When you veto a trade (1 Viewer)

[habsfan]

The only reason to void a trade is collusion. Everyone values players differently, you also are punishing the team that put in the work to make the trade. Every time I have seen some one complain about a trade in a league I am in they always start by saying I would have paid way more than that. These are usually the least active teams too. Why punish the person that is managing his team properly and talking with other owners constantly so they have an idea where the other owner stands on his value of his players.

Collusion and gross inequity. Player value is not purely subjective. There is also an objective component. A healthy Le'Veon Bell for Stephen Gostkowski cannot be allowed whether or not there is collusion.

I might agree with you (I probably do) but has trade like that ever happened without anyone, and everyone, involved in the league thinking that it wasn't collusion? I mean when it gets that ridiculous does it even matter?

I intentionally used an extreme example to illustrate a point, but a trade wouldn't have to be quite that ridiculous to qualify for reversal on grounds of gross inequity. I'm just pointing out that collusion is not necessarily the only reason for a trade to be reversed. Even if I thought the trade was a product of collusion I would rather reverse it on the grounds of inequity than call the owners cheaters. I've found that a surprising number of supposed adults do not fully understand the concept of collusion.

And I will always contend that the Cowboys getting 3 firsts, 3 seconds a third and a sixth along with 5 players for Herschel Walker (two 3rds, a 5th and a 10th), the Redskins getting 8 draft picks for Ricky Williams and the Rams getting three first round picks (plus a second) for RGIII were grossly inequitable at the time and in retrospect but all were allowed to happen.

Hell how many times have we seen salary dumps in professional sports leagues? People still go nuts over the Lakers acquisition of Pao Gasol (even though I contend that the Grizzlies got the better Gasol, or at least the equivalent, out of the deal).

When trying to align real football with fantasy football as much as possible, the analogy breaks down when you get to GMs and ownership. The average fantasy owner/GM is literally not as invested and there is no equivalent (to scale) consequence for gross negligence. Fantasy GMs are not performing to keep their job as real football executives/coaches/scouts are.

I guess if your league has an entry fee and feels that fee entitles the "entrant" to do whatever they like, then the analogy does hold up. In my main league, someone who isn't very competent or engaged can do a hell of a lot of damage to the league in a very short period of time - damage that could take quite some time to repair.

 

[msudaisy26]

The only reason to void a trade is collusion. Everyone values players differently, you also are punishing the team that put in the work to make the trade. Every time I have seen some one complain about a trade in a league I am in they always start by saying I would have paid way more than that. These are usually the least active teams too. Why punish the person that is managing his team properly and talking with other owners constantly so they have an idea where the other owner stands on his value of his players.

Collusion and gross inequity. Player value is not purely subjective. There is also an objective component. A healthy Le'Veon Bell for Stephen Gostkowski cannot be allowed whether or not there is collusion.

Completely disagree, you aren't doing that owner any favors by protecting him. If someone wants to trade Bell for Danny Woodhead that is their business. They paid their money to run their team, who are you to tell them otherwise.

 

[Chaka]

The only reason to void a trade is collusion. Everyone values players differently, you also are punishing the team that put in the work to make the trade. Every time I have seen some one complain about a trade in a league I am in they always start by saying I would have paid way more than that. These are usually the least active teams too. Why punish the person that is managing his team properly and talking with other owners constantly so they have an idea where the other owner stands on his value of his players.

Collusion and gross inequity. Player value is not purely subjective. There is also an objective component. A healthy Le'Veon Bell for Stephen Gostkowski cannot be allowed whether or not there is collusion.

I might agree with you (I probably do) but has trade like that ever happened without anyone, and everyone, involved in the league thinking that it wasn't collusion? I mean when it gets that ridiculous does it even matter?

I intentionally used an extreme example to illustrate a point, but a trade wouldn't have to be quite that ridiculous to qualify for reversal on grounds of gross inequity. I'm just pointing out that collusion is not necessarily the only reason for a trade to be reversed. Even if I thought the trade was a product of collusion I would rather reverse it on the grounds of inequity than call the owners cheaters. I've found that a surprising number of supposed adults do not fully understand the concept of collusion.

And I will always contend that the Cowboys getting 3 firsts, 3 seconds a third and a sixth along with 5 players for Herschel Walker (two 3rds, a 5th and a 10th), the Redskins getting 8 draft picks for Ricky Williams and the Rams getting three first round picks (plus a second) for RGIII were grossly inequitable at the time and in retrospect but all were allowed to happen.

Hell how many times have we seen salary dumps in professional sports leagues? People still go nuts over the Lakers acquisition of Pao Gasol (even though I contend that the Grizzlies got the better Gasol, or at least the equivalent, out of the deal).

When trying to align real football with fantasy football as much as possible, the analogy breaks down when you get to GMs and ownership. The average fantasy owner/GM is literally not as invested and there is no equivalent (to scale) consequence for gross negligence. Fantasy GMs are not performing to keep their job as real football executives/coaches/scouts are.

I guess if your league has an entry fee and feels that fee entitles the "entrant" to do whatever they like, then the analogy does hold up. In my main league, someone who isn't very competent or engaged can do a hell of a lot of damage to the league in a very short period of time - damage that could take quite some time to repair.

Someone compared FF to a constitutional republic and you think my analogy is out of whack?