onbrake Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Chambers for R Williams would you let this trade stand.Should I veto this one sided trade or just let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 I think you should be stripped of your commish powers thats what I think. Williams for Chambers? Seriously? good lord And the laughable veto threads begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Taz is a little over the top in his response, but the point is right. Who are you to determine what is fair or not? I will assume you think the side getting Ricky is getting the better end. What if Chambers ends up blowing up? After all, he did end last year with 36 catches, 600 yards and 4 TDs in 9 games with the Chiefs, slightly over half the season. Extrapolated to 16 games, that is about 65 catches, 1065 yards and 7 TDs. Not too shabby. With Ricky, the question is whether his 2008 campaign is more indicative of what we can expect with a healthy Ronnie Brown on the squad, or if he will perform up to 2009 standards while back in a truer RBBC situation Unless it appears to be blatant cheating and loading up of one team, then trades should not be vetoed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Lebowski33 Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Veto? NO, C'mon Man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitehype Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 onbrake are you serious ????? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Definitely would NOT veto this trade. Williams has potential as he showed last year, but R Brown is back. On top of that KC is gonna be passing a lot as they're gonna be playing from behind every time they're out there on offense. NO WAY would I veto this trade. This is 2010, not 2009. Chambers has big potential, and so does Williams. It's a pretty fair trade IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onbrake Posted September 7, 2010 Author Share Posted September 7, 2010 I don't know if this changes anything but were in a 16 team league and you have to start 3 rbs and only 2 wr's so ricky went higher then in most drafts.Chambers went much later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUBJPO01 Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 I can't even figure out who's getting the better end. So, the answer would be no...let these guys swap their Sh**. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 I don't know if this changes anything but were in a 16 team league and you have to start 3 rbs and only 2 wr's so ricky went higher then in most drafts.Chambers went much later. It doesn;t change anything in terms of whether or not the trade should be considered for veto. However, it certainly makes Ricky the more valuable player at the time of drafting, IMO, but realistically, roster considerations need to be made to determine who is apparently being helped out more here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 (edited) Well, I'll beat this dead horse for awhile, and then I'll stop because I am weary. Does you league have a RULE that covers this situation? If not, why not? And if not, upon what does an owner base his/her decision? Vetoing a trade is one of the more serious and controversial things that happen in a league. But time and time again, the league has no rule or guidelines concerning trade vetoes. Nothing. The posts are almost comical. Is this trade fair? Unfair? Really unfair? Lopsided? Really lopsided? One-sided? Really one-sided? Should I shoot the commissioner for doing this? Should I shoot my fellow owners for doing that? Should I leave the league? Should we get rid of the commissioner? I realize that, to some extent, interpreting a rule is a subjective exercise, but it is completely arbitrary and capricious when there is nothing for an owner to interpret. Edited September 7, 2010 by Furd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onbrake Posted September 8, 2010 Author Share Posted September 8, 2010 I let the trade go but told the owner I'm watching him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I let the trade go but told the owner I'm watching him. I'd tell you to shove it where the sun don't shine if I was the owner. Let them run their own teams, the ONLY time a trade should ever be vetoed is if there is KNOWN collusion, otherwise you need to let the owners run their teams the way they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burton Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I'd tell you to shove it where the sun don't shine if I was the owner. Let them run their own teams, the ONLY time a trade should ever be vetoed is if there is KNOWN collusion, otherwise you need to let the owners run their teams the way they see fit. +1 I wouldn't want to be in a league where I'd be hesitant to make any moves at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 You post a veto question, and 100% of the responses tell you to let it go. That's bad enough and should be a pretty clear message. What really bothers me is that your threat to "be watching" future activity of this owner. What gives? Does your league give you the power to review trades differently by owner? Are you scrutinizing one owner more closely than another? Seriously, man... You may think your intentions are good for the league, but Taz may have been right on the money. You really shouldn't be commishing in this manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I let the trade go but told the owner I'm watching him. What the F are you talking about? If you don't know how to commish, please, relinquish it to a person who knows what the blooming hell they are doing. I don't think I've ever seen such a ludicrous call for veto in all my years of playing FB. It's almost like calling collusion on a punter trade! Just a Yellow Submarine moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 Your job as commish is not to ensure the league is competitively balanced. It's your job to try to ensure no collusion is going on. There's no way this trade involving 1 player on each side can be taken as any evidence of collusion. Your threat was about watching him was completely uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onbrake Posted September 8, 2010 Author Share Posted September 8, 2010 The only reason I'm watching him is someone Emailed me and said he is shopping ricky around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky11 Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 willing seller. willing buyer. trade approved. and so what if the guy is "shopping" him around. typically, that's what happens when people try to make trades: they make offers to a number of owners and take the best deal. (unless the commish feels the need to veto it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 The only reason I'm watching him is someone Emailed me and said he is shopping ricky around. And what is wrong with that? Sometimes you have to make multiple trades to get the player you want. Owner X wants Player B which I don't have so I have to trade Player Y to get Player B so I can then trade Player B for Player A..... Just maybe this commish thing just aint working for you. Give the commish to someone else and just play the game and enjoy. All this stressing over nothing is turn you grey, real quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onbrake Posted September 8, 2010 Author Share Posted September 8, 2010 He ripped the guy off now he's shopping the guy around one day later.I told him it better be a fair deal not like the last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 He ripped the guy off now he's shopping the guy around one day later.I told him it better be a fair deal not like the last one. Please detail exactly what is "ripping the guy off" . What, that Williams will get 7-10 carries per game and might score 5 TD's all season or was it that Chambers will get 70 receptions for 700 yards and 8 TD's? I just don't see it so please explain it to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 (edited) He ripped the guy off now he's shopping the guy around one day later.I told him it better be a fair deal not like the last one. How can you enforce something as arbitrary as "fair"? As long as both owners feel they're getting a fair deal, then what's the problem? Should Jerry Jones get a do-over because he was stupid and traded his 1st rounder for bust Roy Williams? No, because he thought it was a good trade that improved his team at the time... Being a commishioner means that you enforce the rules... Now where in your rules does it say that owners don't have the choice to trade whomever they want? ONLY if there's a legitimate concern that two owners are colluding should you even consider a veto... Value is in the eye of the beholder, not the commissioner. Edited September 8, 2010 by delusions of granduer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 He ripped the guy off now he's shopping the guy around one day later.I told him it better be a fair deal not like the last one. Ugh. Your not getting the point. The point being, is that unless there is clear cut collusion in a trade between 2 or more owners, then you let the deal pass, whether or not YOU believe it to be fair. There are numerous reasons an owner makes trades. The fact he is now shopping Rickey around should tell you that. It's called trading..one of the funnest parts of FF and you are ruining it by putting notice to your league members that you are "watching" them. Bogus bro and extremely unbecoming of a commish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onbrake Posted September 11, 2010 Author Share Posted September 11, 2010 We worked things out he will call me before he offers any more trades so I can OK them.Do you think I should put his trades to a league vote before I OK them.This was such a lopsided trade I had to do something so no one else tries this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino88 Posted September 11, 2010 Share Posted September 11, 2010 Why do you continue to post here when you are refusing to listen to anything anyone is saying? I don't understand how you've been a member here for 7 years and still don't have clue about fantasy football. If I were in your league I would put a vote to kicking you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts