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.
When you veto a trade (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hwjchim
- Start date
Pots
Footballguy
You'll get a dozen people here saying 'Blah blah never veto trades unless there's clear collusion, let bad teams make good teams better, the solution is to kick the bad teams or try to rip them off before the other guy.' So keeping that in mind, yes I am always curious to see someone's reasoning in making a trade to perhaps let me see their decision in a different way than I currently do.
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeSteeler
Footballguy
Yes
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Why would you veto it without at least giving the team you think is on the losing side a chance to explain?
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
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 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.
mquinnjr
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shutout
Footballguy
I've played this game long enough to know that "you never know" how a trade is going to be so when I see commishes or a bunch of owners trying to act like they know how to run MY team (my team that I paid for) best, I know it's time to leave.
Eight weeks ago had somebody offered Freeman for Lacy straight up and someone wanted me to step in an veto it, I would feel like an idiot right now.
YOU NEVER KNOW.
Eight weeks ago had somebody offered Freeman for Lacy straight up and someone wanted me to step in an veto it, I would feel like an idiot right now.
YOU NEVER KNOW.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
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 agree with the sentiment here. If I had my choice of these two options, I'd pick #2:
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 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.
I've never seen kickers traded. Ever. I don't even think I've seen one lumped in on a package deal.
shady inc
Footballguy
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.
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.
Van Dyman
Footballguy
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:
ETA: Leagues that vote to approve/block trades kinda suck anyway. So stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
shady inc
Footballguy
I'm not the commish of any leagues that allow veto's. Please explain how I "think wrong".
socrates
Footballguy
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.
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.
Dismattle
Footballguy
No no no Thats were you explain promptly:
The League has decided to move in a different direction, were gonna go 10-man, effective immediately..
OP Whats the trade? I can understand your position that theres no explaining the situation..
But some of us may actually learn something..
p.s. Personally to date, I was wrong on what I thought was the worst lopsided trade in yrs.
It happened to involve a NE player (which should probably explain alot)
GregR
Footballguy
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:
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,
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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...
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Pipes
Footballguy
Complete bull####. That's a pretty reasonable trade...looks like you need to find another league next year.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
You should never veto a trade.hwjchim said:
socrates
Footballguy
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.
As I say, it should be a rare instance that a trade is vetoed absent collusion or player dumping, but I have seen those instances gone unchecked nearly ruin a league.
TZMarkie
Footballguy
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:
Both are relatively "smart" owners.
One guy had no RB depth after the draft (or apparently not enough) but he had Gostkowski.
The trade went through 3 days later, Gostkowski for Darren Sproles and I never even thought about vetoing it.
Realize this is a very close to standard scoring league, with no return points, NADA.
The more I look back on it, the more I think the guy getting Gostkowski got the better end.
In a 10 team standard league, I don't see many times when you are going to try and roll out Sproles.....unless there has been an unbelievable amount of injuries.
I realize this is an extreme example, using arguably the top kicker, and arguably the worst RB that is a household name.
Note: I am not judging Sproles ability at all, more so his situation.
He is just never going to be a factor there in Philly unless injury occurs. (which is a real possibility...... considering Mathews and Murray's histories)
If it makes a difference, the owner that traded for Sproles ultimately dropped him after week 5.
I thought it was interesting, considering like you Ninja....I had never seen a kicker in a trade, or at least I can't remember it.
TZM
Boondocksaints
Footballguy
I'd veto is there was clear collusion or if it's ridiculously lopsided (which also hints at collusion). Like a Gurley for Abdullah.
Otherwise, let everybody be and you do you.
Hate cockblockers.
Otherwise, let everybody be and you do you.
Hate cockblockers.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
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.
Not than anybody cares--but I just got out of a league for this very reason. In my situation--my team had struggling skill players--antonio brown, lamar miller, dez, cooks, and my te situation was bleak--but I did have tom brady and eli manning. Another team was stacked at TE and WR--but had alex smith as his qb. Keep in mind--this is a 6pt passing td league--with qb bonuses---so qb's go early big time in our drafts as its also non ppr.
I made a deal where I give: brady, James jones
I get : Odell, Greg olsen
The league has it where if there are 4 objections to the trade---that the trade go to the commish for final approval or veto. The trade got 3 objections within 12 hours--so I posted on the leagues message board--asking those of which who objected to the trade--to explain why they objected as it was relevant information to know. The commish of the league actually disabled my ability to post messages on the board stating that other owners didn't need to feel "compelled" to explain their rationale and that me even asking them to post their rationale was out of line. One of the objectors did respond to my post saying that they voted to object the trade because he views all trades as "side deals"--which of course makes zero sense in a league that allows trades. The commish ended up vetoing the trade even though my trade partner and I both explained how it is beneficial to both of our teams--and didn't care to know why the other three people objected. Needless to say--I got my money back and left the league the moment the commish disabled my ability to post messages on the message board as that was a clear abuse of power---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.
Not than anybody cares--but I just got out of a league for this very reason. In my situation--my team had struggling skill players--antonio brown, lamar miller, dez, cooks, and my te situation was bleak--but I did have tom brady and eli manning. Another team was stacked at TE and WR--but had alex smith as his qb. Keep in mind--this is a 6pt passing td league--with qb bonuses---so qb's go early big time in our drafts as its also non ppr.
I made a deal where I give: brady, James jones
I get : Odell, Greg olsen
The league has it where if there are 4 objections to the trade---that the trade go to the commish for final approval or veto. The trade got 3 objections within 12 hours--so I posted on the leagues message board--asking those of which who objected to the trade--to explain why they objected as it was relevant information to know. The commish of the league actually disabled my ability to post messages on the board stating that other owners didn't need to feel "compelled" to explain their rationale and that me even asking them to post their rationale was out of line. One of the objectors did respond to my post saying that they voted to object the trade because he views all trades as "side deals"--which of course makes zero sense in a league that allows trades. The commish ended up vetoing the trade even though my trade partner and I both explained how it is beneficial to both of our teams--and didn't care to know why the other three people objected. Needless to say--I got my money back and left the league the moment the commish disabled my ability to post messages on the message board as that was a clear abuse of power---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.
TZMarkie
Footballguy
Good post, I obviously snipped a bit.
Its one thing we all need to keep in mind.
This community here, (at least in a general sense) is more about strategy and player news, and strategic concepts, including on how to value trades.
There are many threads here in which people argue both sides, some with valid points, on if its a "good idea" to actually veto trades.
(some people here, are generally more intelligent than the public, when it comes to valuing trades and FF in general)
The point is, vetoing trades is a tricky subject. Part of the problem is that people often think with their hearts and minds, when they should only be thinking with their minds.
Often peoples judgements when valuing players, (including when it comes to trades) is skewed by how they personally feel on a player or his specific scenario or value, not even taking into consideration other team's needs.
People should remember that its not "vacuum value" that contributes as to whether or not its a good trade, but often scenario as well, and thats a HUGE factor in most trades.
Just last week during a poker game, I had someone try and tell me how my trade 2 weeks ago was "robbery" when I got Lamar Miller for Isaiah Crowell.
But when I put him on the spot and asked him what he truly thought of each player at the time, he eventually came around.......
I knew one owner would have gladly killed to have the 8-10 points weekly from Crowell in our leagues, whereas she was not happy with Lamar Miller and his terrible value at the time.
To really set that straight, I asked him "if it was such a bad trade for her, what do you see as Lamar Miller's value currently?".
His answer was " he doesn't have much value currently, since the team is in disarray and it doesn't appear to be improving any time soon/ hes not getting many carries and worse that he is not doing much with them".
So of course I asked him, "Well if he doesn't have much value currently, then why was it robbery as you say when I offered Crowell, who is at least getting better points temporarily, and we don't have a clue as to Miller's future value nor team stability yet?".
(bear with me, I knew exactly where he was going)
He then said "I see your point, I was just figuring since Lamar Miller was the more talented back, that it was an unfair trade". (He thought Miller was the more talented back and was reacting directly according to those feelings)
Of course he had backed himself into my point exactly, I just had to lead him to it.
The very sad thing is, many people are outright stubborn and unwilling to even admit they are wrong on a trade, or a player's value. Often, it doesn't matter, all they see is that players "one huge year", and their current performance, age and a multitude of other factors never even cross their minds.
I used to be more of this mindset. I tended to want to veto trades that I thought were unfair, but now I realize more that one owner may be banking on a resurgence, or a "late season blow up" in a sense on a potentially traded player or acquisition.
On a slightly related note, 2 days ago one 1-5 owner flat out dropped LeSean McCoy in one league I am in.
As commissioner, I got a call from a "concerned" owner. His thoughts were that "He is f$%^&*g up the league, its not fair, I don't have waiver priority, its BS, the guy isn't welcome in our league anymore etc. etc"
So then I asked him if he knew McCoy's numbers this year, and he said "Umm no why?" LOL.
This "concerned" owner also had no idea how well Karlos Williams was doing, and that he looks in many ways to be the back to own there.
And of course he also had no clue that McCoy got a truckload of carries last year, and was a big under performer.
Even after he learned all this new information, his last comment was "Well you know anyone in their right mind wouldn't drop McCoy, regardless of what you say".
Some people just don't get it.
Its a closely related subject.
How can we, and who are we to judge how someone runs their team, and how and why they trade too, in what we perceive to be unfavorable scenarios???
It's a fine line.
Over time I have learned that its best to not veto most any trade, unless its almost blatant and obvious collusion, and even then it must be combed over carefully.
TZM
Last edited by a moderator:
Chapelboy
Footballguy
Exactly. It is subjective to each owner. I would rather play in a no-trade league than a veto-allowed league.
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?
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
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.
habsfan
Footballguy
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It seems like he did stay out of it and was just lamenting that the Lacy owner didn't offer him around.
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.
Chaka
Footballguy
Maybe he did and maybe the Lacy owner didn't see anything on Daywalker's roster that he was willing to trade for.
bagger
Footballguy
sour grapes is not a valid reason to veto a trade.
