**OFFICIAL** (1 Viewer)

[AnonymousBob]

I figure this should help cut down some of the clutter in The Shark Pool. I know a lot of people have questions whether trades should or shouldn't be allowed so hopefully we can all direct these into just one thread.

A) It will help others get a sense of things by looking at other questionable deals.

B) It will cut down on clutter.

So let's all direct these type of threads into this one thread.

TRADES SHOULD NEVER BE VETOED UNLESS COLLUSION SEEMS REASONABLE

There's no rule against stupidity and we all value different players...differently.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)

Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas Clark

Team B gives Owen Daniels

Team A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.

In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

 

[Interseptopus]

Clutter?

I see one thread about this topic on the first page... hardly clutter...

but thank you Mr. Forum Admin for making an official thread... oh wait...

 

[Interseptopus]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas ClarkTeam B gives Owen DanielsTeam A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

Now see what you've done? You've brought all the ACF "should I make this trade" threads into the shark pool...

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas ClarkTeam B gives Owen DanielsTeam A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

Now see what you've done? You've brought all the ACF "should I make this trade" threads into the shark pool...

This is hardly a "should I make this trade" question...

 

[CMU37484]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas ClarkTeam B gives Owen DanielsTeam A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

That trade is just stupid. He gets Daniels and Clark really isn't that much of a worse player anyways and he gives up all those other players. It just doesn;t make any sense at all............ and why help a guy who is winless so much in Week 10?I'm grateful I'm in a leagie where that type of thing would NEVER happen.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas ClarkTeam B gives Owen DanielsTeam A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

That trade is just stupid. He gets Daniels and Clark really isn't that much of a worse player anyways and he gives up all those other players. It just doesn;t make any sense at all............ and why help a guy who is winless so much in Week 10?I'm grateful I'm in a leagie where that type of thing would NEVER happen.

I know the trade is stupid. That was the point. But should it be vetoed?

 

[Northbound Train]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas ClarkTeam B gives Owen DanielsTeam A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

Just to humour myself....trades should NEVER be vetoed unless collusion is expected.However, Team A must be riding the short bus to the practise field....regardless of those guys not being starters there is something that can be said about depth....especially this year with all the stud QB's and RB's going down

 

[AnonymousBob]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas ClarkTeam B gives Owen DanielsTeam A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

I believe in redraft leagues once a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs they should not be allowed to make any more trades. If he still has a chance or if this is a dynasty league I'd congratulate the guy for getting loads of starters for Daniels.

 

[Interseptopus]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)

Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas Clark

Team B gives Owen Daniels

Team A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.

In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

Just to humour myself....trades should NEVER be vetoed unless collusion is expected.However, Team A must be riding the short bus to the practise field....regardless of those guys not being starters there is something that can be said about depth....especially this year with all the stud QB's and RB's going down

Can we get rid of every post in this thread and just put the bold text in the OP? I think that sums it up

 

[CMU37484]

Whether or not a trade should be vetoed depends on the league. Most people understand what collusion is but some leagues have language about stupid trades as well, or blatant lopsidedness like this one.

So the question is what does YOUR league rules/bylaws say about vetoes? If nothing is said than what exactly can you do? Not much.

If there is language about bad trades, veto, etc. than you have a clear beef here.

Each league is different and has it's own rules.......you can;t just expect to come here and geta "ytes" or "no" on the veto. It depends on the league. Most people in these forums, myself included, don't believe in a veto unless collusion is clear. The problem is that collusion can rarely be proven unlessa it's obvious enough. The guys unloading all those players can claim he REALLY likes Owen Daniels obviously right? Bottom line is if your league doesn;t have any rules about terrible trades then live with it. It's cleaely not collusion though because the moron is giving a WINLESS team all those players.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Clutter? I see one thread about this topic on the first page... hardly clutter...but thank you Mr. Forum Admin for making an official thread... oh wait...

Now that you're aware of what this thread consists of I don't expect to see you back in it. No need to waste any more of your time.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)

Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas Clark

Team B gives Owen Daniels

Team A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.

In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

Just to humour myself....trades should NEVER be vetoed unless collusion is expected.However, Team A must be riding the short bus to the practise field....regardless of those guys not being starters there is something that can be said about depth....especially this year with all the stud QB's and RB's going down

Can we get rid of every post in this thread and just put the bold text in the OP? I think that sums it up

For the 485th time, collusion cannot be proven. Also, the word is "suspected", not "expected" in that context.

 

[fsufan]

Hypothetical trade (just to see what others think)

Team A gives Donovan McNabb, Ryan Grant, Santana Moss, and Dallas Clark

Team B gives Owen Daniels

Team A is undefeated, and is stacked in all positions. Team B is winless. Should a trade this lopsided be vetoed? Keep in mind the only starter Team A is giving up is Dallas Clark. But, he is giving up Donovan, Ryan, and Santana just to get a small bump at TE.

In short, should trades be viewed at face value, or do we need to take other factors into account?

That trade is just stupid. He gets Daniels and Clark really isn't that much of a worse player anyways and he gives up all those other players. It just doesn;t make any sense at all............ and why help a guy who is winless so much in Week 10?I'm grateful I'm in a leagie where that type of thing would NEVER happen.

I know the trade is stupid. That was the point. But should it be vetoed?

no

 

[fsufan]

Whether or not a trade should be vetoed depends on the league. Most people understand what collusion is but some leagues have language about stupid trades as well, or blatant lopsidedness like this one.

So the question is what does YOUR league rules/bylaws say about vetoes? If nothing is said than what exactly can you do? Not much.

If there is language about bad trades, veto, etc. than you have a clear beef here.

Each league is different and has it's own rules.......you can;t just expect to come here and geta "ytes" or "no" on the veto. It depends on the league. Most people in these forums, myself included, don't believe in a veto unless collusion is clear. The problem is that collusion can rarely be proven unlessa it's obvious enough. The guys unloading all those players can claim he REALLY likes Owen Daniels obviously right? Bottom line is if your league doesn;t have any rules about terrible trades then live with it. It's cleaely not collusion though because the moron is giving a WINLESS team all those players.

but who judges if it is a bad trade or not? we all have different views and options on players.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

The trade doesn't seem too realistic for a hypothetical. Most people play with a full roster so if someone's getting 4 guys while giving up only one they're going to have to cut 3 guys. That's why you don't see many 4-for-1 deals.

 

[CMU37484]

Whether or not a trade should be vetoed depends on the league. Most people understand what collusion is but some leagues have language about stupid trades as well, or blatant lopsidedness like this one.

So the question is what does YOUR league rules/bylaws say about vetoes? If nothing is said than what exactly can you do? Not much.

If there is language about bad trades, veto, etc. than you have a clear beef here.

Each league is different and has it's own rules.......you can;t just expect to come here and geta "ytes" or "no" on the veto. It depends on the league. Most people in these forums, myself included, don't believe in a veto unless collusion is clear. The problem is that collusion can rarely be proven unlessa it's obvious enough. The guys unloading all those players can claim he REALLY likes Owen Daniels obviously right? Bottom line is if your league doesn;t have any rules about terrible trades then live with it. It's cleaely not collusion though because the moron is giving a WINLESS team all those players.

but who judges if it is a bad trade or not? we all have different views and options on players.

Good point. No one really "should" judge it. My point is that if the league doesn't have language about it than he should just quit whining about it. My league has some language about terrible trades but in 12 years together we've NEVER seen the commish step in and overrule something. If he DID have that type of language it does open another can of worms I realize...........I'm just trying to understand the type of league this guy is in and what exactly his goal is. Technically even clear COLLUSION is a matter of opinion and no trade should EVER be vetoed.

I might THINK Matt Jones for Larry Fitzgerald and Thomss Jones is a fair deal because I LOVE Matt Jones and am a huge Jags fan right? My "opinion" is all that matters even if the guy getting Jones and Fitz is undefeated..

 

[Interseptopus]

The fact that there's a thread dedicated to this is hilarious

 

[CMU37484]

The fact that there's a thread dedicated to this is hilarious

It's even more funny that you have now posted in it FOUR times considering what you are saying.

 

[Interseptopus]

The fact that there's a thread dedicated to this is hilarious

It's even more funny that you have now posted in it FOUR times considering what you are saying.

 

[fred_1_15301]

The fact that there's a thread dedicated to this is hilarious

It's even more funny that you have now posted in it FOUR times considering what you are saying.

The count is at 5.......... . Lets go ahead and call this an obsession.........

 

[AnonymousBob]

The fact that there's a thread dedicated to this is hilarious

See post #12.

 

[MAC_32]

I see Doctor DR isn't too good at math, I count two veto/collusion threads. I hope math isn't required in whatever doctoring you do...and I agree there have been way too many of these threads in a forum dedicated to NFL talk. I'm new so maybe this is normal but I just don't think it belongs here, just my two cents.

 

[comfortably numb]

bump

 

[Vision6]

Just venting a lil bit...

If you read my thread earlier about the trade I made sending AJ,MJD,Eli, Cotchery for AD and Fitz. After a lot of #####ing the commish wussed out and vetoed the trade to the dismay of me and the other owner. So we refuted and he finally agreed to let the trade go through after week 10 (cuz of the thurs night game). However since AD had a huge game while AJ and Cotch had stinkers the other owners are crying again. Only now the other owner is listening and decided he doesn't want to do the trade now cuz he thinks he's getting screwed over. It will be funny though when he realizes his two man team won't get him any where and his team is still below .500.

So there you have it, the trade was not only vetoed but essentially vetoed twice. This league has been going on a for a few years (re draft every year) and I guess they're sick of me doing well. After this year I'll probably walk away, all this fuss over some bragging rights and a $50 league fee

...BTW a str8 up trade of Clinton Portis for Chad Johnson at week 4 went through in this league and when I bring it up it is viewed as a much fairer trade than this one lol. Sure we all laughed at the guy getting stinko but no one even hinted at a veto.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Just venting a lil bit...If you read my thread earlier about the trade I made sending AJ,MJD,Eli, Cotchery for AD and Fitz. After a lot of #####ing the commish wussed out and vetoed the trade to the dismay of me and the other owner. So we refuted and he finally agreed to let the trade go through after week 10 (cuz of the thurs night game). However since AD had a huge game while AJ and Cotch had stinkers the other owners are crying again. Only now the other owner is listening and decided he doesn't want to do the trade now cuz he thinks he's getting screwed over. It will be funny though when he realizes his two man team won't get him any where and his team is still below .500.So there you have it, the trade was not only vetoed but essentially vetoed twice. This league has been going on a for a few years (re draft every year) and I guess they're sick of me doing well. After this year I'll probably walk away, all this fuss over some bragging rights and a $50 league fee ...BTW a str8 up trade of Clinton Portis for Chad Johnson at week 4 went through in this league and when I bring it up it is viewed as a much fairer trade than this one lol. Sure we all laughed at the guy getting stinko but no one even hinted at a veto.

That's rough. I hate leagues with weak commissioners.

 

[AnonymousBob]

I traded away Grant/Breaston (return yardage league) for SJax. A lot of eyebrows are being raised and the co-commish is questioning my intent.

Stupid people. Let the deal stand!!!

 

[fsck_101]

Just an anecdote that probably doesn't deserve it's own thread...I made a trade proposal way back in week 6. I completely lowballed a guy in hopes of picking up MBIII... I offered Calvin Johnson and JT O'Sullivan for MBIII. Thought it a good place to start.We use CBS Sportsline, and the rules were set up so that once a trade was accepted, it had to be approved by the Commish. This rule is written thusly:

The trading policy in this league is simple. All trades must be approved by the commissioner. All trades will be approved by the commissioner unless the trading parties are suspected of engaging in collusion. Those colluding with other owners will be subject to public ridicule and rejection of their trades.

Anyway, the trade was accepted by the other owner (who was strong in RBs but had no QB or WR of note). Minutes after telling me he had accepted, he said he changed his mind and the Commish rejected the trade. I was OK with that, although it wasn't technically following the rules to the letter. I tried different trade proposals to sweeten the pot but he never responded to anything.The next week, he makes a trade with the Commish that was arguably as one-sided as my proposal. I was pissed at this point, and asked the other owner if the Commish had talked him out of the initial trade. He confirmed. I asked the Commish if that's what happened, and he also confirmed... instead of simply reviewing the trade for collusion (which it wasn't), he talked the owner out of the trade so he could make a trade with him the next week.Before I could even fire off a resignation email to the Commish, he had reversed the trade he made, and approved the original trade I had proposed. He then made a public apology for overstepping his bounds.That's a strong Commish.

 

[Nate]

The fact that there's a thread dedicated to this is hilarious

It's even more funny that you have now posted in it FOUR times considering what you are saying.

Yeah DR, nobody cares about your opinion on the necessity of this thread.