SecondString
Footballguy
In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".
Opinions?
Opinions?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Trade Vetoed - Opinions? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SecondString
- Start date
Al O'Pecia
Footballguy
I agree that you must be imbalanced to join a league that allows owner vetoing.
Rookie_Whisperer
Footballguy
those people who vetoed should be required to offer a better trade then, one that they feel is more balanced.....
Who populates this league?
Is it just a random free public league? People you know? Private league for money/how were the managers assembled?
Vetoing that is stupid.
But if owners can veto other people's trades because they don't want other teams to improve, well, they just might do that
SecondString
Footballguy
msudaisy26
Footballguy
This is exactly right, this why you don't join leagues that have veto votes. Collusion is the only reason to veto
habsfan
Footballguy
Warhogs
Footballguy
Maybe all the owners should get together and come up with their best proposals for Julius Thomas and then they can all vote on which offer is the best and that is the final deal. Kind of sucks though to be the Julius Thomas owner and not have any say in who you acquire for him.
btemp
Footballguy
I'll say, in my main league (local) we have a veto - but have no problem with it because no one's a #####. We've had some major trades that swung balances of power significantly without issue.
I like having it because it prevents collusion such "I'll trade you A.J. Green and Arian Foster for scrubs if you trade me X and Y next year" or something like that. But then again, I know everyone in my league.
elshagon
Footballguy
We used to use veto's to decide trades. For this reason we no longer do it this way. Trades would be vetoed solely based on whether it was in the best interest of the teams not involved in the trade vs the other way around. Now it's decided by the commishes unless their team is involved, then it defers to another owner.
T with T
Footballguy
BS quit league immediately or if already paid quit after season.... No reason trade should be banned.. or send a scrub player to even out 2-2 if that's what they mean by imbalance??
bulger2holt
Footballguy
They will veto any deal they think that another team will benefit
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Quit not because of the dumb veto rule but because the league is full of petty whiners.
blake
Footballguy
Yup, any league NOT like this consistently surprises me. Especially one where it is a $100 entry fee. That is even more astounding.
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
Leagues with trades are dumb.
But to address your situation trades should not be "voted" on.
montana_grizzly_bears
Footballguy
I would just resend the trade, and then post a message that it will keep being put through until someone puts forth a better offer or the original is not vetoed.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
You should NEVER allow other owners to vote on a trade.
But if you do I will ALWAYS vote in my team's best interest.
So if a trade makes a team stronger that threatens my playoff chances, I'm voting against it.
But if you do I will ALWAYS vote in my team's best interest.
So if a trade makes a team stronger that threatens my playoff chances, I'm voting against it.
Bud
Footballguy
I agree, it's a joke. There is no reason for a trade like that to get shot down. Get out of that league ASAP
You are the reason my leagues are commish approval (have never not approved immediately) or no approval at all they just go immediately.
Chaka
Footballguy
So you prefer where just the commissioner gets to veto trades? Odd stance considering you freely admit that you are only capable of acting in a selfish manner. What makes you think a commissioner would be any different?
Or do you prefer no trades at all, or simply allowing all trades to go through?
Chaka
Footballguy
I can get behind the no approval required leagues but having a commish doesn't seem like a viable solution considering everyone in here seems to be entirely selfish. What makes you think a commish wouldn't be equally self interested, or just stupid enough to think a trade like this was imbalanced and veto it?
blake
Footballguy
I really like this strategy a lot.
Agreed. Neil's post is a valuable one in that I think that is how a lot of people think. Which is why I would never trust other owners to vote objectively on a trade. There should never be any vetoes, and the commissioner should only be looking at trades for possible collusion and that's it.
If you don't trust people then you just can't have trades because allowing trades with no recourse whatsoever means obvious collusion cannot be handled. And even then you'd have to do FAAB and all dropped players go on waivers or else you could get collusion where the party receiving the player simply needs #1 waiver priority before they do it.
You simply need a commish who will do the right thing (which is almost always to do nothing) and who isn't a complete moron. It's not difficult.
I've been commish of multiple leagues for years and mostly use commish approval for trades, or just wide open trades (since I can always use the magic wand to undo things), and haven't had any issues. I've also, long story short, corrected some things that came up mid season, half of the time which harmed me/my team, but I just did what needed to be done and it was all good. It's NOT hard, you just can't be a selfish #####
Last edited by a moderator:
This is one of those ideas that almost sounds good at first, but is terrible in reality. I think the standard response would be to immediately quit any league where the other teams decided who I was going to trade for. Its even worse if its a new "rule" that wasn't in place when I paid my money.
The better solution is for the other owners not to over-react to small "perceived" differences in value. Its amazing how cocky people get about Fantasy Football and act like they KNOW how every game is going to play out. Who's good and who sucks.
Ellington and Allen for Julius Thomas...
I swear I must be terrible at fantasy football, but not only do I think this is a fair trade... I'm not even sure which side the league thinks is getting fleeced. I'll go with the team giving Thomas, because it's almost always better to get the one in a two for one. That said, Ellington and Allen is a pretty big haul for a TE. Both have legit top 10 upside at their position.
Ahhh... the benevolent dictator.
Works for free and cares about the integrity of the league. It's definitely the best type of commissioner.
8 years running, multiple leagues now
It's NOT hard.
I haven't had to veto/disallow a trade yet. Haven't even considered it actually. Nor has anybody complained about trades I was involved in.
Even if you don't believe you are capable of doing that, please don't project that onto others.
Chaka
Footballguy
This thread did get me thinking about the whole process and next year I am going to push my league to adopt the FreeLove method of auto processing trades and only having a review if a complaint is made.
Seems like the best way to go. Commissioners can't be trusted.
ETA: Owners probably aren't much better.
ETAx2: Seriously, why do people participate in leagues with people they don't know and/or can't trust?
Seems like the best way to go. Commissioners can't be trusted.
ETA: Owners probably aren't much better.
ETAx2: Seriously, why do people participate in leagues with people they don't know and/or can't trust?
Last edited by a moderator:
Votes are far too slow. You have to give a couple days so everybody has a chance to see it/log in/possibly vote.
Chaka
Footballguy
Yeah, that is a legitimate issue/concern. But in my experience with 10-12 owners and only requiring a simple majority it is pretty easy to drum up the vote in a short time frame.
Then again I only play in one league where most of the owners have been together for almost 20 years so things just go smoother in that circumstance. We had one of the worst trades that I have ever seen pass through last week (super-flex QB, non-ppr, 12 team, 16 man roster, 9 starters) Dez Bryant and Shane Vereen for Jake Locker and Trent Richardson. It's an awful trade even in a super-flex (dude lost RGIII and panicked) but we all know for a fact that there was no collusion and our owners generally believe that people should be allowed to make bad decisions even if it makes one team much stronger.
I think most of the owners primary complaint was that they didn't get to the guy willing to trade Dez for a bag of wet paper first. I would hate to play in a league where a majority of owners or the high and mighty commish overturned such a deal just because they felt it upset "competitive balance". People need to be allowed to trade Herschel Walker for 12 players/draft pics, even if it is a terrible decision.
I mean waiting a couple days for the trade to go through takes too long.
I see no reason people can't/shouldn't be able to agree to a trade and immediately, or very shortly, have it actually happen. None of this...oh the trade was agreed to on Friday or Saturday so it won't be usable until after the next week of games crap
bonscott
Footballguy
Most of the leagues I'm in are commish veto power or auto process.
In my personal league I commish it's commish veto. However there are checks and balances to everything. If I veto a trade then either owner can lodge a protest for the veto and call for a league vote to overturn my veto. Then it goes up to a league vote and 7 of 9 owners not involved (so myself and the two owners don't count) can vote to overturn my veto and let the trade stand.
In 15 years I've only vetoed two trades, latest was 12 years ago. Both were of the #1 QB for kick returner type. Both times the owners admitted they were idiots and didn't protest. I believe they were just testing me to see how far they could push me and if I was serious in enforcing the rules. Since then, notta. I this happens early on and periodically in most leagues.. Being commish is like babysitting a bunch of 7 year olds who want the cookies they aren't supposed to have. LOL
In my personal league I commish it's commish veto. However there are checks and balances to everything. If I veto a trade then either owner can lodge a protest for the veto and call for a league vote to overturn my veto. Then it goes up to a league vote and 7 of 9 owners not involved (so myself and the two owners don't count) can vote to overturn my veto and let the trade stand.
In 15 years I've only vetoed two trades, latest was 12 years ago. Both were of the #1 QB for kick returner type. Both times the owners admitted they were idiots and didn't protest. I believe they were just testing me to see how far they could push me and if I was serious in enforcing the rules. Since then, notta. I this happens early on and periodically in most leagues.. Being commish is like babysitting a bunch of 7 year olds who want the cookies they aren't supposed to have. LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
