Heated Debate - Who is right? (1 Viewer)

[SunIsBlue15]

I'm in a 10 team normal scoring fantasy league. Here is a quick overview of the debate.

Owner A has a trade pending with Owner B. Both Owners believe they are improving their teams with the trade. Owner A is 6-1 in the league and in first place in his division. Owner B is 3-4 and in 4th place in his division. Owner C vetos the trade. Owner A argues that vetos should only be used to prevent cheating and collusion while Owner C argues that he vetoed the trade because Owner A is going to run away with the league now and Owner B is only getting a little bit better. Here is the trade with the rosters. We start 2 QBs, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 Flex, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DEF.

Owner A's Team:

Starters - Eli, Bledsoe, LT, Westy, Chester Taylor, Marvin Harrison, TJ Housh, Ben Watson, Elam, Cards D.

Bench - Alex Smith, Thomas Jones, Michael Turner, Mike Bell, Michael Clayton, Greg Jennings, Deion Branch, Keyshawn Johnson, Vernon Davis, Chiefs D.

Owner B's Team:

Starters - Carson Palmer, Kitna, Maurice Morris, Kevan Barlow, Chris Perry, Reggie Brown, Bryant Johnson, Randy McMichael, Jay Feely, Seahawks D.

Bench - Vince Young, Jamal Lewis, Frank Gore, Jerius Norwood, Shaun Alexander, Torry Holt, Larry Fitz, Doug Gabriel, Eric Johnson, Rian Lindel, Ravens D.

*Starters and Bench based on last weeks starting lineups so Byes played a factor.

With the trade -- Owner A gets Palmer and Fitz. Owner B gets Chester Taylor, Bledsoe, and Keyshawn. (trade made prior to Bledsoe getting benched).

So back to the question: Is this a vetoable trade? Is Owner C abusing his right to veto? Or is the veto option there to prevent teams from getting better? If both sides of the trade improve their teams, is that grounds to veto? If one side gets a better deal than the other side, is that grounds to veto?

Sorry for the long post, but this well help settle the argument.

 

[Blind Tiger]

No collusion = No veto

 

[mightyeskimo]

No collusion = No veto

I agree. It doesn't sound like collusion. The fact that Owner B seems like an moron isn't against the rules.

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

Fair trade. No collusion.

 

[krsone21]

Agreed a team should only veto if they think collusion is involved. Vetoing because you don't want your competion to get better should not be allowed period.

 

[Reaper]

Totally fair..

Can I post mine now?

 

[Doovz]

Please don't tell me you are team C

 

[Todem]

Veto? Are you kidding???

No way. unless there is collusion I never veto trades. Perception varies. Just becaus eone owner values someone over another does not give the right to reject trades. Not like they are trading garbage for gold.

 

[Godsbrother]

If Owner C can veto this trade then you might as well not allow trades in your league.

 

[baronson]

owner B is short a couple chromosomes, but there's no basis to veto.

you got any open spots in that league for next year? i want in. make sure owner B is still around.

 

[SunIsBlue15]

Wow, fast replies (I love this forum).

I am Owner A. And we need everyone to veto a trade for it officially be vetoed. But the reason I got involved in this argument in the first place is because I was making the point that if everyone in the league thought the same way as Owner C, then no trade would ever go through. That's why I thought it was worth the argument in the first place.

 

[trader jake]

We need a smiley for these daily "veto or no veto" threads.

and just don't seem to convey the emotions properly.

Owner C is lame.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I have seen my div opponents get stronger due to lopsided trades.

Suck it up. Make trades if you need to but don't cry.

That's how I roll

 

[delusional]

So

Team A

Palmer Eli Smith

LT Westy TJones Turner MBell

Harrison Housh Fitz Clayton Jennings Branch

Watson Davis

Elam

Cards KC

Review: He basically wants the Palmer TJ hook up. Eli & Palmer are match ups, sorry but Palmer is not like he was last year.

Jennings & Fitz are hurt. Branch is not consistent, especially after losing hasselbeck the next 3 weeks. Clayton is a wash.

He loses a viable backup/starter in chester because Bell & Turner are nothing. Jones is eh nothing special either but I guess a bye week.

Team B:

Kitna Bledsoe Young

Gore Chester Barlow SA Perry Norwood Lewis Morris

Brown Holt Keyshawn Gabriel B.Johnson

McMichael EJohnson

Feely Lindel

Seahawks Ravens

Review:

qb - Loses Palmer but Kitna has been putting up equal if not better numbers. Bledsoe will be WW, Young is a bye week

rb - Losing SA hurt him and he needed that steady RB. Chester is just that. Chester Gore starters with Barlow Lewis as bye week fillers. He improves drastically here. Lewis is horrid this year and with Washington, Barlow basically lost his job. Perry Norwood Morris are just injury flyers

wr - Loses fitz, but he wasn't doing anything spectacular to begin with. With hammy injuries these things can linger. I would have asked for Jennings or Branch instead of Keyshawn though

So overall I think it works out.

Team A wanted the QB/WR connection & feels having 1 RB as a backup is suitable.

Team B gains that SA filler he desperately needed with Chester. While not really losing much.

No veto. Let it ride.

But imho team B should have asked for Eli or Smith instead of Bledsoe & Jennings or Branch instead of keyshawn. But if LT or Westy go down ( and is highly probable ) Team A is screwed.

edit: wow i was typing this while there was no replies yet lol

 

[SunIsBlue15]

Interesting post, delusional. Owner B has actually won the league the past 2 years and I consider him to be pretty / very knowledgeable. His problem was with injuries and needing to make a push for the playoffs soon, instead of waiting for Fitz and SA to get back to their normal numbers. Interestingly though, is that I offered him two offers.

1. Palmer + Fitz for Bledsoe, Taylor, and Keyshawn.

2. Palmer + Fitz for Smith, Taylor, and Jennings.

Granted, this was before the MNF game where Bledsoe sucked and is now benched.

 

[delusional]

Interesting post, delusional. Owner B has actually won the league the past 2 years and I consider him to be pretty / very knowledgeable. His problem was with injuries and needing to make a push for the playoffs soon, instead of waiting for Fitz and SA to get back to their normal numbers. Interestingly though, is that I offered him two offers. 1. Palmer + Fitz for Bledsoe, Taylor, and Keyshawn.2. Palmer + Fitz for Smith, Taylor, and Jennings. Granted, this was before the MNF game where Bledsoe sucked and is now benched.

Writing was on the wall in bright pink that bledsoe wasn't going to last much longer even before that game. I would have offer 2.

 

[turnit643]

Owner A argues that vetos should only be used to prevent cheating and collusion

Owners should be able to vote to veto for whatever reason they see fit. "cheating and collusion" are not only tough to define, but it's reasonable to expect differing opinions case by case.

while Owner C argues that he vetoed the trade because Owner A is going to run away with the league now and Owner B is only getting a little bit better.

Owner C is stomping his feet like a little girl, but the system is set up to allow him a vote. If, you need a unanimous vote to veto a trade, why worry about one crybaby owner? It doesn't sound like the rest of the league thinks like him, so even if he continually votes this way, it's not going to impact the league.

 

[suchislife]

I'm in a 10 team normal scoring fantasy league. Here is a quick overview of the debate.

Owner A has a trade pending with Owner B. Both Owners believe they are improving their teams with the trade.

I stopped reading after this...NO VETO!

 

[GoL]

Next year owner C should veto team A's ability to draft Tomlinson also.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Is it me or are there alot of these. In fact I've seen alot of #####ing in leagues this year about trades people deem 'unfair'.

Please have owner C suck it up and 'play' the friggin' game.

 

[Angrymutt]

Veto rules need to be defined next year. Veto not good here. Vito shouldn't have gone into that room with Jonny Sac's guys! Bad Veto (or Vito).

 

[pettifogger]

I'm in a 10 team normal scoring fantasy league. Here is a quick overview of the debate.Owner A has a trade pending with Owner B. Both Owners believe they are improving their teams with the trade. Owner A is 6-1 in the league and in first place in his division. Owner B is 3-4 and in 4th place in his division. Owner C vetos the trade. Owner A argues that vetos should only be used to prevent cheating and collusion while Owner C argues that he vetoed the trade because Owner A is going to run away with the league now and Owner B is only getting a little bit better. Here is the trade with the rosters. We start 2 QBs, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 Flex, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DEF.Owner A's Team:Starters - Eli, Bledsoe, LT, Westy, Chester Taylor, Marvin Harrison, TJ Housh, Ben Watson, Elam, Cards D.Bench - Alex Smith, Thomas Jones, Michael Turner, Mike Bell, Michael Clayton, Greg Jennings, Deion Branch, Keyshawn Johnson, Vernon Davis, Chiefs D. Owner B's Team:Starters - Carson Palmer, Kitna, Maurice Morris, Kevan Barlow, Chris Perry, Reggie Brown, Bryant Johnson, Randy McMichael, Jay Feely, Seahawks D.Bench - Vince Young, Jamal Lewis, Frank Gore, Jerius Norwood, Shaun Alexander, Torry Holt, Larry Fitz, Doug Gabriel, Eric Johnson, Rian Lindel, Ravens D. *Starters and Bench based on last weeks starting lineups so Byes played a factor. With the trade -- Owner A gets Palmer and Fitz. Owner B gets Chester Taylor, Bledsoe, and Keyshawn. (trade made prior to Bledsoe getting benched). So back to the question: Is this a vetoable trade? Is Owner C abusing his right to veto? Or is the veto option there to prevent teams from getting better? If both sides of the trade improve their teams, is that grounds to veto? If one side gets a better deal than the other side, is that grounds to veto? Sorry for the long post, but this well help settle the argument.

With SA out, team B desperately needed another starting RB. Even when SA gets back he can start Taylor at flex. As good as Fitz is, with his injury and Holt/Reggie Brown already on the team, he's covered well enough at WR. He's going to need to replace Bledsoe but since the teams did not know he'd be benched when the trade was made, that fact shouldn't be considered. Assuming it's a non keeper league, team B has to make a playoff push and the next few games are of magnified importance. No way should it be vetoed.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm in a 10 team normal scoring fantasy league. Here is a quick overview of the debate.Owner A has a trade pending with Owner B. Both Owners believe they are improving their teams with the trade. Owner A is 6-1 in the league and in first place in his division. Owner B is 3-4 and in 4th place in his division. Owner C vetos the trade. Owner A argues that vetos should only be used to prevent cheating and collusion while Owner C argues that he vetoed the trade because Owner A is going to run away with the league now and Owner B is only getting a little bit better. Here is the trade with the rosters. We start 2 QBs, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 Flex, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DEF.Owner A's Team:Starters - Eli, Bledsoe, LT, Westy, Chester Taylor, Marvin Harrison, TJ Housh, Ben Watson, Elam, Cards D.Bench - Alex Smith, Thomas Jones, Michael Turner, Mike Bell, Michael Clayton, Greg Jennings, Deion Branch, Keyshawn Johnson, Vernon Davis, Chiefs D. Owner B's Team:Starters - Carson Palmer, Kitna, Maurice Morris, Kevan Barlow, Chris Perry, Reggie Brown, Bryant Johnson, Randy McMichael, Jay Feely, Seahawks D.Bench - Vince Young, Jamal Lewis, Frank Gore, Jerius Norwood, Shaun Alexander, Torry Holt, Larry Fitz, Doug Gabriel, Eric Johnson, Rian Lindel, Ravens D. *Starters and Bench based on last weeks starting lineups so Byes played a factor. With the trade -- Owner A gets Palmer and Fitz. Owner B gets Chester Taylor, Bledsoe, and Keyshawn. (trade made prior to Bledsoe getting benched). So back to the question: Is this a vetoable trade? Is Owner C abusing his right to veto? Or is the veto option there to prevent teams from getting better? If both sides of the trade improve their teams, is that grounds to veto? If one side gets a better deal than the other side, is that grounds to veto? Sorry for the long post, but this well help settle the argument.

This is why veto leagues are bad. You should all be big boys and girls and make your own decisions.

 

[faulkfan]

I will forever reference this post as to why I will not participate in any league where the owners get to vote on trades.

If it ain't cheatin, then it ain't your problem.

 

[BoulderBob]

I'll take the 2006 version of Chester over the 2006 versions of Palmer and Fitz.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Sounds like owner C should have made an offer. Tough break for not being a smart GM

 

[VaCatFan]

The only problem with this league/trade is that you allow teams to call for a veto. It's not in their best interest to allow you to trade to get better, so of course they're going to try to veto. Get rid of that stupid rule.