gman62 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) Just thought I would see what the rest of the world would say to me trading B Jacobs for M Forte. Another trade I also had vetoed was me trading BFavre/TO for D Brees/DeShaun Jackson. There have been 10 trades and 3 have been vetoed for the year. Both trades were accepted then the league vetoed claiming I was coming out with the advantage on both trades? I agree obviously as I made the trades but is that proper reasoning to reject a trades? I thought that was the purpose of trading, both parties think they are bettering their team either short term or long term or for specific matchups? So veto or not veto? Am I wrong or missing something? Please reply regarding either trade or what rules are used in your league for trading. At the time of my 1st trade I was 1-1 and last trade I was 3-1 not that it should matter. 12 man Yahoo standard league; 4 votes needed to veto. Sorry I double posted see the topic with the poll questions. If somebody knows how to delete a post please reply how. See poll results here: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=263321 Edited October 1, 2008 by gman62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino88 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 what it sounds like to me is that you are in a league with some a-holes. both trades seems reasonable. sounds like your playing in a league with all of your ex-girlfriends and their jealous that they don't have the kind of team that affords them to make decent trades. just call them all jealous bitches and ride the wave of your winning team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordanzs Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Those are both fair trades. The owners in your league suck!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocula Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I feel that a trade should be allowed as long as it does not give a big advantage to 1 team in the league. The ability to veto prevents this from happening. I do not think it is to decide if it is a fair trade to the two teams or not. But the league will need to allow people to trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman62 Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 Thanks guys I agree with you I think many of the guys are missing their Y chromosomes, but I aint checkin' under the hood! Next year will choose another league. Keep the votes/replies coming I may just post this on our message board to liven things up a bit! I always like to stir the pot when there is a controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman62 Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) I feel that a trade should be allowed as long as it does not give a big advantage to 1 team in the league. The ability to veto prevents this from happening. I do not think it is to decide if it is a fair trade to the two teams or not. But the league will need to allow people to trade. The way Yahoo leagues work is that all other managers outside the 2 that have agreed on a trade have the opportunity for 24-48 hrs to 'Reject Trade' when there is a pending trade. After the prescribed time limit if 1/3 of the league hit the 'Reject Trade' button then the trade is vetoed and does not go through. Some leagues give the power of veto to the Commissioner of the league, but most set the Trade Veto to a democratic vote. The league method is prone to alliances and collusion to prevent certain trades and allow others. Anyway I am explaining this cause Im not sure what you are saying chocula? Are you saying its okay to trade as long 1 team doesnt dominate the league? Who determines what team would dominate? Their records or their projected potential? I disagree that trade determinations should have anything to do with how good the team is playing or how dominating they are. So if I get this correctly, you are saying if my team stinks I have more leeway in trades than if my team is dominating? Please explain, seems like a biased set of rules? Edited October 1, 2008 by gman62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rew70 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If both parties agree to a trade, then the trade should go through. Opinions are subjective and while you may think Forte is a better player to have than Jacobs. I, on the other hand, do not. So who's to say who's right? No one, that's who. again, if both owners agree to a trade, than that should be that. Sounds like you need a new league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acheckeye Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Those trades are fair ehough. I think that your leage should require a majority vote for vetos, not just 4 people, or you're gonna get 4 morons voting against it because they're mad at one of the parties or mad cause their team sucks, etc. I think unless it's blatant collusion, like LT2 for Pierre Thomas or something, that trades should go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman62 Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 If both parties agree to a trade, then the trade should go through. Opinions are subjective and while you may think Forte is a better player to have than Jacobs. I, on the other hand, do not. So who's to say who's right? No one, that's who. again, if both owners agree to a trade, than that should be that. Sounds like you need a new league. I agree. just so you know my trade for Forte was not on ability alone as I would think Jacobs is a better runner. However, the NYG are deep in RBs and employ RBBOC which limits Jacobs touches and looks. Also NYG have a better passing game than the Bears. So my reasoning was that Forte would get more opportunities in Chicago going forward and Chicago's schedule going forward looks easier thus favoring Forte's fantasy value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocula Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Would you allow the best team in your league to acquire the #1 QB for 2 WR (he has on th ebench), and the #1 RB for a DEF and TE (on the bench)? Of course you would not allow that. But to the team he is trading with may need those 2 WR to make them a better team. The team he trades te def and TE to may really need those positions filled. To the teams he traded with, the trades are very fair as they are filling spots they really need. But to the rest of the league, it is unfair because the winning team now lands the #1 QB and #1 RB. I know that may be a bit farfetched, but it is an example of what I consider fair trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gman62 Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) Would you allow the best team in your league to acquire the #1 QB for 2 WR (he has on th ebench), and the #1 RB for a DEF and TE (on the bench)? Of course you would not allow that. But to the team he is trading with may need those 2 WR to make them a better team. The team he trades te def and TE to may really need those positions filled. To the teams he traded with, the trades are very fair as they are filling spots they really need. But to the rest of the league, it is unfair because the winning team now lands the #1 QB and #1 RB. I know that may be a bit farfetched, but it is an example of what I consider fair trades. As far as the trade you are referring I believe it would be unfair as it would be like trading D Brees for Ike Hilliard and V Jackson, but nobody is arguing that. The question is would you allow D Brees to be traded for 2 starting Wrs like R Wayne and S Holmes if the best team was getting Brees and he had deep WR strength? It's a fair trade but it will help the number 1 team in the league get stronger. I say as long as it's fair it doesnt matter whether you are undefeated or winless. The number 1 team either drafted better and/or worked the waiver wire/free agent pool better and/or dodged injuries better. For those reasons they should not be held to different standards when trading, trading rules should be equal across the board. If you want to help the lowly in the league you can establish waiver wire rules that prioritize based on W/L record or total points. What if the best player is involved with a trade with the worst player? Are you going to penalize the worst by vetoing the trade? It may be his best opportunity to improve. So I agree bench players for number 1s are not fair, for that matter 2 bench players for top 10 players probably wouldnt be fair. In fact most twofer trades are a sucker bet when neither player is equal to the player being traded. You know what I mean, 2 players with a season total of 50 pts each is not equal to 1 player with 100 pts, all other factors being equal. In fact 2 players with 75 pts each to a player with 100 pts may not be smart either but should not get vetoed. Edited October 1, 2008 by gman62 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.