boozer156 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) In my league the following trade was vetoed.... Tell me what you think Player 1 trades: Steven Jackson and Dustin Keller to Player 2 for: Anquin Bolden, Ryan Torain and Visante Shaincoe What do you think ? The Trade was proposed by player 1. In my option it's a serious downgrade for player 1 at both RB and TE. Picking up Bolden is a nice addition but he's really only had 1 good game this year. The Ravens are a running team too. Plus if this trade had gone through, player 2 now has Ray Rice, Mauriece Jone Drew and Steven Jackson on his roster. The veto has caused a ton of controversy in our league. Player 2 basicially flipped out when it got vetoed. Edited October 29, 2010 by boozer156 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlerB Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Seems OK to me. Looks like Player 1 wants a WR upgrade and gets a decent RB in exchange for upgrading Player 2 at RB. I think the case can be made for either TE. But I don't know all the details. Is someone afraid one team is stocking up to steamroll the rest of the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 When will people learn that it's not their place to meddle in other people's trades. No vetoes unless there is clear-cut collusion. Leaguemates should not be the value police. No, the trade doesn't look lopsided at all; But just like any trade, the players involved aren't nearly as important as whether it improves your team. If it is clear, or both owners can make the case that they're improving their teams with this trade, then there's no reason for a veto. Unless you have such good hindsight to know where guys will end up in the end-of-year ranmings, then who are your leaguemates to say that one side of the trade is going to outperform the other. If you know that for certain, then you should quit Fantasy Football and go to Vegas, because you can predict the future. Sorry, but I get so sick of hearing of leagues where people feel it is their duty to say what trades should be allowed to go through... Do you let the rest of the league set your lineup too, if it's not acceptable to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 The trade is fine. Any league that votes on trades is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BizzoNV Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 I think it is a fair trade...you gotta keep in mind that alot of trades are based on what the players will do in future games. I think you can make cases for both sides, which would mean it is fair. Plus, player one now has additional depth, if it is a deep league the waiver wire could be limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Looks like a good trade to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoats Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 fair to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles28 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 It's fine. Sjax is injury prone, while Torain is on the up and up. I know some people who would take Torain in a straight up trade dealing Sjax. In my opinion the guy getting Torain is getting the better end of the deal. But that's the problem with voting on any trade- you can always say one side or another is more fair depending on your own view of said player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbran23 Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 Trade should have been allowed to go through. My league has had problems with trades being vetoed in the past and there will be a change in the way trades are decided fair next year or I wont be playing. League voting leads to WAAAY too many problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 Plus if this trade had gone through, player 2 now has Ray Rice, Mauriece Jone Drew and Steven Jackson on his roster. This right here is why you're an idiot for vetoing this trade. Or any other unless obvious collusion is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 We require an 80% vote to veto a trade. Since we never have 80% of the league to actually vote on a trade, they never get vetoed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 You can argue either side of this trade without question. If I was player 2, I'd be irate. I'd probably quit a league that would veto trades that are this close. Seriously. Boldin isn't just some scrub throw in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FARM_FROM_A_GURU Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 http://www.fantasysp.com/nfl_trade_analyzer/ Could use this analyzer. Its been pretty well for me on my trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slambo Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 (edited) Trades should not be vetoed. weak Edited October 30, 2010 by slambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injendsm Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 When will people learn that it's not their place to meddle in other people's trades. Never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArthurRiot Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 Obviously it depends on who the other team's had, what holes needed filling and where they are in league ranking, but with just the info I see there's no reason to veto the trade short of being douchenozzles. The league creator should be the only one with veto power, IMO, and requests for vetoing should be allowed. The only reason for that veto power is to prevent a firesale or collusion. That looks like a bulldiaper dirt veto to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenzal rhomb Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 why does a trade have to be fair?? If its not collussion, let it go. 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.