HYPOCRITE - I just VETOED my first trade ever (1 Viewer)

[donkshow]

Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.

This.I will only veto a trade if there is collusion. Otherwise, let a GM manage their team the way they want. I hate people that veto one-sided deals because they weren't lucky enough to be involved.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.

This.I will only veto a trade if there is collusion. Otherwise, let a GM manage their team the way they want. I hate people that veto one-sided deals because they weren't lucky enough to be involved.

donk, could you specify how you would know or how you could prove if collusion happened? schooner, what constitutes clear evidence of collusion for you? Let's assume neither party admits to collusion.

 

[Rick James]

Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.

This.I will only veto a trade if there is collusion. Otherwise, let a GM manage their team the way they want. I hate people that veto one-sided deals because they weren't lucky enough to be involved.

donk, could you specify how you would know or how you could prove if collusion happened? schooner, what constitutes clear evidence of collusion for you? Let's assume neither party admits to collusion.

Yeah, I think that notion is pretty silly. Team A already has Tony Romo, Arian Foster, Julio Jones, Demaryius Thomas and Heath Miller. I'm supposed to just let Team B dump Welker, Wayne, Johnson, and McGahee for nothing to Team A, just because I don't have proof that it's collusion?That seems crazy to me.

 

[Runningman]

Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.

This.I will only veto a trade if there is collusion. Otherwise, let a GM manage their team the way they want. I hate people that veto one-sided deals because they weren't lucky enough to be involved.

To a certain level I will agree but if the deal is league wrecking it needs to be killed, colussion or no. The stupid answer of "just leave the league" or "kick them out next year" doesn't work when there is thousands of dollars at stake. This power needs to be used RARELY, as a commissioner I vetoed or put to a league vote two trades in 16 years, but when it needs to be done it needs to be done.

 

[Runningman]

Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.

This.I will only veto a trade if there is collusion. Otherwise, let a GM manage their team the way they want. I hate people that veto one-sided deals because they weren't lucky enough to be involved.

donk, could you specify how you would know or how you could prove if collusion happened? schooner, what constitutes clear evidence of collusion for you? Let's assume neither party admits to collusion.

Yeah, I think that notion is pretty silly. Team A already has Tony Romo, Arian Foster, Julio Jones, Demaryius Thomas and Heath Miller. I'm supposed to just let Team B dump Welker, Wayne, Johnson, and McGahee for nothing to Team A, just because I don't have proof that it's collusion?That seems crazy to me.

Yeah it is nuts. Don't let the criminally stupid ruin your league.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Unless there is clear evidence of collusion, a trade should NEVER be vetoed. I don't see any collusion here. It may not appear to be an exactly even trade but few rarely are and it's ultimately up to the owners to determine their own trade's worth.

I've been a commish since 1992 and I've vetoed one trade in my 20 years. For those that remember the player involved, it was Herman Moore for a kicker and a case of beer.

This.I will only veto a trade if there is collusion. Otherwise, let a GM manage their team the way they want. I hate people that veto one-sided deals because they weren't lucky enough to be involved.

donk, could you specify how you would know or how you could prove if collusion happened? schooner, what constitutes clear evidence of collusion for you? Let's assume neither party admits to collusion.

Yeah, I think that notion is pretty silly. Team A already has Tony Romo, Arian Foster, Julio Jones, Demaryius Thomas and Heath Miller. I'm supposed to just let Team B dump Welker, Wayne, Johnson, and McGahee for nothing to Team A, just because I don't have proof that it's collusion?That seems crazy to me.

Actually, I meant it as a serious question. I recognize that perhaps a majority of FF players agree with donk's "veto for collusion only" stance. I happen to disagree with that and think like the majority in this thread, that there are RARE occasions when an EXTREMELY lopsided trade (taking into account the league's type and rules) must be voided. What I want to know, though, is how is collusion proved if nobody admits to it? What constitutes "clear evidence"? TIA

 

[Crazy Tony]

Before you jump the gun... ask each owner why they like the trade as it's "Under review".

Just ask them their opinion. What they hope to accomplish with it.

If they both have valid strategy... you don't have to agree with hit but you shouldn't veto.

Put a post in the league w/ decision. "Trade was reviewed and approved based on feedback from the owners. It's not necessarily a trade I would accept but I don't want to prevent teams from having the option to make moves that they feel is in their best decision, risk reward"

Also factor in where they rank in the league and whats at stake. Do they need to gamble to make a run etc?

One guy's giving up depth and a number of meh-options for some higher caliber starter upgrades.

The other guy, if he sees value in trade rumors for Blount DAW etc should be allowed to trade for them.

You veto this and the team that you think is getting screwed would have actually been brilliant...that's the worst possible thing that can happen.