In one of my leagues we allow trades all the way up till the last game of the regular season. On saturday I made a trade giving up Matt Forte and Dez Bryant for Brandon Marshall and Percy Harvin. There was a 2 day veto period for the league to decide if the trade was fair. My league members decided to veto the trade monday morning after finding out that Forte was badly hurt. Am I wrong to think that the veto process should only take into consideration the value of the 4 players at the time the trade was made, and should not include the fact that Forte was hurt after. Please give me feedback.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
help me, please read (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter shimp06
- Start date
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Your leaguemates have a right to veto your trade for whatever reason they want.
everydayj
Footballguy
I agree with this post. Expect a lot of shots at allowing voting on trades/vetoing. This is a perfect example of why it is disliked. The rules are what they are for now. Change them in the off-season.
I realize this is clearly a flaw with the league but do you think I am right or wrong?
Chaka
Footballguy
And how exactly would it be different if it were the commish who vetoed it? At least this way there was a consensus instead of an arbitrary decision by an individual (who serves at the pleasure of the owners, not the other way around).And to the OP; no they are not required to look at it as a moment frozen in time. It's on you, you should have made the deal earlier.ETA: I am assuming a majority of owners are required to veto the trade.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFootballJesus
Footballguy
Hoss_Cartwright
Footballguy
Wouldn't you really rather have a buick?
I think you are wrong. If they league rules give owners 2 days to veto a trade then they can make their mind up about the value of the trade whenever they want.This falls into the tough break category.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
You're wrong. Your leaguemates have a right to veto your trade for whatever reason they want.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Trades shouldn't be vetoed by other leaguemates that will be potentially affected. Also trade deadlines after like week ten tend to be inherently problematic . Especially if they concern one team that has nothing to play for.
Based on your rules, you are wrong though.
Based on your rules, you are wrong though.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Veto rights need to be taken away. People can make calls and emails on collusion.
The trade stands, period.
The trade stands, period.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Ummmm....a veto by the commish is still a veto. HTH.And how exactly would it be different if it were the commish who vetoed it? At least this way there was a consensus instead of an arbitrary decision by an individual (who serves at the pleasure of the owners, not the other way around).
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
How does that make them clowns? They're allowed to veto the trade due to Forte's injury.
Chaka
Footballguy
Where did it say that only two people vetoed the trade? I was assuming it required a majority to veto a trade. Three person league?
I play in a bunch of leagues with friends with one of those friends as the commish. How do you deal with trades if you dont allow league vetos?
The Comedian
Footballguy
If trades are going to be veto-able by league vote, league members can vote based on whatever criteria they want. 
nysportsfan
Footballguy
It's lame but your rules allow it.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
I veto any trade that comes in. I don't think it's fair that other owners are helped and not me by trading. Like, some dude traded Chris Johnson for Beanie Wells without making an offer to my team to see if I could beat it. Plus, it makes one of the teams better than it was before. That's collusion. So I vetoed. That's what the rule is for.
footballnerd
Footballguy
let them through, they are all grown folk capable of making their own individual determination of player value, don't need people they are competing against babysitting their decisions.
LargeMouthBass
Footballguy
I would never play in a league where all trades go through, unless it's for fun. It's too easy for collusion to take place. Especially when there is no trade deadline.
Chaka
Footballguy
Did one single veto vote kill trades in the league in question? It sure does in commish veto leagues, of course commishes are never subject the the type of thinking you are talking about here.
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto
Footballguy
This. We have a dynasty league where we have discussed the possibility of having some kind of anti-collusion measures, but every proposal we come up with is open to more abuses than not having vetos.
geoff8695
Footballguy
THISIf you don't like it don't allow vetos...
shnikies
Footballguy
You have a backup commissioner that decides on a trade if the commissioner is involved. You have a third in line in case the commissioner and the backup are involved in the trade.
Hoss_Cartwright
Footballguy
I sense the sarcasm. I'm sure you're joking, or at least you better be.
Topes
Footballguy
Am I wrong to think that the veto process should only take into consideration the value of the 4 players at the time the trade was made, and should not include the fact that Forte was hurt after. Please give me feedback. You're wrong, unless your rules specifically mandate what should be taken into consideration by owners voting AND owners made explicitly clear that they took other factors into account.
habsfan
Footballguy
Off topic but I wouldn't enter into a trade on Saturday that wouldn't be consummated until Monday. Any offers I have out there get cancelled prior to kick-off.
Fightin Donkey
Footballguy
Exactly.Every year we get these posts about guys complaining about trades being vetoed, yet every year guys get in these types of leagues.STUPID
the trade was offered on friday morning and would have cleared before sunday but the guy that I sent it to waited a day and a half to accept it.....as far as being in the league, its a friends league which is why I play.... I usually win every year though and am the manager with the target on my back every year.
Fightin Donkey
Footballguy
I am in one league that has this, it's my work league.I lobby to drop it every year, no go. I veto every single trade that comes through.Vetoes are stupid.
geoff8695
Footballguy
Cool story bro...
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
ool'shimp06 said:
glllll. Will answer yours.coachbobbyfinstock
Footballguy
Specualtion on your part. I'm in a league that allows trades to be vetoed, but you have to have a reason supported by facts. The real problem in my mind is the two day veto period. While two days is fine during the week, that should really be shortened to a 12 hour veto window, or 1 day veto period depending on when the trade was agreed upon. That way you don't run into this problem, I mean it is the NFL guys are getting hurt all over the place.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I fail to see how this silly rule would ever prevent anyone from vetoing a trade for whatever reason they want.
Saint
Footballguy
The reality is most people will utilize veto only for self interest. We got rid of vetoing because of this. Pretty much we allow trades to go through and if it looks like collusion then the owners have to justify the trade or the commish vetoes and reverses.
Therefore, they veto whenever they want... It's fair to veto in the situation stated by the OP as they had 2 days.
Therefore, they veto whenever they want... It's fair to veto in the situation stated by the OP as they had 2 days.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
Who decides if it looks like collusion? Don't most owner veto leagues require a majority of owners to vote for the veto before the trade is vetoed? I think that's better than one person making the same decisions.
