A trade was vetoed (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I believe in letting owners make trades based on their beliefs on players. But I think you're taking it to the absurd in saying a healthy Peterson for Breaston trade should necessarily get the benefit of the doubt. The owner should get his chance to explain why he believes it helps his team and why that was the best offer he could field... but it would take an extremely unusual circumstance for that explanation to be believable.In a lot of these threads we see "no trade should be overturned unless collusion can be proved". Sometimes I think that people take that too literally and go forward with the idea that every trade should be allowed unless you have an ironclad confession of collusion.

I think a better (and of course wordier) way of putting it would be, "Trades should only be overturned on the grounds of collusion. Judgment of whether a trade is collusive is based on whether a reasonable person could believe the trade would benefit their team and that the offer accepted was amongst the best trades they could get for their player(s)/pick(s)."

As a commish, I don't have to have an admission it is collusion. If it's so bad a trade that their stated reasons for making the trade aren't reasonably believable, that should be enough for a ruling it is collusive. In the case of a hypothetical Peterson for Breaston trade barring extreme circumstances, it doesn't seem likely someone could come up with a believable explanation that they didn't think they could do better for AP than that.

 

[northern exposure]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I believe in letting owners make trades based on their beliefs on players. But I think you're taking it to the absurd in saying a healthy Peterson for Breaston trade should necessarily get the benefit of the doubt. The owner should get his chance to explain why he believes it helps his team and why that was the best offer he could field... but it would take an extremely unusual circumstance for that explanation to be believable.In a lot of these threads we see "no trade should be overturned unless collusion can be proved". Sometimes I think that people take that too literally and go forward with the idea that every trade should be allowed unless you have an ironclad confession of collusion.

I think a better (and of course wordier) way of putting it would be, "Trades should only be overturned on the grounds of collusion. Judgment of whether a trade is collusive is based on whether a reasonable person could believe the trade would benefit their team and that the offer accepted was amongst the best trades they could get for their player(s)/pick(s)."

As a commish, I don't have to have an admission it is collusion. If it's so bad a trade that their stated reasons for making the trade aren't reasonably believable, that should be enough for a ruling it is collusive. In the case of a hypothetical Peterson for Breaston trade barring extreme circumstances, it doesn't seem likely someone could come up with a believable explanation that they didn't think they could do better for AP than that.

'Nuff Said!

 

[Road Warriors]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I believe in letting owners make trades based on their beliefs on players. But I think you're taking it to the absurd in saying a healthy Peterson for Breaston trade should necessarily get the benefit of the doubt. The owner should get his chance to explain why he believes it helps his team and why that was the best offer he could field... but it would take an extremely unusual circumstance for that explanation to be believable.In a lot of these threads we see "no trade should be overturned unless collusion can be proved". Sometimes I think that people take that too literally and go forward with the idea that every trade should be allowed unless you have an ironclad confession of collusion.

I think a better (and of course wordier) way of putting it would be, "Trades should only be overturned on the grounds of collusion. Judgment of whether a trade is collusive is based on whether a reasonable person could believe the trade would benefit their team and that the offer accepted was amongst the best trades they could get for their player(s)/pick(s)."

As a commish, I don't have to have an admission it is collusion. If it's so bad a trade that their stated reasons for making the trade aren't reasonably believable, that should be enough for a ruling it is collusive. In the case of a hypothetical Peterson for Breaston trade barring extreme circumstances, it doesn't seem likely someone could come up with a believable explanation that they didn't think they could do better for AP than that.

I think we're on the same page here. This trade wouldn't stand the sniff test, and it would undergo investigation. The Breaston recipient would have to be extremely convincing that it was in his best interest, with no other future considerations, to make that deal. I have seen some one-sided deals, but nothing like this. I think there's a bit of hyperbole in this example. And you still should allow the owner involved lobby his case to keep the deal, if he truly does believe it makes him better.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I believe in letting owners make trades based on their beliefs on players. But I think you're taking it to the absurd in saying a healthy Peterson for Breaston trade should necessarily get the benefit of the doubt. The owner should get his chance to explain why he believes it helps his team and why that was the best offer he could field... but it would take an extremely unusual circumstance for that explanation to be believable.In a lot of these threads we see "no trade should be overturned unless collusion can be proved". Sometimes I think that people take that too literally and go forward with the idea that every trade should be allowed unless you have an ironclad confession of collusion.

I think a better (and of course wordier) way of putting it would be, "Trades should only be overturned on the grounds of collusion. Judgment of whether a trade is collusive is based on whether a reasonable person could believe the trade would benefit their team and that the offer accepted was amongst the best trades they could get for their player(s)/pick(s)."

As a commish, I don't have to have an admission it is collusion. If it's so bad a trade that their stated reasons for making the trade aren't reasonably believable, that should be enough for a ruling it is collusive. In the case of a hypothetical Peterson for Breaston trade barring extreme circumstances, it doesn't seem likely someone could come up with a believable explanation that they didn't think they could do better for AP than that.

I think we're on the same page here. This trade wouldn't stand the sniff test, and it would undergo investigation. The Breaston recipient would have to be extremely convincing that it was in his best interest, with no other future considerations, to make that deal. I have seen some one-sided deals, but nothing like this. I think there's a bit of hyperbole in this example. And you still should allow the owner involved lobby his case to keep the deal, if he truly does believe it makes him better.

Right, I think we agree.We don't have to agree with him that the trade makes his team better. We just have to be convinced that he really believes it makes his team better and he got around the most he could for his player.

 

[Jersey35]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I believe in letting owners make trades based on their beliefs on players. But I think you're taking it to the absurd in saying a healthy Peterson for Breaston trade should necessarily get the benefit of the doubt. The owner should get his chance to explain why he believes it helps his team and why that was the best offer he could field... but it would take an extremely unusual circumstance for that explanation to be believable.In a lot of these threads we see "no trade should be overturned unless collusion can be proved". Sometimes I think that people take that too literally and go forward with the idea that every trade should be allowed unless you have an ironclad confession of collusion.

I think a better (and of course wordier) way of putting it would be, "Trades should only be overturned on the grounds of collusion. Judgment of whether a trade is collusive is based on whether a reasonable person could believe the trade would benefit their team and that the offer accepted was amongst the best trades they could get for their player(s)/pick(s)."

As a commish, I don't have to have an admission it is collusion. If it's so bad a trade that their stated reasons for making the trade aren't reasonably believable, that should be enough for a ruling it is collusive. In the case of a hypothetical Peterson for Breaston trade barring extreme circumstances, it doesn't seem likely someone could come up with a believable explanation that they didn't think they could do better for AP than that.

I think we're on the same page here. This trade wouldn't stand the sniff test, and it would undergo investigation. The Breaston recipient would have to be extremely convincing that it was in his best interest, with no other future considerations, to make that deal. I have seen some one-sided deals, but nothing like this. I think there's a bit of hyperbole in this example. And you still should allow the owner involved lobby his case to keep the deal, if he truly does believe it makes him better.

Right, I think we agree.We don't have to agree with him that the trade makes his team better. We just have to be convinced that he really believes it makes his team better and he got around the most he could for his player.

This is the correct answer.

 

[Vladislav Tretiak]

Veto...absolutely not.

Would I be pist if I was another team in your league? Yes.

Calvin>>>>Favre

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.

If there are no problems why even set it up for a vote? If you trust that your managers are competent and know their stuff, why not nix the "Trades are Voted On" aspect of the league.Get rid of it and see if anyone notices or complains.

 

[Vladislav Tretiak]

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.

Why were those two trades vetoed?Were they obvious collusion?

 

[Jersey35]

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.

Why were those two trades vetoed?Were they obvious collusion?

^ Possibly the greatest goaltender to ever play the game.

 

[fsufan]

yahoo league?

You are correct, sir. Is it relevant though?

Yes, nothing is approved in a yahoo league, if it is a public league