Should I quit my money league? (1 Viewer)

[Mikey16x]

My CBS league is very QB driven. The scoring should definitely be tweaked but QB's are a commodity. Last year, Jason Campbell outscored the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. This is a start 2 QB league with the option of starting 3 at the FLEX position. When I was drafting, I drafted 5 QB's with the thought of pushing at least two of them to a team for an upgrade. One of the other plays only drafted two quarterbacks, not really going for depth at the position. He lost Kevin Kolb for this week and is going to be forced to take the 0 considering there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool. This is when things get hairy..

I offered him Derek Anderson and Matt Moore for Philip Rivers and Beanie Wells. Now, my team is already stacked and I was the highest scoring in the league last year. I'm basically trading my depth for a serious upgrade at QB to where he's now going to be able to start all three quarterbacks himself. This league is 'public veto', where the other managers can veto the trade. Naturally, it was vetoed. I fully believe that this is just a case of they don't want the rich to get richer. I fully disagree with the vetoing of the trade and considering the league entry fee was $400, I think we all have a right to manage our own teams. Because this trade was vetoed, the other owner is now going to have to take the 0 (which leads me to believe that his opponent this week was obviously one of the veto's). Was this trade that unreasonable? I don't think so, especially given the scoring system and how precious QB's are. Should I leave this league? Or am I being dramatic?

 

[ActionHero]

Win the league and then quit next year

 

[thehornet]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

 

[bigmurd]

Bad trade and I am generally anti-veto. Veto rules were known before the league started I assmue which leads me to the conclusion that you ignore this and move on. Unless of course you want to gift the veto happy members your $400? And don't play with them next year.

 

[Rylenol]

Some leagues get way too crazy with scoring and position settings. For instance, I personally don't get two QB leagues. Why do that? Also, $400 entry fee!? That's awesome but I'd never join a league that gives QB's such an advantage.

 

[FunkyTeaParty]

I hate public veto leagues. If you get stuck with a bunch of creeps you're screwed.

I don't know if I would quit the league, but I would veto every trade the rest of the year and not join next year.

 

[latrops]

My CBS league is very QB driven. The scoring should definitely be tweaked but QB's are a commodity. Last year, Jason Campbell outscored the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. This is a start 2 QB league with the option of starting 3 at the FLEX position. When I was drafting, I drafted 5 QB's with the thought of pushing at least two of them to a team for an upgrade. One of the other plays only drafted two quarterbacks, not really going for depth at the position. He lost Kevin Kolb for this week and is going to be forced to take the 0 considering there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool. This is when things get hairy..

I offered him Derek Anderson and Matt Moore for Philip Rivers and Beanie Wells. Now, my team is already stacked and I was the highest scoring in the league last year. I'm basically trading my depth for a serious upgrade at QB to where he's now going to be able to start all three quarterbacks himself. This league is 'public veto', where the other managers can veto the trade. Naturally, it was vetoed. I fully believe that this is just a case of they don't want the rich to get richer. I fully disagree with the vetoing of the trade and considering the league entry fee was $400, I think we all have a right to manage our own teams. Because this trade was vetoed, the other owner is now going to have to take the 0 (which leads me to believe that his opponent this week was obviously one of the veto's). Was this trade that unreasonable? I don't think so, especially given the scoring system and how precious QB's are. Should I leave this league? Or am I being dramatic?

If I'm dominating the format, I don't quit. Given the amount of money involved, sounds like a pretty lucrative venture for you given that some of your competition doesn't even bother fielding a full lineup. Any openings in your league?PS. Given that there are no starting qbs available, it should be a given that some people are going to take zeroes at qb every once in a while. Between bye weeks, injuries, and the unusual emphasis on qbs, there simply won't ever be enough to go around. I can see the logic behind vetoing the deal. You help the guy field a full lineup, but not one that is really going to be any more competitive.

 

[Mikey16x]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

Yeah, I know it sounds bad but I'm telling you dude, in this flawed league you rather start Matt Moore than a Greg Jennings any Sunday. For instance, Carson Palmer netted me like 25 points this week, Hakeem Nicks netted me 17. It's completely flawed, but I drafted for that.

 

[shadyridr]

trade is not vetoable IMO due to your roster requirements. Too much money on the line to quit now. Try to win and then end of the yr bounce due to the dumb rules. this is supposed to be fun. no need to stress over it.

 

[Mikey16x]

Bad trade and I am generally anti-veto. Veto rules were known before the league started I assmue which leads me to the conclusion that you ignore this and move on. Unless of course you want to gift the veto happy members your $400? And don't play with them next year.

Believe it or not, I was under the impression that it was only a Commish veto, but the Commish said that he forgot to change the setting after the fact. So now, we are stuck with a public veto.. again...

 

[shadyridr]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

Yeah, I know it sounds bad but I'm telling you dude, in this flawed league you rather start Matt Moore than a Greg Jennings any Sunday. For instance, Carson Palmer netted me like 25 points this week, Hakeem Nicks netted me 17. It's completely flawed, but I drafted for that.

curious what the scoring system is

 

[pipman33]

I quite playing CBS due to all the vetos and dont count on the commish holding up the trades because their cowards there and dont want to piss the majority off. Last year I had a trade of Joseph Addai and Deveon Hester for Randy Moss get vetoed and I vowed to never play for CBS again.

 

[All_Day28]

if it were league veto, i would have voted it down. 2 of the worst starting quarterbacks in the league, one is concussed, for 2nd tier fantasy qb and a rb2 (when healthy, beanie will get majority of carries, hightower is only useful for catching passes)? if you're so worried about the owner you're trading with getting a 0 in one of his starting QB spots, why don't you trade him two healthy quarterbacks? also, it's your fault for joining a 400 dollar money league with such a ridiculously lopsided scoring system. what a joke.

 

[fsufan]

My CBS league is very QB driven. The scoring should definitely be tweaked but QB's are a commodity. Last year, Jason Campbell outscored the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. This is a start 2 QB league with the option of starting 3 at the FLEX position. When I was drafting, I drafted 5 QB's with the thought of pushing at least two of them to a team for an upgrade. One of the other plays only drafted two quarterbacks, not really going for depth at the position. He lost Kevin Kolb for this week and is going to be forced to take the 0 considering there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool. This is when things get hairy..I offered him Derek Anderson and Matt Moore for Philip Rivers and Beanie Wells. Now, my team is already stacked and I was the highest scoring in the league last year. I'm basically trading my depth for a serious upgrade at QB to where he's now going to be able to start all three quarterbacks himself. This league is 'public veto', where the other managers can veto the trade. Naturally, it was vetoed. I fully believe that this is just a case of they don't want the rich to get richer. I fully disagree with the vetoing of the trade and considering the league entry fee was $400, I think we all have a right to manage our own teams. Because this trade was vetoed, the other owner is now going to have to take the 0 (which leads me to believe that his opponent this week was obviously one of the veto's). Was this trade that unreasonable? I don't think so, especially given the scoring system and how precious QB's are. Should I leave this league? Or am I being dramatic?

will you be able to get back the $400 if you leave? if not I would stay and try to win it alli have played in a few leagues years ago that voted on trades, all trades would get voted down. I do not play in leagues that allow trade voting any more

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

 

[Mikey16x]

My CBS league is very QB driven. The scoring should definitely be tweaked but QB's are a commodity. Last year, Jason Campbell outscored the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. This is a start 2 QB league with the option of starting 3 at the FLEX position. When I was drafting, I drafted 5 QB's with the thought of pushing at least two of them to a team for an upgrade. One of the other plays only drafted two quarterbacks, not really going for depth at the position. He lost Kevin Kolb for this week and is going to be forced to take the 0 considering there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool. This is when things get hairy..I offered him Derek Anderson and Matt Moore for Philip Rivers and Beanie Wells. Now, my team is already stacked and I was the highest scoring in the league last year. I'm basically trading my depth for a serious upgrade at QB to where he's now going to be able to start all three quarterbacks himself. This league is 'public veto', where the other managers can veto the trade. Naturally, it was vetoed. I fully believe that this is just a case of they don't want the rich to get richer. I fully disagree with the vetoing of the trade and considering the league entry fee was $400, I think we all have a right to manage our own teams. Because this trade was vetoed, the other owner is now going to have to take the 0 (which leads me to believe that his opponent this week was obviously one of the veto's). Was this trade that unreasonable? I don't think so, especially given the scoring system and how precious QB's are. Should I leave this league? Or am I being dramatic?

will you be able to get back the $400 if you leave? if not I would stay and try to win it allPayment is due by the beginning of the kickoff on week 3. I have not a single dollar invested yet this year. But, I do hold myself to a higher standard than most and I don't like bailing on people like that. I really rather shove it up their asses and win it all even with the BS. But it will probably be my last year in the league. i have played in a few leagues years ago that voted on trades, all trades would get voted down. I do not play in leagues that allow trade voting any more

 

[Traders2001]

Your giving him two guys who wont be starting anymore in 2 - 3 weeks , please .....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My CBS league is very QB driven. The scoring should definitely be tweaked but QB's are a commodity. Last year, Jason Campbell outscored the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. This is a start 2 QB league with the option of starting 3 at the FLEX position. When I was drafting, I drafted 5 QB's with the thought of pushing at least two of them to a team for an upgrade. One of the other plays only drafted two quarterbacks, not really going for depth at the position. He lost Kevin Kolb for this week and is going to be forced to take the 0 considering there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool. This is when things get hairy..

I offered him Derek Anderson and Matt Moore for Philip Rivers and Beanie Wells. Now, my team is already stacked and I was the highest scoring in the league last year. I'm basically trading my depth for a serious upgrade at QB to where he's now going to be able to start all three quarterbacks himself. This league is 'public veto', where the other managers can veto the trade. Naturally, it was vetoed. I fully believe that this is just a case of they don't want the rich to get richer. I fully disagree with the vetoing of the trade and considering the league entry fee was $400, I think we all have a right to manage our own teams. Because this trade was vetoed, the other owner is now going to have to take the 0 (which leads me to believe that his opponent this week was obviously one of the veto's). Was this trade that unreasonable? I don't think so, especially given the scoring system and how precious QB's are. Should I leave this league? Or am I being dramatic?

This - "there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool" - is a problem for your league.

This problem will happen again, because QB's will get benched, hurt, etc.

So I would bring these things up directly:

1. What do they propose to do about the above problem? Is this guy with 1 QB suppsoed to go ALL SEASON LONG with only 1 QB? How about other owners in the future when this happens? Ask them, they may be next, their year could be skrewed.

2. What was the vote? Because if it passed by 1 this week's opponent should not be in the vote. Heck maybe none of them should be because all owners are compromised because all onwers will profit by weakening one of their teams right out of competitiveness.

3. Directly ask them what other players would be a fair trade? This other guy has what to offer besides Philip Rivers? Can you trade Anderson and Moore for his No. 1 RB or WR1, would that be ok?

I say confront them.

 

[fsufan]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

Yeah, I know it sounds bad but I'm telling you dude, in this flawed league you rather start Matt Moore than a Greg Jennings any Sunday. For instance, Carson Palmer netted me like 25 points this week, Hakeem Nicks netted me 17. It's completely flawed, but I drafted for that.

in my PPR league palmer out scored nicks 30.15 to 29.50

in my non PPR palmer 30.15 nicks 25.50

what is the score system?

 

[latrops]

My CBS league is very QB driven. The scoring should definitely be tweaked but QB's are a commodity. Last year, Jason Campbell outscored the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. This is a start 2 QB league with the option of starting 3 at the FLEX position. When I was drafting, I drafted 5 QB's with the thought of pushing at least two of them to a team for an upgrade. One of the other plays only drafted two quarterbacks, not really going for depth at the position. He lost Kevin Kolb for this week and is going to be forced to take the 0 considering there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool. This is when things get hairy..

I offered him Derek Anderson and Matt Moore for Philip Rivers and Beanie Wells. Now, my team is already stacked and I was the highest scoring in the league last year. I'm basically trading my depth for a serious upgrade at QB to where he's now going to be able to start all three quarterbacks himself. This league is 'public veto', where the other managers can veto the trade. Naturally, it was vetoed. I fully believe that this is just a case of they don't want the rich to get richer. I fully disagree with the vetoing of the trade and considering the league entry fee was $400, I think we all have a right to manage our own teams. Because this trade was vetoed, the other owner is now going to have to take the 0 (which leads me to believe that his opponent this week was obviously one of the veto's). Was this trade that unreasonable? I don't think so, especially given the scoring system and how precious QB's are. Should I leave this league? Or am I being dramatic?

will you be able to get back the $400 if you leave? if not I would stay and try to win it all

i have played in a few leagues years ago that voted on trades, all trades would get voted down. I do not play in leagues that allow trade voting any more

I've seen a number of people post similar sentiments. Personally, I've been in leagues that vote on trades, but very seldom do deals get overturned. I think it varies from league to league whether or not trade voting works. You just have to be in with a majority of guys that are likeminded in that they will only vote down extremely lopsided deals.

 

[footballnerd]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

Yeah, I know it sounds bad but I'm telling you dude, in this flawed league you rather start Matt Moore than a Greg Jennings any Sunday. For instance, Carson Palmer netted me like 25 points this week, Hakeem Nicks netted me 17. It's completely flawed, but I drafted for that.

what is that? less than 6pts for rec TDs? (fixed)QB scoring seems about right, but the WRs are jacked.

 

[fsufan]

My CBS league is very QB driven. The scoring should definitely be tweaked but QB's are a commodity. Last year, Jason Campbell outscored the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, etc. This is a start 2 QB league with the option of starting 3 at the FLEX position. When I was drafting, I drafted 5 QB's with the thought of pushing at least two of them to a team for an upgrade. One of the other plays only drafted two quarterbacks, not really going for depth at the position. He lost Kevin Kolb for this week and is going to be forced to take the 0 considering there are absolutely no starting QB's in the free agency pool. This is when things get hairy..I offered him Derek Anderson and Matt Moore for Philip Rivers and Beanie Wells. Now, my team is already stacked and I was the highest scoring in the league last year. I'm basically trading my depth for a serious upgrade at QB to where he's now going to be able to start all three quarterbacks himself. This league is 'public veto', where the other managers can veto the trade. Naturally, it was vetoed. I fully believe that this is just a case of they don't want the rich to get richer. I fully disagree with the vetoing of the trade and considering the league entry fee was $400, I think we all have a right to manage our own teams. Because this trade was vetoed, the other owner is now going to have to take the 0 (which leads me to believe that his opponent this week was obviously one of the veto's). Was this trade that unreasonable? I don't think so, especially given the scoring system and how precious QB's are. Should I leave this league? Or am I being dramatic?

will you be able to get back the $400 if you leave? if not I would stay and try to win it allPayment is due by the beginning of the kickoff on week 3. I have not a single dollar invested yet this year. But, I do hold myself to a higher standard than most and I don't like bailing on people like that. I really rather shove it up their asses and win it all even with the BS. But it will probably be my last year in the league. i have played in a few leagues years ago that voted on trades, all trades would get voted down. I do not play in leagues that allow trade voting any more

bad idea by the commish not collecting before the draft. I can see someone going 0-3 and bailing

 

[shadyridr]

funny when commishes come on this site asking if they should veto a trade everyone calls him a dictator and says not to veto unless collusion. now an owner is coming here to complain his trade was vetoed and everyone is saying it shouldve been when its clearly not collusion.

 

[Novice2]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

Yeah, I know it sounds bad but I'm telling you dude, in this flawed league you rather start Matt Moore than a Greg Jennings any Sunday. For instance, Carson Palmer netted me like 25 points this week, Hakeem Nicks netted me 17. It's completely flawed, but I drafted for that.

curious what the scoring system is

Interesting. TD only should be 18 points for Nicks

 

[latrops]

bad idea by the commish not collecting before the draft. I can see someone going 0-3 and bailing

Like, maybe some guy that can't field a full lineup, nor trade to fix his roster (if you call Derek Anderson and Matt Moore "fixes")?

 

[Man In The Box]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

Yeah, I know it sounds bad but I'm telling you dude, in this flawed league you rather start Matt Moore than a Greg Jennings any Sunday. For instance, Carson Palmer netted me like 25 points this week, Hakeem Nicks netted me 17. It's completely flawed, but I drafted for that.

curious what the scoring system is

Interesting. TD only should be 18 points for Nicks

I'm guessing it's length TD scoring. None of Nicks' TD grabs were long. In my league with length TD, Nicks only had 13 points.

 

[gianmarco]

1. Trade is a terrible trade for the other team

2. Trade should not have been vetoed by other members except for the fact that they could

3. Your fault for playing in a league that allows other teams with a vested interest to veto trades

4. Stay and win the money

 

[golfguy]

i don't care if qbs are a premium. you are trading two bum qbs who won't be starting in 3 weeks and the guy will be in the same spot for a top 5-6 qb and a decent rb2

 

[LMF]

DEREK ANDERSON AND MATT MOORE!!!!

Yeah, I know it sounds bad but I'm telling you dude, in this flawed league you rather start Matt Moore than a Greg Jennings any Sunday. For instance, Carson Palmer netted me like 25 points this week, Hakeem Nicks netted me 17. It's completely flawed, but I drafted for that.

curious what the scoring system is

Interesting. TD only should be 18 points for Nicks

Palmer netted me 30 in a normal scoring QB league I wonder what you mean when you say your league scores QB heavy...The Hicks 17 would make since if TD's are 4 pts which I have seen in many leagues....

 

[Pipes]

i don't care if qbs are a premium. you are trading two bum qbs who won't be starting in 3 weeks and the guy will be in the same spot for a top 5-6 qb and a decent rb2

What a horrible, horrible trade. I be livid if I dropped 400 bones on a league and a trade like this went through.

 

[Man In The Box]

Oh, and I agree with those who said that the trade is repulsive. If I was in this league, for $400, and this trade went down, I'd be pissed.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I quite playing CBS due to all the vetos and dont count on the commish holding up the trades because their cowards there and dont want to piss the majority off. Last year I had a trade of Joseph Addai and Deveon Hester for Randy Moss get vetoed and I vowed to never play for CBS again.

CBS has nothing to do with it, any league software can have trade veto's.Why people join leagues with trade vetoing is beyond me. It's the STUPIDEST rule ever.

EVER!

 

[Mr.Pack]

funny when commishes come on this site asking if they should veto a trade everyone calls him a dictator and says not to veto unless collusion. now an owner is coming here to complain his trade was vetoed and everyone is saying it shouldve been when its clearly not collusion.

This trade should NOT have been vetoed.Voting on trades is just plain STUPID

 

[Mr.Pack]

i don't care if qbs are a premium. you are trading two bum qbs who won't be starting in 3 weeks and the guy will be in the same spot for a top 5-6 qb and a decent rb2

What a horrible, horrible trade. I be livid if I dropped 400 bones on a league and a trade like this went through.

Bad trades happen, Fantasy Football Leagues aren't supposed to be baby sitters.

 

[Wally Cleaver]

Some leagues get way too crazy with scoring and position settings. For instance, I personally don't get two QB leagues. Why do that? Also, $400 entry fee!? That's awesome but I'd never join a league that gives QB's such an advantage.

Regarding 2qb leagues...Because it is way more fun, promotes trades, makes the draft way less cookie cutter and makes quarterbacks just as important as they are in real football to name a few.... However in these type of leagues you have to have much stricter roster limits that prevent people from loading up on qbs... One example that I have seen work is allowing Tightends to be played as qb's... helps to make sure there are no zeros taken.

 

[chinawildman]

If I were him I'd gladly take the 0 over getting raped on your trade.

 

[Kevrunner]

$400 leagues should not allow trades at all, too much money involved.

 

[Adebisi]

Vetoes are not for bad trades. They're not for trades in which you feel you could've offered one of the owners more than what he got. They are for collusion - period.

Anyone who disagrees is a loser by nature.

 

[Adebisi]

$400 leagues should not allow trades at all, too much money involved.

They shouldn't allow drafts, either. Too much money involved, and you wouldn't want to risk being out-drafted.

 

[Adebisi]

Oh, and I agree with those who said that the trade is repulsive. If I was in this league, for $400, and this trade went down, I'd be pissed.

At who? The only person you have any right to be pissed at is yourself, for not fleecing the mark first.

 

[Kevrunner]

$400 leagues should not allow trades at all, too much money involved.

They shouldn't allow drafts, either. Too much money involved, and you wouldn't want to risk being out-drafted.

I can see your point.

 

[Man In The Box]

Oh, and I agree with those who said that the trade is repulsive. If I was in this league, for $400, and this trade went down, I'd be pissed.

At who? The only person you have any right to be pissed at is yourself, for not fleecing the mark first.

Well, that's one way to look at it. I like to play in competitive leagues, but try to have some fun at the same time. Trades like these ruin the competitive balance in leagues, taking the fun (and money) away from other owners in the league. I don't want to be "that guy" if you know what I mean.Some people take this hobby way too seriously.

 

[Carver]

Stop crying.

You knew it was a public veto when you decided to participate. Don't whine when the rule doesnt work in your favor.

 

[shortbow]

Some leagues get way too crazy with scoring and position settings. For instance, I personally don't get two QB leagues. Why do that? Also, $400 entry fee!? That's awesome but I'd never join a league that gives QB's such an advantage.

I prefer to play in leagues with non traditional positions being more important for the same reason I play PPR, because standard fantasy football imo is stupid, the players who do the work dont get points and the goal line vultures get more points than everyone.Although honestly I prefer it to be a two TE league but I would play in a two QB league

 

[fsufan]

$400 leagues should not allow trades at all, too much money involved.

i joined one of the FBG championship leagues($350) this year, these leagues are no trade leagues

 

[theplayer11]

I quite playing CBS due to all the vetos and dont count on the commish holding up the trades because their cowards there and dont want to piss the majority off. Last year I had a trade of Joseph Addai and Deveon Hester for Randy Moss get vetoed and I vowed to never play for CBS again.

how's it CBS's fault?.commish can set it up for no vetoes, I did.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Stop crying. You knew it was a public veto when you decided to participate. Don't whine when the rule doesnt work in your favor.

Yep, I agree with this.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

WDIV

 

[Warrior]

This league sounds awful..

 

[schooner44]

There is one, and only one time, a trade should be vetoed if collusion is present.