Why would you veto it without at least giving the team you think is on the losing side a chance to explain?So if there is a pending trade and you decide to veto a trade, do you want to hear any reason as to why there is a trade?
Or do you not care what the reasoning is?
I left a friends league over this, and never looked back. I'm a man of principle, and this is a hobby meant to be fun. People that want to be bitter and veto trades are people that I can't trust for future trades, or as league mates as this is a point of no return and ruins the fun aspect IMO.Vetoing a trade is the equivalent to cockblocking a friend - Anyone who partakes in this kind of activity is loser.
If the trade is Hopkins and Freeman for Ameer Abdullah and Andre Johnson and 1 team is 1-6 and the other is 6-1, let the commish handle it, otherwise, mind your own business or make your own moves.
I think leaving a league because somebody would trade those two studs for those two chumps is a better reason than leaving because somebody would veto such a stupid deal. If a trade like that ever went down in one of my leagues, I wouldn't veto, I would quit. That is as obvious of a sign of collusion as you can get.I left a friends league over this, and never looked back. I'm a man of principle, and this is a hobby meant to be fun. People that want to be bitter and veto trades are people that I can't trust for future trades, or as league mates as this is a point of no return and ruins the fun aspect IMO.Vetoing a trade is the equivalent to cockblocking a friend - Anyone who partakes in this kind of activity is loser.
If the trade is Hopkins and Freeman for Ameer Abdullah and Andre Johnson and 1 team is 1-6 and the other is 6-1, let the commish handle it, otherwise, mind your own business or make your own moves.
I agree with the sentiment here. If I had my choice of these two options, I'd pick #2:I think leaving a league because somebody would trade those two studs for those two chumps is a better reason than leaving because somebody would veto such a stupid deal.If a trade like that ever went down in one of my leagues, I wouldn't veto, I would quit. That is as obvious of a sign of collusion as you can get.I left a friends league over this, and never looked back. I'm a man of principle, and this is a hobby meant to be fun. People that want to be bitter and veto trades are people that I can't trust for future trades, or as league mates as this is a point of no return and ruins the fun aspect IMO.Vetoing a trade is the equivalent to cockblocking a friend - Anyone who partakes in this kind of activity is loser.
If the trade is Hopkins and Freeman for Ameer Abdullah and Andre Johnson and 1 team is 1-6 and the other is 6-1, let the commish handle it, otherwise, mind your own business or make your own moves.
I've never seen kickers traded. Ever. I don't even think I've seen one lumped in on a package deal.I think the only reason to veto is collusion, and if you suspect collusion as a commissioner you must investigate and question the parties. There are two trades in one of my leagues this week that I find questionable. First Gost for Matt Bryant. I see no reasonable explanation for this trade. Not only has Gost near doubled him in points, but he's already had his bye. And last week a team traded the KC kicker for Dawson, then this week traded them back. If this were agreed upon before the first trade was made, I see this as collusion. If I were commissioner, I would quietly make inquiries about these to the involved parties. But since I'm not and it's just kickers, I'm staying quiet. Don't want to ruffle feathers when I make most of the trades in the league.
You think wrong. That is awful and you should never be allowed to commish. Everyone make sure never to get in a league with this fool.shady inc said:I've never veto'd a trade in dynasty. I've complained about some lopsided ones, but never veto'd.
In season-long leagues, I've veto'd trades just because I didn't want another team to get stronger and hurt my chances of winning. If the league allows for veto's, I think it's your right to use it however you want.
Some trades that are quite lopsided are still reasonable. If I have Brady and Rodgers and stink at virtually every other position, I'd take whatever helps me at the other positions. It beats losing games. And when owners see you in a bind like that, they'll inevitably lowball you because you NEED to trade , or they won't trade you anything because they want you to stay stuck in that bind. Accepting a lopsided trade to try and win games is sometimes your only option. I saw a trade like that get voted down in a league this year. Both trade partners were pissed. Didn't quit mid-season but probably won't be back and I can't blame them.FF Ninja said:I agree with the sentiment here. If I had my choice of these two options, I'd pick #2:parasaurolophus said:I think leaving a league because somebody would trade those two studs for those two chumps is a better reason than leaving because somebody would veto such a stupid deal.mquinnjr said:I left a friends league over this, and never looked back. I'm a man of principle, and this is a hobby meant to be fun. People that want to be bitter and veto trades are people that I can't trust for future trades, or as league mates as this is a point of no return and ruins the fun aspect IMO.fantasycurse42 said:Vetoing a trade is the equivalent to cockblocking a friend - Anyone who partakes in this kind of activity is loser.
If the trade is Hopkins and Freeman for Ameer Abdullah and Andre Johnson and 1 team is 1-6 and the other is 6-1, let the commish handle it, otherwise, mind your own business or make your own moves.
If a trade like that ever went down in one of my leagues, I wouldn't veto, I would quit. That is as obvious of a sign of collusion as you can get.
1) League where bad owners are getting trade r*p*d constantly and the main challenge of the league isn't drafting well, but being the first to trade r*** the suckers
2) League where trade r*** isn't permitted
But ideally, I'd be in a league where there aren't chumps who are getting trade r***d.
However, just to pick nits, I don't think Freeman is anything close to a stud, but more a product of circumstance (Atl #2 blocking line in the league, offense firing on all cylinders) as is Hopkins to some extent (on pace for 29% more targets than last year's most targeted player, 45% of his stats are from garbage time). I think in a few years we might laugh at the idea of calling Abdullah a chump and Freeman a stud. But I'm assuming the hypothetical trade was for redraft.
I'm not the commish of any leagues that allow veto's. Please explain how I "think wrong".You think wrong. That is awful and you should never be allowed to commish. Everyone make sure never to get in a league with this fool.shady inc said:I've never veto'd a trade in dynasty. I've complained about some lopsided ones, but never veto'd.
In season-long leagues, I've veto'd trades just because I didn't want another team to get stronger and hurt my chances of winning. If the league allows for veto's, I think it's your right to use it however you want.
No no no Thats were you explain promptly:I have vetoed one trade in 20 years
Randy Moss for Robert Holcombe
Rock on Socrates! This dude is good commish material.I used to be of the opinion that absent collusion, a trade should stand. Let each owner manage their team as they please. I have seen, however, dynasty franchises decimated by poor trades to the point where the existing owner no longer wished to play and it became difficult to find a replacement owner.
I now believe that in addition to collusion, in dynasty leagues, a trade should be vetoable if it upsets the competitive balance of the league or reasonably leaves a franchise uncompetitive and undesirable. Of course, any trade may be defensible, and a trade challenge should be considered carefully first and only vetoed in rare circumstances.
In addition to asking why they think it improves their team, I would also ask why they think the trade was the best they can do for the player. Because the truth is, YOU might be the one who is wrong on what the actual market value of the player is. It could be you think "Someone" should have been willing to give him better, but no one actually would.habsfan said:Exactly once in 8 years I contacted one of the parties involved in a pending trade and asked them to explain to me how they saw the trade improving their team. I don't think you have to like the reason but you need to be satisfied there is one.
That's on my list now for next year.Not meaning to sound trite, but the best advice is... don't play in leagues where trades are vetoed for anything but collusion.
It's right up there on my list with "don't play in leagues with positional roster limits".
How do you determine this?I used to be of the opinion that absent collusion, a trade should stand. Let each owner manage their team as they please. I have seen, however, dynasty franchises decimated by poor trades to the point where the existing owner no longer wished to play and it became difficult to find a replacement owner.
I now believe that in addition to collusion, in dynasty leagues, a trade should be vetoable if it upsets the competitive balance of the league or reasonably leaves a franchise uncompetitive and undesirable. Of course, any trade may be defensible, and a trade challenge should be considered carefully first and only vetoed in rare circumstances.
Complete bull####. That's a pretty reasonable trade...looks like you need to find another league next year.Back I am again.
Made this topic up because there was a trade that was accepted and got veto'ed (obviously it involved me). In our keeper ppr league i was offered this and I accepted:
I gave: Julio Jones & Joseph Randle (I'm 4-2)
He gives: Todd Gurley & Greg Olsen (he's 5-1)
I honestly think this is a good trade for both parties but obviously the rest of the league (or 4 other league mates) don't feel the same. I clearly see Gurley as a top 5 back from here on out and I would say a top 5-8 pick next couple of years.
Some of them already told me that they voted for veto because they want to trade for Julio, some said that they will be afraid that the other team will have a superstar team.
My wr's are: Cobb, Antonio Brown, Hurns, Julio, etc - we start 3 wr/te
My rb's are: Joseph Randle, Jonathon Stewart, Karlos Williams, Abdullah, Charles Sims, Christine Micheal
But oh well I guess it is what it is.
Sorry just my rant of the day.
Carry on folks...
You should never veto a trade.hwjchim said:So if there is a pending trade and you decide to veto a trade, do you want to hear any reason as to why there is a trade?
Or do you not care what the reasoning is?
Fair question, to which there is no simple answer. None of us has a crystal ball to predict the future, and player valuation, especially in dynasty leagues, is all over the place. The question is, would a reasonable owner have made that trade? If a trade puts so significantly different a value on a player that it challenges reason, than it is worth inquiring with the owner how he arrived at that value. We all have a general sense what a player's value is, and while that varies from owner to owner, a trade should at least be justifiable. If I believe Roy Helu is going to take the Oakland job, so I trade for him, that is managing my team, but if I trade away two future number ones to acquire Helu, I think we can all agree I am mismanaging my team such that I will likely lose interest soon, and you will be left to find a new owner to rebuild a team without even the benefit of draft picks.How do you determine this?I used to be of the opinion that absent collusion, a trade should stand. Let each owner manage their team as they please. I have seen, however, dynasty franchises decimated by poor trades to the point where the existing owner no longer wished to play and it became difficult to find a replacement owner.
I now believe that in addition to collusion, in dynasty leagues, a trade should be vetoable if it upsets the competitive balance of the league or reasonably leaves a franchise uncompetitive and undesirable. Of course, any trade may be defensible, and a trade challenge should be considered carefully first and only vetoed in rare circumstances.
In one league I am in , earlier this year (before the season started) two owners had a trade I thought was interesting.FF Ninja said:I've never seen kickers traded. Ever. I don't even think I've seen one lumped in on a package deal.Shrugs said:I think the only reason to veto is collusion, and if you suspect collusion as a commissioner you must investigate and question the parties. There are two trades in one of my leagues this week that I find questionable. First Gost for Matt Bryant. I see no reasonable explanation for this trade. Not only has Gost near doubled him in points, but he's already had his bye. And last week a team traded the KC kicker for Dawson, then this week traded them back. If this were agreed upon before the first trade was made, I see this as collusion. If I were commissioner, I would quietly make inquiries about these to the involved parties. But since I'm not and it's just kickers, I'm staying quiet. Don't want to ruffle feathers when I make most of the trades in the league.
Shoot, not only have I traded kickers, I've traded punters before.FF Ninja said:I've never seen kickers traded. Ever. I don't even think I've seen one lumped in on a package deal.Shrugs said:I think the only reason to veto is collusion, and if you suspect collusion as a commissioner you must investigate and question the parties. There are two trades in one of my leagues this week that I find questionable. First Gost for Matt Bryant. I see no reasonable explanation for this trade. Not only has Gost near doubled him in points, but he's already had his bye. And last week a team traded the KC kicker for Dawson, then this week traded them back. If this were agreed upon before the first trade was made, I see this as collusion. If I were commissioner, I would quietly make inquiries about these to the involved parties. But since I'm not and it's just kickers, I'm staying quiet. Don't want to ruffle feathers when I make most of the trades in the league.
Good post, I obviously snipped a bit.I believe trades should only be vetoed in the case of collusion. I do think that if an owner(s) makes trades that are seen as being considerably lopsided--that maybe that should be taken into account when it comes to inviting them to play in the league in following years.
-but I find it ridiculous that there are still people that vote to veto deals solely because they don't like them or wouldn't make the deal themselves.
Exactly. It is subjective to each owner. I would rather play in a no-trade league than a veto-allowed league.How do you determine this?I used to be of the opinion that absent collusion, a trade should stand. Let each owner manage their team as they please. I have seen, however, dynasty franchises decimated by poor trades to the point where the existing owner no longer wished to play and it became difficult to find a replacement owner.
I now believe that in addition to collusion, in dynasty leagues, a trade should be vetoable if it upsets the competitive balance of the league or reasonably leaves a franchise uncompetitive and undesirable. Of course, any trade may be defensible, and a trade challenge should be considered carefully first and only vetoed in rare circumstances.
Punters?? Too gimmicky for me. It's kind of like why I don't like IDP... the best fantasy CBs are the bad real life CBs because they get thrown on a lot and make tackles. I'm assuming the punters are based on yardage, so the best punters are on crap offenses? Or is it based on length of punt so they essentially get penalized when punting from midfield?Shoot, not only have I traded kickers, I've traded punters before.FF Ninja said:I've never seen kickers traded. Ever. I don't even think I've seen one lumped in on a package deal.Shrugs said:I think the only reason to veto is collusion, and if you suspect collusion as a commissioner you must investigate and question the parties. There are two trades in one of my leagues this week that I find questionable. First Gost for Matt Bryant. I see no reasonable explanation for this trade. Not only has Gost near doubled him in points, but he's already had his bye. And last week a team traded the KC kicker for Dawson, then this week traded them back. If this were agreed upon before the first trade was made, I see this as collusion. If I were commissioner, I would quietly make inquiries about these to the involved parties. But since I'm not and it's just kickers, I'm staying quiet. Don't want to ruffle feathers when I make most of the trades in the league.
Gave Brady and Lynch this last offseason for Latavius Murray, Cooks and Shane Lechler. Trade mostly driven by contract and salary cap stuff.
Really? Then make a offer to the new Lacy owner or shut up. Seriously, just stay out of people's trades and worry about your own team.Hillman for Lacy just went down in my league today. Lacy not off to a great start. Similar to last season.
It's just annoying that if the Lacy owner put out any other feelers he could have gotten more for Lacy. Oh well.
This will likely sound hypocritical but I think that's more involved than I want to get when I'm trying to be an arm's length arbiter. To even ask the question is to confirm that I don't think this trade is the best they can do. Now I'm effectively offering advise (more or less) rather than just trying to be a "regulatory body". Maybe they could do better and maybe they couldn't but this trade is in front of me and those aren't.In addition to asking why they think it improves their team, I would also ask why they think the trade was the best they can do for the player. Because the truth is, YOU might be the one who is wrong on what the actual market value of the player is. It could be you think "Someone" should have been willing to give him better, but no one actually would.habsfan said:Exactly once in 8 years I contacted one of the parties involved in a pending trade and asked them to explain to me how they saw the trade improving their team. I don't think you have to like the reason but you need to be satisfied there is one.
And I agree you judge the response by, is this something a reasonable person could believe?. Not do you think he's right, not do you think a majority of people agree, but do you think it's reasonable someone could think that way,
It seems like he did stay out of it and was just lamenting that the Lacy owner didn't offer him around.Really? Then make a offer to the new Lacy owner or shut up. Seriously, just stay out of people's trades and worry about your own team.Hillman for Lacy just went down in my league today. Lacy not off to a great start. Similar to last season.
It's just annoying that if the Lacy owner put out any other feelers he could have gotten more for Lacy. Oh well.
What are you blathering about? He didn't say he vetoed it. He's just saying it was dumb that the Lacy owner didn't shop him around and I agree. Those are the most annoying circumstances, where you see someone sell off a decent player for almost nothing after not even shopping them around. I mean, we all know Lacy was only going to net you 50 cents on the dollar, but you hate to see someone get 10 cents just because they are too lazy/dumb to ask around or even just make a post on the league board that he's on the trading block.Really? Then make a offer to the new Lacy owner or shut up. Seriously, just stay out of people's trades and worry about your own team.Hillman for Lacy just went down in my league today. Lacy not off to a great start. Similar to last season.
It's just annoying that if the Lacy owner put out any other feelers he could have gotten more for Lacy. Oh well.
Maybe he did and maybe the Lacy owner didn't see anything on Daywalker's roster that he was willing to trade for.What are you blathering about? He didn't say he vetoed it. He's just saying it was dumb that the Lacy owner didn't shop him around and I agree. Those are the most annoying circumstances, where you see someone sell off a decent player for almost nothing after not even shopping them around. I mean, we all know Lacy was only going to net you 50 cents on the dollar, but you hate to see someone get 10 cents just because they are too lazy/dumb to ask around or even just make a post on the league board that he's on the trading block.Really? Then make a offer to the new Lacy owner or shut up. Seriously, just stay out of people's trades and worry about your own team.Hillman for Lacy just went down in my league today. Lacy not off to a great start. Similar to last season.
It's just annoying that if the Lacy owner put out any other feelers he could have gotten more for Lacy. Oh well.
have never vetoed a trade.hwjchim said:So if there is a pending trade and you decide to veto a trade, do you want to hear any reason as to why there is a trade?
Or do you not care what the reasoning is?
sour grapes is not a valid reason to veto a trade.Hillman for Lacy just went down in my league today. Lacy not off to a great start. Similar to last season.
It's just annoying that if the Lacy owner put out any other feelers he could have gotten more for Lacy. Oh well.