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.
A trade was vetoed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter kerpow
- Start date
kerpow
Footballguy
You are correct, sir. Is it relevant though?
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
yes. yahoo leagues are typically considered a joke.as such, the happenstances that accompany these types of leagues are fitting.
Blue-Kun
Footballguy
Yes, because it tends to speak volumes about the quality / mindset of your competition. In this case, why they all happen to be snooker loopy.
tomarken
Footballguy
I think this is appropriate:
NJ
Footballguy
Obviously there are people that veto trades just because they don't want to see two other teams in the league get stronger. It may be win/win for the two parties, but its lose/lose for everyone else. This is why I hate leagues that put EVERY trade up for a vote. IMO, trades should only be vetoed if there is either blatant collusion, or if one owner is such a complete idiot, that the trade would upset the competitive balance of the league. Trades should only be put to a vote if someone protests the trade and can give a valid reason for the protest. If you put every trade up to a vote, they will rarely pass because you will always have people that either vote against the trade because they think it makes Team A too strong, or they think Team B is getting a slightly better deal or whatever their ######ed logic is.
kerpow
Footballguy
That's exactly my thoughts.
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
Pi**ed that it happend or pi**ed that you didn't get in on it? Lotta flawed logic in here.
Black
Footballguy
I disagree about two things...1. What is the big deal with Yahoo leagues? You can have perfectly competitive leagues on a free service. Not sure why all the flexing about custom and paid services. The only disadvantage I can see is uncontrolled Waiver pickups.2. Calvin might be more valuable in some leagues, but check the stats and check the scoring system. Also depends on each team's needs. If the guy lost Brady, I am sure he's ready to trade Calvin to get the top QB in the league thru 4 games.Calvin has 276 yards and 2 TDs through 4 games. He barely cracks the top 15 WRs, and is behind Johnny Lee Higgins, if you factor in return yards. Favre has 935 yards passing, 12 TDs, 4 INT, leading the league and smoking guys like Romo, McNabb and Peyton even in 4pts/pass TD leagues. All that being said, if you CHOOSE the setting to allow a league vote (AVAILABLE in most leagues, not just "pansy" leagues like Yahoo), then teams might react like the poster here that says "I'm not letting that trade go because it makes other teams better." That's sad, b/c all trades should try to make both teams better, and it should have nothing to do with the rest of the league. So, either have an 'unbiased' commish determine the veto (oooh, a feature also allowed in crappy Yahoo leagues!) or tell your league to not be jerks and only veto 'unfair' trades, b/c what goes around comes around, and soon noone will be trading. At that point, you might as well draft and lock your rosters.In my 'pathetic' Yahoo league, I have the same managers for 4 years now, we do keepers, and I set trades to League Vote because I haven't had any problems with folks complaining about trades.
GoldenBear
Footballguy
Calvin had a bye week, so your stats are misleading...I agree with what you said in principle, but you shouldn't use misleading stats to prove your point
trogg78
Footballguy
Than why bother voting on trades? Seems like a big waste of time.
Road Warriors
Footballguy
Couple of points... Yahoo private leagues are just fine. You get your collection of owners together and get a decent service for free. However, if you've ever joined a Yahoo Public league, you'd understand the attitudes about yahoo leagues. The public leagues are generally terrible, with 25% A-holes, 25% abandoning their teams, 25% minnows, and the rest decent owners. And for anyone to claim, in a redraft, that Calvin >>>>> Favre without taking rosters and scoring into consideration is just missing the point. Lets say the Brady owner has Flacco as his backup. Favre will outproduce Flacco at a greater rate than Calvin will outproduce Steve Smith, so his team gets better.The Favre owner has Cutler, and Favre's points will just be on the bench. Trading depth for starter talent makes his team better. Based on that, how is that not a fair trade? Both teams get better. That's the point of making a deal.
notoriousbob
Footballguy
Did it get unanimously vetoed? If it was a close vote, I would layout an argument for it on the message board or something and try it again.
Those on here are assuming this league vetoed it because Calvin>Favre, I would bet it is the opposite.
This is why our league went away from voting. The typical response as to why someone vetoed a trade was, "that would make team x too good". Everyone has a conflict of interest when voting, so why vote?
Those on here are assuming this league vetoed it because Calvin>Favre, I would bet it is the opposite.
This is why our league went away from voting. The typical response as to why someone vetoed a trade was, "that would make team x too good". Everyone has a conflict of interest when voting, so why vote?
comfortably numb
Footballguy
Is it time for a single Trade veto thread?
kerpow
Footballguy
Thanks for the constructive responses here. In answer to a few questions:
Of course its a private league, this is the 3rd year with the same managers and while its only a 10 team league it is IDP with return yards and has a limited roster space which makes it quite competitive.
We have had trades in the past, at least 1 so far this year and none have been vetoed which prompted my query. Unfortunately there is no scope for commenting or even determining who vetoed.
Despite others opinions, I do believe its a fair trade based on the roster needs of myself and the other owner. The Calvin owner has Tavaris and Cassel (off WW) as QB's and I have Edwards and Colston as early drafted WR's. Desean Jackson is my only viable (read: likely to score more than a few points) start this week.
Of course its a private league, this is the 3rd year with the same managers and while its only a 10 team league it is IDP with return yards and has a limited roster space which makes it quite competitive.
We have had trades in the past, at least 1 so far this year and none have been vetoed which prompted my query. Unfortunately there is no scope for commenting or even determining who vetoed.
Despite others opinions, I do believe its a fair trade based on the roster needs of myself and the other owner. The Calvin owner has Tavaris and Cassel (off WW) as QB's and I have Edwards and Colston as early drafted WR's. Desean Jackson is my only viable (read: likely to score more than a few points) start this week.
OU#1
Footballguy
It is not the responsibility of GM's to evalutate other peoples VALUE of trades. Sure Calvin>Favre is most formats but Favre might have more value than Calvin in a situation where the Calvin owner has Derek Anderson and Carson Palmer as his QB's.
It IS the responsibility of GM's to evaluate possible COLLUSION within trades.
ONLY trades that have potential COLLUSION involved should be vetoed.
I have to explain this every year in my league. People just don't seem to grasp this concept. Most of the objections in my league are people upset that a trade will overpower one team or they are upset that they didn't get in on the good deal. Example: I just traded MJD+Roddy for Reggie Wayne. The Wayne owner is 0-4 and his best RB is McGahee. This trade was a no brainer and made both teams better but I still got objections as it's going to make my team more powerful (I'm only 2-2 for gods sake). The objection probably came from the 4-0 owner whom is raking in the top weekly points prize every week...
It IS the responsibility of GM's to evaluate possible COLLUSION within trades.
ONLY trades that have potential COLLUSION involved should be vetoed.
I have to explain this every year in my league. People just don't seem to grasp this concept. Most of the objections in my league are people upset that a trade will overpower one team or they are upset that they didn't get in on the good deal. Example: I just traded MJD+Roddy for Reggie Wayne. The Wayne owner is 0-4 and his best RB is McGahee. This trade was a no brainer and made both teams better but I still got objections as it's going to make my team more powerful (I'm only 2-2 for gods sake). The objection probably came from the 4-0 owner whom is raking in the top weekly points prize every week...
Road Warriors
Footballguy
Part of the issue falls on the commish. Set the boundaries. Tell the rest of the league that they have no say over any trade made, unless they bring proof of collusion. And remove any "league votes" options to trade approval.
Most trade objections come from owners who see their competition getting stronger. Fairness has nothing to do with their objections. They are only looking out for their teams best interest. The only person tasked with looking at the bigger picture is the commissioner, so he should have final say. Make sure you have an objective commissioner ( and co-commissioner to handle any deals from the commish ) and trust they'll do the best thing for the league, even it if isn't best for your team.
Most trade objections come from owners who see their competition getting stronger. Fairness has nothing to do with their objections. They are only looking out for their teams best interest. The only person tasked with looking at the bigger picture is the commissioner, so he should have final say. Make sure you have an objective commissioner ( and co-commissioner to handle any deals from the commish ) and trust they'll do the best thing for the league, even it if isn't best for your team.
Jambi
Footballguy
3 years or 3 weeks I'd be selling that team in a heartbeat. What a terrible set up. Veto power for all owners on all trades? That's just ridiculous. That particular veto is terrible. I would harass the owners for a legitimate answer as to why it was vetoed. It's lame to the point that I think I would just dump my players on waivers and walk.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
fixedcomfortably numb said:
kerpow
Footballguy
That's a little drastic. I agree that the settings seem mindless, but its never been issue before. The other owner, who was even more upset than me, proposed the same trade again and emailed the whole league to comment on it if they felt they had a legitimate reason to veto.
Our league has a vote on every trade for the past eight years. In all that time i have only seen two trades vetoed. Play with people who are competitive and smart when it comes to money league ff, we have used the last eight years to weed out the schmucks in the league(only three coaches). It took a while but we finally got there.
Buckeyedawgs
Footballguy
Favre far >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then Calvin.
He gets more tds in one week then calvin can get in a year.
In a redraft. In a dynasty probably reversed.
but for this to get veoted is BS regardless type of leagues! Find you real leagues to play in.
He gets more tds in one week then calvin can get in a year.
In a redraft. In a dynasty probably reversed.
but for this to get veoted is BS regardless type of leagues! Find you real leagues to play in.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
How many receiving yards and points per reception does Favre get each game?Are Favre's 4pts/TD and 1/25 passing yards > Cal's 6pts/ TD and 1/10 receiving yards in a given game?And what is the difference between Favre and the worst league starter at QB (usually the QB12) versus the difference between Calvin and the wprst league starter at WR (usually WR 24 or WR36)?Not every league scoring system is weighted to TDs, and player values are not based entirely on TDs.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR_2
Footballguy
I moderate a fantasy sports forum elsewhere. Here is a post from there discussing how one user there utilizes the yahoo veto:kerpow said:
Obviously not everyone is like this, and that particular user got skewered by the community for doing that. But it's not the first time there or here that people have expressed that this is how they use veto votes. Which is why I'd never play in a league that allows them in the way that yahoo does.In my opinion, a vote to veto a trade means you believe the owner is colluding, so in reality it should be equivalent to a vote to throw the owner out of the league for collusion or otherwise punish him.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
OK, I have to jump in b/c GregR raises a good point (as usual).
If you have agreed to participate in a league that allows voting to veto trades and/or allows ea. owner a veto power, you get what you paid for. You should expect owners to think the way GregR highlighted above - some folks will not let what is "fair" get in the way of their competitive gene. Like the guy said in GregR's embedded quote, it is a game and he plays to win.
If it is not cheating to veto a trade that helps your opponent, expect some people to take advantage of that.
To complain about a fair trade being vetoed after the league has established this as their policy =
If you have agreed to participate in a league that allows voting to veto trades and/or allows ea. owner a veto power, you get what you paid for. You should expect owners to think the way GregR highlighted above - some folks will not let what is "fair" get in the way of their competitive gene. Like the guy said in GregR's embedded quote, it is a game and he plays to win.
If it is not cheating to veto a trade that helps your opponent, expect some people to take advantage of that.
To complain about a fair trade being vetoed after the league has established this as their policy =
footballnerd
Footballguy
It's not Orton for Calvin Johnson. Trade is acceptable although I wouldn't do it.
Trade vetoes on decent trades may be a problem in public leagues more than private ones.
Trade vetoes on decent trades may be a problem in public leagues more than private ones.
you are the king of the veto......you don't get what you want and you take your ball and go home
northern exposure
Footballguy
The problem with allowing all league members to vote and possibly veto the trade is too many league members can act as the guy in GregR's quote does. Guys have protested trades I have made on the league message board because " I cheated" by making a trade during a bye week to fill a roster spot. I was dealing with a guy that needed a RB to fill in for a bye week and I needed a WR to fill in. We completed a trade and my opponent for the week complained because he felt he would have had an easy victory if I had to rely on a waiver wire pickup at WR. Luckily nobody agreed with him and the trade went through. He also tried to torpedo another trade by posting on the league message board that my accepted offer wasn't fair and he made a counteroffer in his post!
Sure you do what you can to win, but vetoing a trade just because it makes another team stronger and therefore hurts your team is pretty bush league to me. As long as it isn't lopsided I vote to accept the trade and then work the waiver wire and try to do my own trade to make my team more competitive.
Sure you do what you can to win, but vetoing a trade just because it makes another team stronger and therefore hurts your team is pretty bush league to me. As long as it isn't lopsided I vote to accept the trade and then work the waiver wire and try to do my own trade to make my team more competitive.
Jersey35
Footballguy
But who are YOU to determine what is lopsided and what is not? Can you predict the future? Do you have a stake in the fortunes of the other teams?You started by making a lot of sense, but completely lost all credibility when you mentioned that you consider anything other than collusion when voting to veto a trade.
BoulderBob
Footballguy
Favre for Calvin Johnson? No, and the owners/commish who vetoed this trade are morons/mouth-breathers...you choose.
Is this a money league? Do teams pay a league treasurer/commish $50+ to play? Please don't waste the valuable time of us Sharks with freebie league complaints.kerpow said:
QBs can be overrated a bit in fantasy. Occasionally a stud QB will carry a team on his back, but 35+ TD seasons are rare and people are still blinded by this being "year Brady+1". Getting by with stud RBs and WRs and a reliable QB is still a winning formula.On a related note, in my favorite fantasy league one team has Cutler/Favre/Warner (start 1QB) and I still don't see how he hasn't dumped one yet for a serviceable RB2 or WR2/3 option. He offered me Favre or Warner for Portis, lol, but wouldn't throw in a good WR to finish the deal. Sure a stud QB may be top10 or top20 in the scoring rankings now but that doesnt necessarily make them worthy of a stud RB or stud WR. VBD still applies after the draft.
Last edited by a moderator:
i would let this trade go through, and i agree with much that has been said above.
i just had to veto a trade last week of ronnie brown and braylon edwards for matt jones, mushin muhammed and correll buckhalter (the guy who got brown/edwards traded with his dad who knows nothing and will do whatever the son wants. he didnt even realize he could get more for his players), which i think was ridiculously lopsided, but i still hated to do it. but when there is money in the pot, i want a fair shot at it. bottom line is that if you don't like these kinds of trades you probably shouldnt play with people who dont know what theyre doing.
collusion/tanking should be the only reasons you veto a trade in my opinion.
i just had to veto a trade last week of ronnie brown and braylon edwards for matt jones, mushin muhammed and correll buckhalter (the guy who got brown/edwards traded with his dad who knows nothing and will do whatever the son wants. he didnt even realize he could get more for his players), which i think was ridiculously lopsided, but i still hated to do it. but when there is money in the pot, i want a fair shot at it. bottom line is that if you don't like these kinds of trades you probably shouldnt play with people who dont know what theyre doing.
collusion/tanking should be the only reasons you veto a trade in my opinion.
northern exposure
Footballguy
I think anybody can determine if a trade is obviously lopsided or not. For example, Adrian Peterson for Steve Breaston would be lopsided ,no? My point was, in my mind collusion = an obviously lopsided trade. I guess I didn't make myself clear. Unless a trade is obviously one-sided( which in my mind constitutes collusion), I don't vote to veto the trade. I don't excessively analyze every trade to determine who is getting the better deal.
kerpow
Footballguy
Spot on, $50. Hardly big-bucks, but perhaps enough to make people a little more ruthless. But having seen other trades in this league, I didn't understand what made this particular trade so unpalatable to other owners.Is this a money league? Do teams pay a league treasurer/commish $50+ to play? Please don't waste the valuable time of us Sharks with freebie league complaints.kerpow said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. 50 is just a line in the sand, heck there might be some 4th graders out there with a super cut-throat $5 buy-in league. It's all about finding a number where people will bother to check their lineup and manage their team, and owners feel it is worth the time/hassle to play the game for the entertainment & financial rewards.Spot on, $50. Hardly big-bucks, but perhaps enough to make people a little more ruthless. But having seen other trades in this league, I didn't understand what made this particular trade so unpalatable to other owners.Is this a money league? Do teams pay a league treasurer/commish $50+ to play? Please don't waste the valuable time of us Sharks with freebie league complaints.kerpow said:
Road Warriors
Footballguy
Well, I agree that your hypothetical trade is lopsided, based on my view of the players. However, its not your view or my view of the players that matters. Maybe the guy receiving Breaston has him projected to become WR1, and has LT and Westbrook ahead of ADP, so in his view, Breaston becomes his WR1 and ADP was a bench player. Its his team, and its his to run as he sees fit, whether you agree with it or not. Bad/uneven trade <> collusion.If you ever feel the need to veto a trade, why not ask the receiver of the "lesser" end of the deal why he likes this deal for his team. If he has his reasons, its not up to you! If he doesn't have a reason other than helping a friend or he's out of it or something, then you can veto. As long has the owner believes he is improving his team, the trade MUST stand.
puckalicious
Footballguy
Ding ding ding ding!! We have a winner!!I would never play in a league that allows owners to vote on trades. Let the commish review it for obvious collusion, and if it passes the sniff test then allow all trades.trogg78 said:
It's amazing how quickly a bunch of dudes can act like a bunch of girls regarding this. No offense to all the ladies playing FF out there.
Jersey35
Footballguy
As commish of my own league, first and foremost, we do not allow trade voting. I have sole discretion (and my assistant commish in the case of trades involving my team) over the "veto-ing" of trades. That being the case, I have never once in nearly a decade of running this league veto'ed a trade. In the very few cases where a trade seemed over the top enough to warrant further exploration, I simply called the two owners involved and asked them about the trade. In each case, the owner that, in my opinion, got fleeced, gave an perfectly good explanation and rationale for their decision.As long as an owner is operating within what THEY BELIEVE is in the best interest of their team, no other member of the league has any right to have ANY say over how they manage their team. I can 100% guarantee you that not a single other person will make decisions for them without taking into consideration how it impacts their own team. So why do so many leagues allow it? It's foolish.
