Should I quit my money league? (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

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.

If I was in a league that allowed vetoes by individual owners and someone made a trade that I thought didn't benefit me, I'd veto it. It wouldn't make sense not to exercise my veto rights.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

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 he has Rivers and Kolb and Kolb is hurt and you take Rivers back, how can he now start 3 QB?

 

[Air Stich]

Don't be dramatic. So your fleece trade got vetoed. Big deal. Just let it go completely from your mind and move on. Win the league and then don't play next season.

 

[atl3695]

$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.

Trades are one of the best thing about fantasy football, but unless you know everyone in the league, trades should definitely not be allowed in high dollar leagues. If your playing in a $25-$50 fun league, I say whatever trades goes is fine. The draft is completely different as all teams have equal chances at getting players. What if the weak owner only trades with teams that start with an R or W or has some other crazy things going on. Trades can have no rhyme or reason sometimes, and if you put up $400 you deserve a fair environment. One team trading Drew Brees and Randy Moss for Seneca Wallace and Jordan Shipley and then the rest of the league going along with that aint gonna work. This is of course assuming no collusion. With a $400 buy in the pot is 4 grand or more. More than enough incentive for teams to work together. Collusion is almost impossible to prove. In big money leagues with strangers, no trades is the only way to go.

 

[nysportsfan]

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

So because the other owner screwed himself via draft and had an injury, another owner shouldnt be able to make a trade to him him? It actually helps both teams, since he'd be getting a zero?

 

[biggamer3]

$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

Did you knock off the two time defending champ there as well?

 

[cjack]

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

So because the other owner screwed himself via draft and had an injury, another owner shouldnt be able to make a trade to him him? It actually helps both teams, since he'd be getting a zero?

I think I'd rather take Rivers and a zero versus Anderson and Moore. Isn't Moore questionable anyway this week?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

If I was in a league that allowed vetoes by individual owners and someone made a trade that I thought didn't benefit me, I'd veto it. It wouldn't make sense not to exercise my veto rights.

I'll never understand why anyone would play in a league that allows owners to veto other owners' trades. Such a terrible idea.

 

[davearm]

So you play in a league where a trade of Anderson and Moore for Rivers and Wells is even remotely defensible?

Why? Sounds like a horrible league.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Much prefer the super flex that allows 2 qb's but does not mandate it. Gives proper value to qb's without allowing for hoarding as any position can be played at super flex

 

[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.

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

I agree and fortunately I play with people with enough integrity to not offer up such crap. My point is with that kind of cash on the line something needs to be in place to stop such lopsided trades from happening and ruining the league.

 

[MIMN]

I would veto a veto league!

The other guy is a moron. If you are going to trade a top tier QB in a QB heavy league then you should make it publicly know to get competing trade offers. Unless they veto asking for trade offers.

Win the league and then quit. With 5 QB's you can't lose! Unless someone else drafted 6...

 

[Jetdoc]

If you signed up for a league that allows owners to veto trades, then as an owner it is your right to exercise that ability as you see fit.

It sounds like if you quit the league that the other owners would be ecstatic. Your choice.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

If you weren't getting Rivers, the deal would make more sense. As it stands he was giving a top player at the key position and Wells for 2 scrubs that very well may not start past midseason. I'm usually anti-veto, but I would have vetoed too.

 

[FUBAR]

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

So because the other owner screwed himself via draft and had an injury, another owner shouldnt be able to make a trade to him him? It actually helps both teams, since he'd be getting a zero?

I'd rather start Rivers and nothing than Anderson and Moore.