Looking for your thoughts on a trade that was just vetoed in a league (1 Viewer)

[WildWoolies]

I am not one of the teams involved but I am curious to hear others thoughts on trade that was vetoed.

Team A gets Torry Holt

Team B gets Jamal Lewis and Isaac Bruce

16 team league and the team owners get to vote on trades. Standard performance scoring 1 point/10 yds rush or rec., 6 points for TD rush/rec., no ppr. Start 2 RBs and 3 WR/TE. Do not have to start a TE.

Full rosters listed below.

Team A:

QB Michael Vick

QB Charlie Frye

RB Larry Johnson

RB Fred Taylor

RB Jamal Lewis

RB Michael Bennett

WR Jerricho Cotchery

WR Eddie Kennison

WR Isaac Bruce

TE Antonio Gates

TE L.J. Smith

PK David Akers

PK Joe Nedney

DEF Chargers

Team B:

QB Matt Hasselbeck

QB Josh McCown

RB Tatum Bell

RB Michael Pittman

RB Antowain Smith

WR Torry Holt

WR Rod Smith

WR Chad Jackson

WR Kevin Curtis

TE Alge Crumpler

TE Marcus Pollard

TE Jerramy Stevens

PK Jay Feely

DEF Steelers

 

[dawgtrails]

I am not one of the teams involved but I am curious to hear others thoughts on trade that was vetoed.Team A gets Torry Holt Team B gets Jamal Lewis and Isaac BruceStandard performance scoring 1 point/10 yds rush or rec., 6 points for TD rush/rec., no ppr. Start 2 RBs and 3 WR/TE. Do not have to start a TE.Full rosters listed below.Team A:QB Michael VickQB Charlie FryeRB Larry JohnsonRB Fred TaylorRB Jamal LewisRB Michael BennettWR Jerricho CotcheryWR Eddie KennisonWR Isaac BruceTE Antonio GatesTE L.J. SmithPK David AkersPK Joe NedneyDEF ChargersTeam B:QB Matt HasselbeckQB Josh McCownRB Tatum BellRB Michael PittmanRB Antowain SmithWR Torry HoltWR Rod SmithWR Chad JacksonWR Kevin CurtisTE Alge CrumplerTE Marcus PollardTE Jerramy StevensPK Jay FeelyDEF Steelers

i hate these posts...butthis trade seems more than fair. look at team B's RBs?? did he draft this team thinking it was 2002? pittman and a. smith dont even belong on teams rosters, especially not his team.he made a pretty good deal in getting jamal and ike.his team still sucks thoughteam a is not that hot either

 

[Marc Levin]

Draconian veto - i'd lodge a protest with the commish for veto'ing it and call him out as power hungry for veto'ing an obviously FAIR trade.

 

[LHUCKS]

shouldn't be vetoed

 

[stevegamer]

Non-confidence vote to replace the commish. That's what I'd do.

 

[Johnny Ice]

This trade is not unfair at all. Pretty ridiculous it was vetoed. Trades that should be vetoed are pretty much obvious like Bo Scaife and Maurice Drew for Torry Holt.

 

[pettifogger]

I don't understand the veto either. Team B has a desperate need for another starting RB.

 

[perry147]

shouldn't be vetoed

 

[nightshift]

Was there collusion between these owners? If the answer is "NO!", then there should not be a veto.

 

[gman8343]

I would withdraw from any league that vetoed this trade.

 

[WildWoolies]

I should have clarified. 16 team league and the team owners get to vote on trades. Commish has no say.

 

[comfortably numb]

Tell Hitler to get his finger off the button

 

[WildWoolies]

Owners vote to veto. Commish has a vote but no final word. Modified original post to reflect.

 

[dawgtrails]

I should have clarified. 16 team league and the team owners get to vote on trades. Commish has no say.

How did you vote?Vetoeing this is dumb. I would protest all day and night if this happened in my league. I would demand my money back and make it known to anyone else who is interested in joining this league that they will be playing with a bunch of crybaby losers

 

[WildWoolies]

I voted to allow.

 

[Cowtippers]

The trade is FAIR.

I would never play in a league that allows owners to approve/veto all trades.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Which side is supposed to be getting the better deal?

 

[WisWolvrns]

Fair trade to me. Who is on the respective teams is not relavent, just the trade matters. If an owner drafted deep at one spot and can trade to get a different position, all the power to them. Lewis/Bruce for Holt is fair. Curious why they claim it isn't.

 

[stevegamer]

Okay, so it's not the commish's fault directly. 3 more questions:

1. How did (s)he vote?

2. Do the owners involved int he trade get to vote yes?

3. Do all trades come up for vote, or only ones that get questioned?

 

[WildWoolies]

Consensus seems to be that the team that is getting Holt is getting the better deal.

 

[Ozymandias]

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

NO TRADE SHOULD BE VETOED UNLESS THERE IS COLLUSION.

 

[WildWoolies]

All trades come up for votes. Yes votes do not count. If enough no votes it gets vetoed.

 

[Third]

I HATE leagues that allow owners to vote on trades. Well...not the league itself, but the rule.....you know what I mean. I would never play in a league with that rule. Should be open trading or commish veto upon collusion only. If Team C is playing Team A this week and thinks that the trade will improve Team A's lineup....hmmmm, you think Team C might have some incentive to vote it down. Just a stupid way to do things.

 

[videoguy505]

I was in a league last year where owners got to vote on every trade ("approvals process"). Not a single trade all year went through. Every single one was vetoed.

 

[RC94]

No way this trade should have been vetoed.

 

[MDSkinner]

This seems like a perfectly fair trade to me.

One team gets two serviceable players, the other gets one really good player. Both get something that they need. To me this makes a lot of sense.

I am actually for leagues that allow the other teams to veto (one of my leagues this year, we had a case where this was necessary as someone was attempting to stack their team by trading Betts for Portis). However, this is clearly a case where this was misused.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Of course the trade should be allowed. Now excuse me while I go and vomit in advance of all the "veto when collusion only" posts that are sure to inhabit this thread shortly. How often has collusion ever been proved in fantasy football trading? Rarely, I'm guessing. How often do ridiculously lopsided trades which can ruin the integrity of a league occur? More frequently, I'm guessing.

 

[Pipes]

Which side is supposed to be getting the better deal?

 

[L5UT1ger]

I dont care what anyone's roster was before and after, thats irrelevant to me...ask one question...

WAS THERE COLLUSION?

If not, let the trade go. That is not even close to a trade thats unfair. I would not return to that league. They are not letting owners run their teams. What fun is that? Sooooo Unamerican.

Playing with a bunch of crybabies sucks.

 

[stevegamer]

All trades come up for votes. Yes votes do not count. If enough no votes it gets vetoed.

How many is enough?I'd simply make a post ont he massage board that if they can't handle fair trades like this, the league should simply go to no trading. And it will, because everyone will veto deals they aren't in.If your commish voted "no" to the deal, they are too clueless to be your commish.

 

[WildWoolies]

7 votes required to veto. Assumption is the owners involved will not veto. So requires half the owners not involved to veto a trade.

The commish and the co-commish voted to allow.

 

[stevegamer]

Sounds like the guys in charge have their act together at least, with one exception:

7 out of 16 is not close to enough to allow a veto. Think about this: it takes less than a majority of owners. I'd suggest a rule change to be put in place for next year to do away with the voting or make it something like 10 no votes. Maybe only on certain questionable deals.

Other optuion is to find a new league. Good luck.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That's a ridiculous veto. I'd make it at least 10 of 14 have to nix the deal if you're going to insist on league voting.

 

[metoo]

I didn't look at the teams, it a fair trade. Unless collusion, no trade in any league should be overturned, period.

 

[Bolitar]

Regardless of the rosters (I didn't look at them - don't think it should matter) the trade is fair, or not nearly lopsided enough to consider vetoing

 

[StraightCash]

Of course the trade should be allowed. Now excuse me while I go and vomit in advance of all the "veto when collusion only" posts that are sure to inhabit this thread shortly. How often has collusion ever been proved in fantasy football trading? Rarely, I'm guessing. How often do ridiculously lopsided trades which can ruin the integrity of a league occur? More frequently, I'm guessing.

This needs a

 

[VaCatFan]

The biggest problem with this trade is this.....

team owners get to vote on trades.

Next year move to a league that let's you actually manage your teams.