Another stupid "should I veto" thread (1 Viewer)

[TWP]

Work league -- fairly sizeable money league, though. The two guys are good friends. They are both known as being relatively shady, Team A in particular. Other people dont know each other as well, but everyone is fairly friendly.

Team A is 6-3 and one of the league leaders. Team B is 2-7 and in the basement.

Team A gets:

Rivers

Bradshaw

Hart

Bowe

Team B gets:

Big Ben

Greene

Lynch

Ocho

In our scoring, Rivers is #1 QB, Bradshaw is #8 RB. Veto?

FWIW, Team B has DWill and Hightower on the bench. He claims the trade helps him because DWill is hurt and Hightower sucks, so he is trading Bradshaw for two RBs that he can start. He views Rivers for Ben as 'a wash'. He didnt comment on Bowe for Ocho.

 

[Uncle Buck]

not even close, let it be

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Not everyone has the same opinions on fantasy football. If this guy is providing an explanation of why he made the trade, and it is half-believable, then nothing you can do.

You aren't policing stupidness, just collusion. There is no evidence of collusion here at all.

If you veto this trade, then you better have vetoed any draft picks you deemed to be bad as well.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

It looks a tad fishy, but why the hell do you guys allow an owner into your league who is known to be 'shady' then cry foul when he does what you expect of him?

The trade should be upheld.

 

[DocHolliday]

This is a lopsided trade. I would rather have each player on Team A compared to Team B.

Rivers is much greater than Big Ben.

Bradshaw is a true starter. Nobody starts Greene or Lynch unless they have to. Hart is the only player that is questionable but with Indy's injuries, he could be the starter at any time.

Even Bowe has more value than Ocho.

 

[Air Stich]

Pretty ugly trade. It's not vetoable unless you think Team B is not really trying to improve his team, though. Tough break for everyone in the league except the guy getting Rivers and Bradshaw for nothing.

 

[SieteCinco]

Pretty one sided, especially considering Team B's record, but it all depends on their thoughts on the value of these players. If it was for money, I would bring up the discussion with other teams.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He views Rivers for Ben as 'a wash'.

Honestly I can see some one that doesn't pay particularly close attention thinking something like that. It's also not inconceivable that that would be the case going forward anyway. Rivers is playing out of his mind but that production may not be substainable.

 

[bigmarc27]

99% of the time I say don't veto, but I think I would veto this one.

It seems pretty apparent to me they threw some big names into the mix to make it look like they weren't stacking the team. I'd be hard pressed to believe there wasn't a conversation where team B asked who team A wanted and then threw some big names back so people wouldn't question the deal. On it's own, normally I wouldn't or if it were earlier in the year, but I'm positive that team B is trying to improve Team A and not his own.

 

[NinerFan49]

This is a lopsided trade. I would rather have each player on Team A compared to Team B. Rivers is much greater than Big Ben.Bradshaw is a true starter. Nobody starts Greene or Lynch unless they have to. Hart is the only player that is questionable but with Indy's injuries, he could be the starter at any time.Even Bowe has more value than Ocho.

+1

 

[Nate]

I'd like to see the rest of the teams.

Looks to me like a team that's out of it is giving away his two best players (one of whom is the top scorer in FF) to his buddy.

I pretty much say never veto a trade. In my league the day I veto a trade is the day I start looking for two new owners. But I'd definitely sit down with Team B and make him convince you he really believes he's got a better shot at making the playoffs now.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

Crap trade, but no veto.

 

[FarEastKilla]

You are too nice, you need some baby powder ready and pimp slap those two. Clear case of friends trying to spilt the pot. 6-3 getting all the players while 2-7 team throw in the towel??!?. I don't understand why all the posters would agree to such BS. Even wallstreet has an overseer in SEC, because once money is involved some people are willing to do anything!! If you don't veto this you are part of the scam and not being fair to the rest of the league. If you want to make this into a democracy than have everyone else in the league vote on it instead of this board, after all it's their money. Don't listen to 'no veto'' posters here, they might be willing stick to their ######ed principle of ' no veto no matter what' with other people's money, but you as commish should do your due diligence.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Clear case of friends trying to spilt the pot. 6-3 getting all the players while 2-7 team throw in the towel??!?.

Clear case of friends splitting the pot? haha. You know nothing about them, other than the bias opinion that they are shady and good friends.

If the OP didn't mention the "shady" and "friends" part, then you wouldn't be saying that at all.

There are terrible trades in fantasy football all the time where the owner who seems to be getting screwed or seems to be giving away his team realistically thinks it is a good move for his team.

ETA:

A potential option....If you want to see how for real the guy is about making the trade, then tell him the trade is very fishy and for it to not be vetoed he needs to write a half-page response to the league of how the trade is good for his team, back it up with some evidence and maybe even field a question from some owners. If he doesn't care enough to write it, then he obviously doesn't care enough to make the trade.

 

[bleedgreen]

Looks like team B is loading up team A for a playoff run. There are not a lot of trades I would veto, but I would veto that one.

 

[FarEastKilla]

The fact OP did mention "shady" and "friends" key words.

Just because some leagues are ruined because of shady trades doesn't mean it has to happen, espeically if money is involved. Money leagues are basically gambling, therefore you as a game comish MUST prevent cheating PERIOD. Why should Vegas prevent cheating if cheating happens all the time? It's called being Fair to the majority of honest players.

Clear case of friends trying to spilt the pot. 6-3 getting all the players while 2-7 team throw in the towel??!?.

Clear case of friends splitting the pot? haha. You know nothing about them, other than the bias opinion that they are shady and good friends.

If the OP didn't mention the "shady" and "friends" part, then you wouldn't be saying that at all.

There are terrible trades in fantasy football all the time where the owner who seems to be getting screwed or seems to be giving away his team realistically thinks it is a good move for his team.

ETA:

A potential option....If you want to see how for real the guy is about making the trade, then tell him the trade is very fishy and for it to not be vetoed he needs to write a half-page response to the league of how the trade is good for his team, back it up with some evidence and maybe even field a question from some owners. If he doesn't care enough to write it, then he obviously doesn't care enough to make the trade.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

you're halfway there. the reason these are stupid is because the answer is always no.

 

[bleedgreen]

Why is the answer always no?

 

[tunamelt warrior]

If someone asked me to write a half-page paper explaining why I wanted to do a trade I'd tell them to get stuffed. NO VETO unless you have something concrete regarding collusion...

 

[bleedgreen]

If someone asked me to write a half-page paper explaining why I wanted to do a trade I'd tell them to get stuffed. NO VETO unless you have something concrete regarding collusion...

So no Veto on any trades unless you wiretap their phones or intercept their email? What is concrete regarding collusion?

 

[Jersey35]

I'd like to see the rest of the teams.Looks to me like a team that's out of it is giving away his two best players (one of whom is the top scorer in FF) to his buddy.I pretty much say never veto a trade. In my league the day I veto a trade is the day I start looking for two new owners. But I'd definitely sit down with Team B and make him convince you he really believes he's got a better shot at making the playoffs now.

This.

 

[bleedgreen]

Can anyone here play devil's advocate and argue why they would make that trade if they were team B?

 

[tunamelt warrior]

As a commish several years ago I had someone in my league report to me an overheard conversation between the 4th place and last place teams on the eve of playoffs that went something like this....

Team A (in last place): So, if I give you player X and player XX, how much of the pot will I get?

Team B (4th place and just made the playoffs): I'll give you $100.

Sure enough, a few days later, a trade was offered between A and B that was complete garbage. I vetoed it immediately without so much as a peep from either team. They weren't invited back the next year.

Most of the time it won't happen like that, but that was the only situation that I ever vetoed in over a dozen leagues over the years. Some trades look dumb on the surface, but actually work out through good research or just dumb luck. People have to have the freedom to manage/mismanage their teams without listening to outsider opinion. I have only remained a commish for this long because I let people take care of their own business. So, short of blatant collusion, let people run their own teams with a minimum of interference...

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Well one can make an argument that every player to Team B is potentially better than the players to Team A.

I personally would not trade Ocho for Bowe, but I'm in the minority. Don't chase points.

Lynch will likely produce more than Hart over the next 8 games.

One can envision Greene getting the bulk of the carries down the stretch and outproducing Bradshaw, who isn't even the goal line back.

Rivers is a stud, but Big Ben has shown he can also put up big numbers. Team B also gets an extra game out of Big Ben (no bye) with a great matchup.

Just because you don't agree with the deal, doesn't mean you veto it.

 

[TWP]

Thanks, all. I am also in the 'never veto unless it is pretty obvious collusion' camp. That is why i posted the question. If it were Ocho for Bowe, ok maybe the guy is high on Ocho. If it were Bradshaw for Lynch and Greene, okay maybe the guy is high on Greene. But if I see Ben for Rivers, I'd better see a decent amount coming back the other way. Ben has scored something like 6 and 10 points the last two weeks -- both worse than Rivers has ever put up this year.

I think the fact that Team A is getting point per game scorers #1 and #8 at their position without giving up anyone who is even in the TOP 20 at their position in points per game is enough evidence of collusion for me. Especially with the late timing of the trade and the highly disparate records. I am vetoing. And this is the last year these two will be in the league.

 

[ookook]

Very hard to veto as a commish.

You could always put it to the league and use that as cover.

But what I REALLY think is that we allow trades WAAAAYYYY too late in redraft leagues. It indirectly encourages shenanigans.

Next season, trade deadline should be kickoff Week 8. I see more and more of this. It is a ###-for-tat reciprocity expectation from one season to the next.

Seriously.

 

[bleedgreen]

I'm part of the "rarely veto" line of thinking. But not the "never veto" crowd. I buy into the idea that people in the league should manage their own teams and not have them managed by the league. There is not really a way to prove collusion in most case where this happens. But there is "suspected collusion", and that requires good judgment depending on the teams involved, their needs, their records, their history, and time frame. If I was in that league, I'd very much "suspect collusion" because I can not reason how team B is being helped by this trade.

 

[tunamelt warrior]

Very hard to veto as a commish.

You could always put it to the league and use that as cover.

But what I REALLY think is that we allow trades WAAAAYYYY too late in redraft leagues. It indirectly encourages shenanigans.

Next season, trade deadline should be kickoff Week 8. I see more and more of this. It is a ###-for-tat reciprocity expectation from one season to the next.

Seriously.

 

[todisco1]

Very hard to veto as a commish.

You could always put it to the league and use that as cover.

But what I REALLY think is that we allow trades WAAAAYYYY too late in redraft leagues. It indirectly encourages shenanigans.

Next season, trade deadline should be kickoff Week 8. I see more and more of this. It is a ###-for-tat reciprocity expectation from one season to the next.

Seriously.

One problem with the trade deadline being earlier is that the bye weeks aren't over, and this can be a hurdle in negotiations. I like to have the deadline after the last bye week so everyone is on even footing again. As far as collusion, I don't know if the trade was collusion -- it's not a good trade but not enough for me to veto --- I've been reading that Greene is going to get a much bigger piece of the pie moving forward, he could end up being far more valuable in the 2nd half of the season than he was thus far.

 

[FarEastKilla]

Can anyone here play devil's advocate and argue why they would make that trade if they were team B?

I will play"yo, I'm the pimp of team BI want Ben instead of rivers because Ben is much like me, he doesn't ask when it cones to women, he just takes it. Respik. Rivers, are you kidding me? He will suck once all the studs on offense comes back!I prefer Bradshaw over green because Bradshaw now is getting goal line carries and he might get crushed by those big DLs and get hurt, on the other hand green doesn't get GL carries. You hread?Marshawn got da Beast mode ryumes with b**ch mode, kinda remind me of my HOs, besides OL is overrated. Hart, his white, need I say more? Ochocinco's TD dance is off the chains! BOTH of them. I love drama, unless it's mama drama you heard? Bowe reminds me of my ex in prison that G gives me nightmares, he is pain in the butt if you know what I mean. Can't sleep having him on my team, he gives me the willies. Please commish help me out here, and if rest of da league be fronting, I be busta cap in their a*ses! btw how much is half of the pay out in 1st place?"

 

[Nate]

Thanks, all. I am also in the 'never veto unless it is pretty obvious collusion' camp. That is why i posted the question. If it were Ocho for Bowe, ok maybe the guy is high on Ocho. If it were Bradshaw for Lynch and Greene, okay maybe the guy is high on Greene. But if I see Ben for Rivers, I'd better see a decent amount coming back the other way. Ben has scored something like 6 and 10 points the last two weeks -- both worse than Rivers has ever put up this year.I think the fact that Team A is getting point per game scorers #1 and #8 at their position without giving up anyone who is even in the TOP 20 at their position in points per game is enough evidence of collusion for me. Especially with the late timing of the trade and the highly disparate records. I am vetoing. And this is the last year these two will be in the league.

Good choice.

 

[bleedgreen]

Can anyone here play devil's advocate and argue why they would make that trade if they were team B?

I will play"yo, I'm the pimp of team BI want Ben instead of rivers because Ben is much like me, he doesn't ask when it cones to women, he just takes it. Respik. Rivers, are you kidding me? He will suck once all the studs on offense comes back!

Yeah, having all those talented passing options will just confuse Rivers and his production will suffer.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Very hard to veto as a commish.

You could always put it to the league and use that as cover.

But what I REALLY think is that we allow trades WAAAAYYYY too late in redraft leagues. It indirectly encourages shenanigans.

Next season, trade deadline should be kickoff Week 8. I see more and more of this. It is a ###-for-tat reciprocity expectation from one season to the next.

Seriously.

One problem with the trade deadline being earlier is that the bye weeks aren't over, and this can be a hurdle in negotiations. I like to have the deadline after the last bye week so everyone is on even footing again. As far as collusion, I don't know if the trade was collusion -- it's not a good trade but not enough for me to veto --- I've been reading that Greene is going to get a much bigger piece of the pie moving forward, he could end up being far more valuable in the 2nd half of the season than he was thus far.

In our league we have no trade deadline. As long as your team is still in the running for the playoffs you can make trades. The moment you're eliminated (be it week 7, 12, etc), there is no more trading for you.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Thanks, all. I am also in the 'never veto unless it is pretty obvious collusion' camp. That is why i posted the question. If it were Ocho for Bowe, ok maybe the guy is high on Ocho. If it were Bradshaw for Lynch and Greene, okay maybe the guy is high on Greene. But if I see Ben for Rivers, I'd better see a decent amount coming back the other way. Ben has scored something like 6 and 10 points the last two weeks -- both worse than Rivers has ever put up this year.I think the fact that Team A is getting point per game scorers #1 and #8 at their position without giving up anyone who is even in the TOP 20 at their position in points per game is enough evidence of collusion for me. Especially with the late timing of the trade and the highly disparate records. I am vetoing. And this is the last year these two will be in the league.

You should ask the owners how they feel this will truly benefit their teams, and when the team getting the screwjob gives his reasons, have the facts to show he's delusional. If he's still determined then you have to go from there. Personally, I'd probably let it go depending on the owner. But considering you said one of the two already has a history of being 'shady' then I question whether you should give them the boot.

 

[u999spf]

I'm in the never veto trade camp as long as cheating is not evident. However in this case, if you really think something shaky is going on here, I have a possible solution for you.

Tell them this trade is going to be put on hold for 24 hrs and the deal will be posted/emailed/text'd to the entire league. If a better offer comes in for Team B, then he can take that offer. If no one can beat that offer, than this one stands.

Team A also can counter offer and present a better deal as well.

I get that it kind of sucks for the guy that initiated the deal for someone else to come in at the last second and steal it away but if it's really the best offer he will still get his guys.

It also allows the guy on the unpopular side of the deal to bow out gracefully and not go back on the deal because the commish made him do it.

Honestly, these guys may be trying to pull some shady crap or the last place guy could just be one of those guys that doesn't realize how much value Rivers and Bradshaw really has on the open market.

Even after getting other offers, he could still decide that the first one was the best one if he has a particular liking for a specific player like Big Ben and HAS to have him. (I am still leaning to shady only because I can't see how a 2-7 team will make the playoffs. - The best he can do in a 12 team league is 6-7 and that is highly unlikely to get you in the playoffs. You need ALOT of help - ties, high scoring team, etc to get in at 6-7)

 

[two_dollars]

I've got better questions.. Where do you sit in this league? What's your record? What division is team A in? When do you play team A? Is he a likely playoff opponent?

 

[u999spf]

Why does it matter what the OP's record is? It shouldn't come into play. He isn't involved in the trade.

Other than the fact that the OP thinks there is some cheating going on, the record of the 2 people involved in the trade shouldn't even be looked at to determine if a trade is fair. But since this trade is questioning if they are cheating, the records of these 2 teams do come into play.

 

[TWP]

I'm in the same division as Team A, in the middle of the pack. But that in no way has any connection to this, as has been pointed out. The only reason why the records come into play is because they give incentive for collusion. If you reverse the records and Team B is 6-3 and Team A is 2-7, do you think Team B still does this trade, giving away their top 2 scorers in the middle of a playoff chase? I just cant see that happening.

And I did ask the Team B owner what his logic was. That is when he said that he saw Ben vs. Rivers as 'a wash' and that his logic was trading Bradshaw for 'two starters' helped his team. In any case, when I vetoed he basically said 'ok, whatever, i just wanted Greene because i'm a Jets fan'. Kinda confirms my initial suspicions, I'd say...

 

[Futz]

The only way this trade would stand in my league is if I had a sincere conversation with Team B on the phone or in person that explains it. If my BS detector goes off at any point, I'm denying it. I've been running my league for 18 years without a single veto but this one would probably qualify.

The key for the OP in this scenario is to have no preconceived notions or judgement until you have the chat.

 

[Futz]

I'm in the same division as Team A, in the middle of the pack. But that in no way has any connection to this, as has been pointed out. The only reason why the records come into play is because they give incentive for collusion. If you reverse the records and Team B is 6-3 and Team A is 2-7, do you think Team B still does this trade, giving away their top 2 scorers in the middle of a playoff chase? I just cant see that happening.And I did ask the Team B owner what his logic was. That is when he said that he saw Ben vs. Rivers as 'a wash' and that his logic was trading Bradshaw for 'two starters' helped his team. In any case, when I vetoed he basically said 'ok, whatever, i just wanted Greene because i'm a Jets fan'. Kinda confirms my initial suspicions, I'd say...

Good for you for having the sack to move on this. His non-chalant response seems to indicate his level of interest in the league which adds fuel to your collusion fire IMO. He may not have been blatantly cheating, but he wasn't attempting to better his team.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

And I did ask the Team B owner what his logic was. That is when he said that he saw Ben vs. Rivers as 'a wash' and that his logic was trading Bradshaw for 'two starters' helped his team. In any case, when I vetoed he basically said 'ok, whatever, i just wanted Greene because i'm a Jets fan'. Kinda confirms my initial suspicions, I'd say...

I vetoed a trade earlier this year (and I'm also generally in the camp that says never veto) and the other owner was quick to just say whatever. Funny thing is since I questioned the guy he's actually been pretty damned good.

 

[Hugonel]

Can anyone here play devil's advocate and argue why they would make that trade if they were team B?

I am extremely opposed to vetoing a trade. But this trade I think shows collusion. You don't trade players that you think are a "wash". So if Ben is the same as Rivers, why do it?Team A is clearly loading up. I don't think it's close, which is really the only litmus test I use, because you aren't going to get a confession.

 

[steelerfan1]

feel your pain as commish, but unless you know the teams are cheating, how can you veto?

we just had two trades go through yesterday that are probably going to end our 11 year league, but there was no collusion, just what appears to be really lopsided deals, but each owner had a reason why they wanted to do the trade.

the 1 year that i vetoed a trade it was for and owner wanting to trade corey dillon for marty booker.

this was when corey dillon was a somebody and marty booker was a nobody.

i thought the guy wanting to get booker was getting robbed and didn't allow trade.

turns out marty booker became a somebody that year and i was wrong.

had a good owner leave that year because i made a decision for HIS team.

can't prove cheating gotta let owners run THEIR team.

 

[tunamelt warrior]

feel your pain as commish, but unless you know the teams are cheating, how can you veto?we just had two trades go through yesterday that are probably going to end our 11 year league, but there was no collusion, just what appears to be really lopsided deals, but each owner had a reason why they wanted to do the trade.the 1 year that i vetoed a trade it was for and owner wanting to trade corey dillon for marty booker.this was when corey dillon was a somebody and marty booker was a nobody.i thought the guy wanting to get booker was getting robbed and didn't allow trade.turns out marty booker became a somebody that year and i was wrong.had a good owner leave that year because i made a decision for HIS team.can't prove cheating gotta let owners run THEIR team.

I couldn't agree more with this. I was in a league years ago that required all of the managers to vote on trades. Team A had running back depth that he wanted to trade to Team B for a stud WR. All of the managers said the WR wasn't of equal value, so they vetoed it. Long story short, the WR put up big numbers in the playoffs that would have won Team A the championship. I haven't been in a league since that allows this veto BS to happen. If it can happen to someone else, it can happen to you.

 

[rich2jb]

As a basic rule, if a team is not going to make the playoffs they should not be allowed to trade unless there are other incentives that they can strive for like most points overall. Otherwise they're just helping playoff bound teams improve themselves. At 2-7, if that owner is mathematically eliminated why is he trading at all?

 

[Chaka]

This is why league commissioners should not have sole veto authority.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

don't allow "shady" people into your big money league.

 

[Novice2]

If vetos are allowed then there is only one wayto vote

VETO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FarEastKilla]

What does your bad experience has to do with this specific VETO?"I know this one veto that was a bad call therefore no veto is allowed"="I have a uncle was proven innocent while in prison, therefore no one should goto prison"="I had a wife who always cheated on me and I had to divorce her, never married again therefor no one should have a wife."Your logic is an epic fail!!

feel your pain as commish, but unless you know the teams are cheating, how can you veto?we just had two trades go through yesterday that are probably going to end our 11 year league, but there was no collusion, just what appears to be really lopsided deals, but each owner had a reason why they wanted to do the trade.the 1 year that i vetoed a trade it was for and owner wanting to trade corey dillon for marty booker.this was when corey dillon was a somebody and marty booker was a nobody.i thought the guy wanting to get booker was getting robbed and didn't allow trade.turns out marty booker became a somebody that year and i was wrong.had a good owner leave that year because i made a decision for HIS team.can't prove cheating gotta let owners run THEIR team.

I couldn't agree more with this. I was in a league years ago that required all of the managers to vote on trades. Team A had running back depth that he wanted to trade to Team B for a stud WR. All of the managers said the WR wasn't of equal value, so they vetoed it. Long story short, the WR put up big numbers in the playoffs that would have won Team A the championship. I haven't been in a league since that allows this veto BS to happen. If it can happen to someone else, it can happen to you.

 

[bleedgreen]

What does your bad experience has to do with this specific VETO?"I know this one veto that was a bad call therefore no veto is allowed"="I have a uncle was proven innocent while in prison, therefore no one should goto prison"="I had a wife who always cheated on me and I had to divorce her, never married again therefor no one should have a wife."Your logic is an epic fail!!

I agree, I don't understand that logic either. And I don't think it applies to this situation. Not allowing a trade to go through because of suspected collusion is way different than not allowing a trade to go through because of perceived equal value. A team that is 2 - 7 and giving up the best players on their team to a friend who is making a playoff run seems pretty cut and dry to me. But we're in the minority it seems...at least based on the poll results.