get the ball in his hands. Jennings already has missed a game because of a concussion and may be on his way out of GB next year, meaning Jones may get more of Jennings' work.

 

Then on top of that, if I am the Jennings owner I lose him after this season, but as the Cobb owner I get to keep him next year for a 10th rounder? Icing on the cake and makes this a slam dunk IMO.

 

ETA - and here's a perfect reason why the trade stands. Completely divergent opinions on the trade, and both guys could very well be right.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[awahl63]

If this is a ppr league I take the Cobb end of that deal and don't even think twice about it. If it's not a ppr, I still like the Cobb end better. GB is doing all sorts of things for Cobb just to find a way to get the ball in his hands. Jennings already has missed a game because of a concussion and may be on his way out of GB next year, meaning Jones may get more of Jennings' work.

 

Then on top of that, if I am the Jennings owner I lose him after this season, but as the Cobb owner I get to keep him next year for a 10th rounder? Icing on the cake and makes this a slam dunk IMO.

 

ETA - and here's a perefct reason why the trade stands. Completely divergent opinions on the trade, and both guys could very well be right.

 

 

I totally agree with BB

 

TWINKIES ANYONE.

[rattsass]

Why do people play in leagues where other people can make decisions for their team?

 

Last year, after week one, the average "veto happy" league would have summarily shot down a straight up trade involving Victor Cruz for Tim Hightower. The guy trading Hightower was getting SCREWED!

 

No, it turns out the guy trading Cruz was getting screwed. Unless the people voting to veto are all prophets the whole process is absurd.

[Furd]

What are the criteria for an owner in your league to consider when making a decision to veto a trade?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Furd

[REZ]

When I first saw this I was wondering which end of the deal you though was getting screwed.

This year maybe Jennings is more valuable (questionable with his concussion issues) but with the keeper aspect factoring in, I'd rather have Cobb,

[bostonsoxandy]

Never ever veto anything ever. If you have hard, concrete evidence that cheating happened - dont veto - kick out the cheaters.

 

/thread

[stevegrab]

Well it only took until week 2 for the first "should we veto this trade" thread. Can we just pit a thread at the top, titled "vetoing trades - NOT COOL".

[Papajohn]

At lot of leagues should probably have a rule stating that new players are not allowed to trade in the first season. That way there will not be any newbie trade problems before year 2

[Furd]

What are the criteria for an owner in your league to consider when making a decision to veto a trade?

 

 

Nobody answers this question.

[MnLefty]

I guess I have the benefit of only playing in a local league where most of the owners have known each other and commish for some time, and we're able to leave it to commish only veto and only in cases of common sense. Week 2 is unlikely to see any collusion smelling trades because all teams still have a shot. Now the week before the deadline when a team that's out of it wants to trade Aaron Rodgers and Ray Rice for Christian Ponder and Roy Helu... those are the easy ones, and IMO should be the only vetos... and as somebody else stated you could easily bypass the veto and toss them from the league if you wanted to go that way.

 

The only veto our league ever has made was one owner who was out of it lost his kicker (Jason Hanson) for the year. Since he was out of it he didn't want to make a ww move that costs a whole dollar, so he got pouty and traded Antonio Gates for a kicker to the first guy who replied. It was quickly vetoed and they were both harrassed for being a dumbass. Tossing them from the league was not necessary, a verbal beating was enough for us.

[Grits and Shins]

Nobody answers this question.

 

 

I'll answer it for you ... the only criteria that is required is that an owner doesn't like it.

[piratesownninjas]

but I do think yer league is a joke and you're contributing to that.

 

Oh No's... Whatever is he to do? An internet badass dropped the hammer on him...

[detlef]

lemme guess, you're the one getting jennings, other guy's either a n00b or a halfwit. meh, trade shouldn't be overruled. but I do think yer league is a joke and you're contributing to that.

 

[Furd]

I'll answer it for you ... the only criteria that is required is that an owner doesn't like it.

 

 

Right. And there's nothing wrong with that in most of the leagues that people around here whine about.

 

If you don't have a rule covering the situation, and therefore its a totally arbitrary and capricious decision, it seems to me that you don't have the standing to b*tch about a veto.

[detlef]

Right. And there's nothing wrong with that in most of the leagues that people around here whine about.

 

If you don't have a rule covering the situation, and therefore its a totally arbitrary and capricious decision, it seems to me that you don't have the standing to b*tch about a veto.

 

I don't think it's as simple as you guys are making it, even though I believe that almost no trades should be vetoed. In the one league I'm commish in, I made it clear that I will automatically approve essentially every trade that comes before me, even if I personally think one dude is getting fleeced.

 

If, however, I can't for the life of me understand why someone would make the trade, I may ask the owners to give me a reason why they'd trade Aaron Rodgers for Blaine Gabbard and LaGarrette Blount. If I'm not satisfied, I'll then put it to the league.

 

I'm all for letting guys run their own team and have seen no shortage of trades that seemed awful one way at the time turn out to be quite the opposite (not even including injuries which shouldn't count. After all, in the above example, if Rodgers blows out his knee the following week, that doesn't make the trade any more fair).

 

I also understand that people can be really petty and basically vote against any trade because, even a fair trade, by definition improves both teams relative to the rest of the league. So I think going straight to league vote is lame.

 

On the other hand, this is not a court of law and you actually don't have to find a smoking gun to prove collusion. At some point, you just have to be fair and logical. Now, again, the vast majority of trades that are mentioned here aren't even close to setting off any alarms in my book, this Cobb for Jennings deal being a perfect example. However, that doesn't mean you have to let a couple of a-holes ruin your league.

[stevegrab]

detlef,

 

I think those points you are referring to are in regard to this series of posts

 

furd - "What are the criteria for an owner in your league to consider when making a decision to veto a trade?"

 

furd in repsonse to his last post - "Nobody answers this question."

 

Grits repsonded "I'll answer it for you ... the only criteria that is required is that an owner doesn't like it."

 

Even in your league that is essentially true, once you put it to a league vote, there is no rule governing the owner's votes, and some/most/many will just vote for personal reasons, how it affects the teams, if they like/hate them, etc.

 

As co-comish for 20 years in our league we have never overturned a trade. We have on a few occassions asked for an explanation for trades that seemed totally lopsided. We are a 5 keeper league, so trading away Rodgers for Gabbert and a bag of peanuts would rarely happen in the first place (unless the owner is quittng the league, and we rarely have turnover).

Edited September 19, 2012 by stevegrab

[detlef]

detlef,

 

I think those points you are referring to are in regard to this series of posts

 

furd - "What are the criteria for an owner in your league to consider when making a decision to veto a trade?"

 

furd in repsonse to his last post - "Nobody answers this question."

 

Grits repsonded "I'll answer it for you ... the only criteria that is required is that an owner doesn't like it."

 

Even in your league that is essentially true, once you put it to a league vote, there is no rule governing the owner's votes, and some/most/many will just vote for personal reasons, how it affects the teams, if they like/hate them, etc.

 

As co-comish for 20 years in our league we have never overturned a trade. We have on a few occassions asked for an explanation for trades that seemed totally lopsided. We are a 5 keeper league, so trading away Rodgers for Gabbert and a bag of peanuts would rarely happen in the first place (unless the owner is quittng the league, and we rarely have turnover).

 

That's why I don't put it to a league vote unless I can't get a valid response for a trade that seems like a complete and total joke. And, honestly, this is borderline hypothetical, because I can't imagine such a trade being proposed. Like I said, I'm prepared to automatically approve virtually any trade.

 

In fact, in the early e-mails where I was spelling out the rules I mention that this is supposed to be fun and that I expect that all involved value their standing among their friends and colleagues more than some ill-gotten loot. In our efforts to not make this hyper-controlling, we're erring on the side of "hands-off". That, if you find a loophole in the rules, be the better man and point it out rather than exploiting it. That sort of thing.

[Hugh 0ne]

I don't think it's as simple as you guys are making it, even though I believe that almost no trades should be vetoed. In the one league I'm commish in, I made it clear that I will automatically approve essentially every trade that comes before me, even if I personally think one dude is getting fleeced.

 

If, however, I can't for the life of me understand why someone would make the trade, I may ask the owners to give me a reason why they'd trade Aaron Rodgers for Blaine Gabbard and LaGarrette Blount. If I'm not satisfied, I'll then put it to the league.

 

I'm all for letting guys run their own team and have seen no shortage of trades that seemed awful one way at the time turn out to be quite the opposite (not even including injuries which shouldn't count. After all, in the above example, if Rodgers blows out his knee the following week, that doesn't make the trade any more fair).

 

I also understand that people can be really petty and basically vote against any trade because, even a fair trade, by definition improves both teams relative to the rest of the league. So I think going straight to league vote is lame.

 

On the other hand, this is not a court of law and you actually don't have to find a smoking gun to prove collusion. At some point, you just have to be fair and logical. Now, again, the vast majority of trades that are mentioned here aren't even close to setting off any alarms in my book, this Cobb for Jennings deal being a perfect example. However, that doesn't mean you have to let a couple of a-holes ruin your league.

 

 

If you're playing in a league where collusion is even a consideration you need to find a new league. I would never play in a league where the commish could veto a trade I wanted to make.

[detlef]

If you're playing in a league where collusion is even a consideration you need to find a new league. I would never play in a league where the commish could veto a trade I wanted to make.

 

I'm not, which is why I said, as commish, I'm prepared to let virtually every trade through, even those that I personally feel are not equal. That it would take something insane for me to step in. And that even, "stepping in" means first asking for some rationale from the trading owners. Something that, honestly, I don't expect I'll ever have to do.

 

Regardless, we use Yahoo and there's two settings for approving trades; league vote and commish approval. There is no setting for "none of the above". So, you have to have one or the other.

[stevegrab]

That's why I don't put it to a league vote unless I can't get a valid response for a trade that seems like a complete and total joke. And, honestly, this is borderline hypothetical, because I can't imagine such a trade being proposed. Like I said, I'm prepared to automatically approve virtually any trade.

 

In fact, in the early e-mails where I was spelling out the rules I mention that this is supposed to be fun and that I expect that all involved value their standing among their friends and colleagues more than some ill-gotten loot. In our efforts to not make this hyper-controlling, we're erring on the side of "hands-off". That, if you find a loophole in the rules, be the better man and point it out rather than exploiting it. That sort of thing.

 

 

That is precisely how we've run our league for 20 years. Unfortunately now we have one dick owner who is trying to stretch every rule and work every loophole. He's a salesman and just keeps telling us "I'm just trying to have fun and win." He's challenged some long standing practices of how we operate, because they prevent him from working his magic. Dude drives me nuts.

[detlef]

That is precisely how we've run our league for 20 years. Unfortunately now we have one dick owner who is trying to stretch every rule and work every loophole. He's a salesman and just keeps telling us "I'm just trying to have fun and win." He's challenged some long standing practices of how we operate, because they prevent him from working his magic. Dude drives me nuts.

 

I hate that crap.

 

"Hey, all's fair in love and war", right?

 

Um, this is Fantasy Football, a freaking game. It is neither love nor war. So don't be a dick.

[Hugh 0ne]

I'm not, which is why I said, as commish, I'm prepared to let virtually every trade through, even those that I personally feel are not equal. That it would take something insane for me to step in. And that even, "stepping in" means first asking for some rationale from the trading owners. Something that, honestly, I don't expect I'll ever have to do.

 

Regardless, we use Yahoo and there's two settings for approving trades; league vote and commish approval. There is no setting for "none of the above". So, you have to have one or the other.

 

 

[Azazello1313]

When I first saw this I was wondering which end of the deal you though was getting screwed.

This year maybe Jennings is more valuable (questionable with his concussion issues) but with the keeper aspect factoring in, I'd rather have Cobb,

 

 

I don't see significant keeper value for either player.

 

cobb is a kick returner, who gets into the mix offensively a little bit. his upside is dexter mccluster or maybe devin hester. cobb is a guy you take a late round flyer on because, who knows. jennings is a perennial top tier WR. ADP of 28 versus 145. one week where jennings is dinged and cobb gets a few targets is not even close to overturning that conventional wisdom, except in the minds of flighty newbs and free league warriors. I'm sorry but I don't for a second see a seasoned, level-headed FF vet making that trade from the Cobb end. I don't even believe bronco billy would make that trade -- he often bellows moronic hyperbole when he's trying to make a point, like that he'd rather have matt flynn than peyton manning.

 

again, I don't think this is a trade that should be vetoed. I just think it reveals the pitfalls of playing in weak leagues.

[detlef]

I don't see significant keeper value for either player.

 

cobb is a kick returner, who gets into the mix offensively a little bit. his upside is dexter mccluster or maybe devin hester. cobb is a guy you take a late round flyer on because, who knows. jennings is a perennial top tier WR. ADP of 28 versus 145. one week where jennings is dinged and cobb gets a few targets is not even close to overturning that conventional wisdom, except in the minds of flighty newbs and free league warriors. I'm sorry but I don't for a second see a seasoned, level-headed FF vet making that trade from the Cobb end. I don't even believe bronco billy would make that trade -- he often bellows moronic hyperbole when he's trying to make a point, like that he'd rather have matt flynn than peyton manning.

 

again, I don't think this is a trade that should be vetoed. I just think it reveals the pitfalls of playing in weak leagues.

 

While I would not likely trade Jennings for Cobb, I think this is one of those deals that has, "dudes getting all worked up about a horrible deal it is, only to find that Cobb ends up outproducing Jennings this season" written all over it.

 

Like you, it seems, I would default to conventional wisdom and stick with the proven stud, despite his groin injury (which is certainly one of those deals that has an annoying habit of sticking with speed-related positions). However, I also don't think it comes anywhere near "your league is obviously a joke if you've got guys making this sort of trade" category.

 

Maybe I've just learned from having had your reaction in the past, only to realize what an a-hole I ended up looking like when the "stud" who got given away in a week 1 trade actually failed to do much of anything, despite staying healthy. While the turd he got traded for put up some nice numbers.

[Azazello1313]

While I would not likely trade Jennings for Cobb, I think this is one of those deals that has, "dudes getting all worked up about a horrible deal it is, only to find that Cobb ends up outproducing Jennings this season" written all over it.

 

Like you, it seems, I would default to conventional wisdom and stick with the proven stud, despite his groin injury (which is certainly one of those deals that has an annoying habit of sticking with speed-related positions). However, I also don't think it comes anywhere near "your league is obviously a joke if you've got guys making this sort of trade" category.

 

Maybe I've just learned from having had your reaction in the past, only to realize what an a-hole I ended up looking like when the "stud" who got given away in a week 1 trade actually failed to do much of anything, despite staying healthy. While the turd he got traded for put up some nice numbers.

 

 

of course that can happen, and that's why any mutually agreed upon trade is "legitimate" and shouldn't be voted on or overruled. the odds, however, are poor.