What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should this be vetoed? (1 Viewer)

J

JbizzleMan

Footballguy
2 teams in my league are always trading with eachother. 3 weeks ago they traded some players that involved Kenny britt and a 1st round draft pick. These same teams just traded Kenny britt back to the original owner for not the same value IMO.

 
The answer is probably no, but if you want any meaningful responses you should include information more specific than "some players" and "not the same value IMO."

 
What I would suggest is a rule that states that a player leaving a team via trade can not return to the same team via trade that same year. Prevents alot of BS.

 
Yes, definitely totally veto it.

Remember, kids: "A.B.V." ....Always Be Vetoing.

Veto every trade that you personally don't believe is a perfect value for everyone...that's what I always say.

#hurrdurr

 
'Touchdown Syndrome said:
Yes, definitely totally veto it.Remember, kids: "A.B.V." ....Always Be Vetoing.Veto every trade that you personally don't believe is a perfect value for everyone...that's what I always say.#hurrdurr
Click to expand...
I don't like to veto. I just find it suspicious...im waiting for the other teams to chime in before making a decision.
 
This would never fly in my league.

Lots of years of playing fantasy, have commished over lots of transactions.

Never have two teams Tried to swap back players in any combo.

Smack that down. :rant: It compromises your Commish Fist :boxing:

 
If you're going to veto the trade, you better be man enough to outright accuse them of collusion (with specific arguments to support it). Player values change over time, so there is really nothing fundamentally wrong with a given player being traded between teams more than once, especially if packaged with other players. It is one potential way of colluding, but there have to be specific factors indicating collusion beyond this (especially in the preseason). If both owners can give you a plausible statement of how a trade improves their team, you should never veto it.

If you want your trade rules to prevent this, change them next year.

 
Normally I'm against tradebacks.....but if it all goes down during preseason....I don't see as much of a problem with it.

What's the net trade between the two teams?

 
Last season I was involved in two trades that involved M.Williams (TB). In the first trade, I traded for him. In the second trade, I traded him away - to the previous owner.

In both trades, the trade was fair, above board, and a win-win for both teams. Way too many Nostradamus policemen in other leagues for my blood. Thank God (or Allah... or Shiva...) that you people aren't in my leagues.

Personally I think that EVERY SINGLE VETO is made in the interest of each individual's own team.

 
'Joe Summer said:
Normally I'm against tradebacks.....but if it all goes down during preseason....I don't see as much of a problem with it.

What's the net trade between the two teams?
Click to expand...
:thumbup: The only reason to worry about a bounceback trades is because of bye week or strong/weak schedule shenanigans with another player, which ends up being a collusion situation because two teams are sharing a roster.

This situation just sounds like an owner addicted to trading for trading's sake. Mildly annoying depending on the level of the other owners in the league, but definitely NOT vetoable.

 
'Jersey35 said:
Last season I was involved in two trades that involved M.Williams (TB). In the first trade, I traded for him. In the second trade, I traded him away - to the previous owner.

In both trades, the trade was fair, above board, and a win-win for both teams. Way too many Nostradamus policemen in other leagues for my blood. Thank God (or Allah... or Shiva...) that you people aren't in my leagues.

Personally I think that EVERY SINGLE VETO is made in the interest of each individual's own team.
Click to expand...
I doesn't matter if both trades were even. If those trades were made so both teams had solid active players during Williams bye week, for example, then you and your trading partner were sharing rosters, and that is one of the definition of Collusion. And while I'll agree that VOTING on Vetoes results in pure self-interest in all the voting parties, there are plenty of decent commishes that will veto trades for the right reasons.

 
'Twilight said:
'Jersey35 said:
Last season I was involved in two trades that involved M.Williams (TB). In the first trade, I traded for him. In the second trade, I traded him away - to the previous owner.

In both trades, the trade was fair, above board, and a win-win for both teams. Way too many Nostradamus policemen in other leagues for my blood. Thank God (or Allah... or Shiva...) that you people aren't in my leagues.

Personally I think that EVERY SINGLE VETO is made in the interest of each individual's own team.
Click to expand...
I doesn't matter if both trades were even. If those trades were made so both teams had solid active players during Williams bye week, for example, then you and your trading partner were sharing rosters, and that is one of the definition of Collusion. And while I'll agree that VOTING on Vetoes results in pure self-interest in all the voting parties, there are plenty of decent commishes that will veto trades for the right reasons.
Click to expand...
I'm interested to hear peoples logic that made a tradeback in the past. When I see it the first thing that comes to mind is collusion/sharing rosters. Especially when one team looses major value on both the initial trade and the trade back it seems like they're trying to combine efforts and split the winnings.
 
'fsufan said:
'Jersey35 said:
In fact, you should get rid of voting on trades altogether.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: why do the mod allow these threads in the SP :wall:
Click to expand...
in fairness trade backs are often collusive as it usually involves rent a player scenario, bye week/injury cover etc, this is somewhat unique case though since it all happend before any games were played. This is not a ROTM 'should we veto this trade thread' IMHO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the information provided id have to say this trade ( like all trades ) should be vetoed because it makes someone elses team better than mine.

/thread

 
You should have rules against tradebacks. But since you don't, the trade should be allowed. Since this is essentially pre-season, the trades make no sense. But tradebacks can be used by two teams to borrow players for bye weeks or during injuries or to beat a division rival, and are usually collusion in nature.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'ShadowMaster said:
What I would suggest is a rule that states that a player leaving a team via trade can not return to the same team via trade that same year. Prevents alot of BS.
Click to expand...
Yep. I'm with the guys who don't like vetoes. But every league I'm in has a 365 rule--if you trade a player away, you cannot re-acquire him for 365 days even if it comes through another team. It's just a bright-line rule that prevents players from being shared.
 
If you don't like the premise, then make a rule next year. Having established rules for reasonably expected events takes all the guesswork out. Black and white, cut and dry. Saves the case by case "in my opinion this trade isn't fair because blahblahblah." nonsense and makes the life of the commissioner much easier.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Two Keepers same round
Replies
31
Views
1K
thebear22
T
M
Top 10 percentage? (WARNING: Lots of math talk and poor assumptions)
Replies
9
Views
542
Keith R
Keith R
BobbyLayne
** Lions at Packers** (-2.5, 47.5) CBS 4:25
2 3 4
Replies
172
Views
5K
Gjallarhorn
Gjallarhorn

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top