Should this trade be vetoed? T Henry for DWill ? (1 Viewer)

[Team Legacy]

Here are the rules in the League Constitution

Article XIV -- Trades

If two franchise owners wish to trade players, they must do so via the league website. Once proposed and accepted on the website, a trade is official. All trades are subject to a 48-hour hold period during which it can be revoked by a majority vote of the league owners not involved. League owners will be notified of a pending trade via email and may exercise their veto rights at the website if they desire. All trades not receiving at least 6 vetoes will be automatically processed by the website exactly 48 hours after both trading owners accept the trade; all trades must be accepted by both owners at least 48 hours prior to the kickoff of the involved players’ games in order for owners to use their new players in that week’s lineup.

One-sided trades.

Majority vote has full veto power over obviously one-sided trades and consolidation of teams. The league encourages free trading of players. However, if it is believed by a majority of owners that an owner involved in a trade is not making a genuine attempt to improve his team, that trade may be vetoed. Any owners voting to veto a trade should make public via email or the league message board their reasons for doing so. Bad trades are allowed, but ones that do not appear to be made in good faith are not. It must be each team’s intention to improve his team and to win every game. This applies mainly to situations where owners have lost interest in the league or are out of contention.

Here is a message placed on the bulletin board this morning AND emailed to all owners -

Before I decided to voted to approve the DeAngelo Williams for Travis Henry trade, I called Damian to make sure he knew of Henry's failed drug test and his pending year long suspension. Damian said he didn't and asked me to make sure the trade was vetoed. As you all know, the only way to get the necessary veto votes to veto a trade in 24 hours is to call everyone to make sure they can evaluate the trade. We have established that a situation like this is grounds for a veto vote. Per Damian's request, please veto the trade by going to Communications > League Polls.

Which way should I vote ?

Should I mention the points leader is the one getting DWill in this trade.

 

[Banger]

Should I mention the points leader is the one getting DWill in this trade.

Irrelevant. The guy is an idiot, is he living under a rock for the last 3 weeks? The trade should stand.

 

[Dodge]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.

Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

 

[PMENFAN]

Absolutely. As the commissioner you should draft all teams, make all waiver moves and initiate and approve all trades. Leave nothing up to the owners idiocy. It's your league, run each franchise how you see fit. You might even consider skipping the season and just posting records for the playoffs. It makes the season shorter and less exciting.

 

[PMENFAN]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

At the end of the day, that's what it's all about. Perception that the points leader is getting better, and the Commish using his power to prevent that. As commish, you are supposed to be neutral. You're not meeting that standard.

 

[Team Legacy]

Absolutely. As the commissioner you should draft all teams, make all waiver moves and initiate and approve all trades. Leave nothing up to the owners idiocy. It's your league, run each franchise how you see fit. You might even consider skipping the season and just posting records for the playoffs. It makes the season shorter and less exciting.

I am not the commissioner, just a paying member.

 

[PMENFAN]

Absolutely. As the commissioner you should draft all teams, make all waiver moves and initiate and approve all trades. Leave nothing up to the owners idiocy. It's your league, run each franchise how you see fit. You might even consider skipping the season and just posting records for the playoffs. It makes the season shorter and less exciting.

I am not the commissioner, just a paying member.

Then you're guilty of colluding with another player to change the course of the league. Ithink you should both subject yourselves to penalties you cover under collusion.

 

[Black]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.

Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

Agreed. We have some friends who play other fantasy sports and sort of signed on to try out football. Someone will usually talk them thru a trade. If someone burns someone else in a league that has repeat players, my guess is that they will lose the ability to trade in the future.

 

[Team Legacy]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

Everyone puts up I think $75 per year, so its not cut throat. It's a bunch of guys who the majority of which have played in the same league for close to 10 years. My thoughts are that the point leader shouldn't really get DWill in this case, and the other guy made a mistake when he hit submit. Had he had all the information about Henry he wouldn't have accepted.

 

[Team Legacy]

Absolutely. As the commissioner you should draft all teams, make all waiver moves and initiate and approve all trades. Leave nothing up to the owners idiocy. It's your league, run each franchise how you see fit. You might even consider skipping the season and just posting records for the playoffs. It makes the season shorter and less exciting.

I am not the commissioner, just a paying member.

Then you're guilty of colluding with another player to change the course of the league. Ithink you should both subject yourselves to penalties you cover under collusion.

I didn't write the email or post on the bulletin board, that was someone else.

 

[cartel]

Absolutely. As the commissioner you should draft all teams, make all waiver moves and initiate and approve all trades. Leave nothing up to the owners idiocy. It's your league, run each franchise how you see fit. You might even consider skipping the season and just posting records for the playoffs. It makes the season shorter and less exciting.

I am not the commissioner, just a paying member.

Accoridng to the bylaws "a trade may be vetoed if the people involved are not trying to make their team better." This is clearly not the case. This moron thought he was getting a steal by trading a non-starting running back (D Will) for a starter (Henry). He just did not bother to read any news on either player. This trade should stand. VETO votes are BS in my opinion anyway. If there is clear collusion the commish should call it otherwise all trades should be final.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

whats wrong with this trade? There's no guarantee that Henry will get suspended. Its highly probable, but you never know for sure until it happens. IF Henry somehow beats the suspension, I bet all the cry babies will then turn around and whine that henry was stolen.

 

[PMENFAN]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

Everyone puts up I think $75 per year, so its not cut throat. It's a bunch of guys who the majority of which have played in the same league for close to 10 years. My thoughts are that the point leader shouldn't really get DWill in this case, and the other guy made a mistake when he hit submit. Had he had all the information about Henry he wouldn't have accepted.

At the end of the day, you're about not wanting the points leader to get better. What if Henry wins his appeal, or at least gets to drag it out past the end of the year? You can't see the future. I for one wouldn't play in a league where teams collude like this to prevent other teams from improving. This is a gambling trade, and one which the points leader should be free to make.

 

[BILLY_THE_BULL]

However, if it is believed by a majority of owners that an owner involved in a trade is not making a genuine attempt to improve his team, that trade may be vetoed.

I would say that the owner trading for Henry was making a genuine attempt to improve his team. However, he did not do the necessary research to ensure he was improving his team. I would say that there is a major difference between the two and the trade should stand.

 

[Banger]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

Everyone puts up I think $75 per year, so its not cut throat. It's a bunch of guys who the majority of which have played in the same league for close to 10 years. My thoughts are that the point leader shouldn't really get DWill in this case, and the other guy made a mistake when he hit submit. Had he had all the information about Henry he wouldn't have accepted.

At the end of the day, you're about not wanting the points leader to get better. What if Henry wins his appeal, or at least gets to drag it out past the end of the year? You can't see the future. I for one wouldn't play in a league where teams collude like this to prevent other teams from improving. This is a gambling trade, and one which the points leader should be free to make.

or what if Henry is a top 5 rb over the next 4-5 weeks and then gets suspended? He'll still have more value than DWill the rest of the year. If the owner is dumb enough to make a trade without checking on the status of the player that's his own fault and he should have to live with it. My guess is that the guy who has DWill is in last or near last and the guy is in first or near first and that is what is driving the veto's. If that's the case, vetoing the trade is bush.

 

[mad sweeney]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.

Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

Everyone puts up I think $75 per year, so its not cut throat. It's a bunch of guys who the majority of which have played in the same league for close to 10 years. My thoughts are that the point leader shouldn't really get DWill in this case, and the other guy made a mistake when he hit submit. Had he had all the information about Henry he wouldn't have accepted.

And what stopped him? If you don't do research and agree to a bad trade that's the owner's fault. It's not the job of the rest of the league to do his research for him. The trade should stand because it is obvious that there is no collusion involved. Stupid owner, but no collusion. The owners involved and their standings/roster have nothing to do with it. You should all get totgether and sock party the idiot owner who didn't take 7 seconds out of his time to find out about Henry and making a deal that hurts everyone else's chances in the league. But to veto the trade is not fair to the other owner. If it was me I'd have serious problems with anyone who vetoed it.

 

[mad sweeney]

However, if it is believed by a majority of owners that an owner involved in a trade is not making a genuine attempt to improve his team, that trade may be vetoed.

I would say that the owner trading for Henry was making a genuine attempt to improve his team. However, he did not do the necessary research to ensure he was improving his team. I would say that there is a major difference between the two and the trade should stand.

Very The trade fits the criteria in your rules. It doesn't say anything about being ignorant of a developing story. It's not the drug suspension was something that came up quickly, it's been hanging over Henry's head for weeks. If you want to play things by the letter of your law, then you have to let it stand. The owner admitted not knowing Henry was going to be suspended. He clearly was trying to improve his team.

 

[Wu-banger]

The trade should stand...

 

[Chaka]

The guy who called the owner receiving Henry (Owner A) and provided the information about the suspension overstepped his boundaries. Clearly Owner A thought he was getting a steal and therefore believed that he was improving his team in the trade (it still may work out that way). It is on every owner to do their due diligence when making a trade, Owner A did not do that and as your league bylaws clearly state bad trades are allowed.

Owner A made his bed let him sleep in it.

 

[mcjc4]

I love how these threads all end the same way.

1 ####### gets dupped out of a good player for junk. Now someone is mad because tewam A is now better than me for dupping that #######. Lets start a Mike Lynn forum. For those of you who don't know who Mike Lynn is, he traded 8 players and the Vikings future for Hershel Walker. Dallas just screwed him. It's part of making trades, some people are smart some dumb.

team in my leagues is 6-1, lost Ronnie Brown. team 0-7 has no TE for this week. 6-1 team just got L Jordan and Foster for Holt and G Olsen. Terrible trade for the league, 6-1 guy was screwed at RB for the rest of the year. Here comes stupid 0-7 guy who forgot to pick-up a TE so he trades away Foster for a TE for 1 week. Then throws in L Jordan for Holt. These 2 guys really don't even know each other, so its like 99% of all bad trades, IT"S JUST A BAD TRADE!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Travis isn't suspended yet. The deal should happen.

 

[xenith]

... The guy is an idiot, is he living under a rock for the last 3 weeks? The trade should stand.

ditto, end of discussion

 

[Raging weasel]

However, if it is believed by a majority of owners that an owner involved in a trade is not making a genuine attempt to improve his team, that trade may be vetoed.

I would say that the owner trading for Henry was making a genuine attempt to improve his team. However, he did not do the necessary research to ensure he was improving his team. I would say that there is a major difference between the two and the trade should stand.

 

[GregR_2]

I'm going to have to give this some more thought, but let me throw out there what I think the heart of the issue is.

1) The league's rules have the veto there to stop one-sided trades. Many people would say this is a one-sided trade because of the likely imminent suspension. If that's the case, I can make a great argument that wisdom of the owner in accepting the trade is irrelevent. If it's reasonably believed to be one-sided it should be vetoed.

2) However, I also generally urge that trades should be vetoed only when it isn't believable the owner involved could think the trade benefits him. To put that another way, if YOU think it's one-sided doesn't matter if you believe the owner making the trade sincerely thought it was in his best interest. To which I would say the owner at the time he made the trade sincerely thought it was beneficial, so shouldn't be vetoed.

While I firmly believe #2 is the way to implement vetoes if you have them at all, this league was clear in how its vetoes work, and it doesn't go by my #2. I do believe that owner belief has to play a role even the way the league has it set up. But it would play more of a role in a close case than if a trade is very clearly one-sided.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I think the league's rules indicate the merit of the trade is what should guide the veto. If you think it's one-sided then veto it. If you don't, then don't. The veto is not meant to be applied as punishment when the trade doesn't warrant it, nor should it be withheld as punishment when the trade does warrant it.

It's worth adding, that answer also handily keeps you out of "taking sides" in the issue. You just veto the trade on its merits and don't worry about the rest.

 

[Ignoramus]

To tell how fair a trade is, you have to know how many fantasy points each player is going to score for the rest of the year. If you know that, veto away.

 

[mggoilers]

It's a 2 week rental on Henry. There is lots of risks on both sides. Let it go through.

 

[EdwardCat]

It should stand. If the owner doesn't do his own research, he should pay for his stupidity. Other members should not be policing trades. That is a terrible way to run a league. We tried it and it only ended up causing serious problems. People were vetoing trades because they believed it made a certain team too strong rather than judging whether the trade was really fair. It is a stupid, arrogant system.

 

[Team Legacy]

It should stand. If the owner doesn't do his own research, he should pay for his stupidity. Other members should not be policing trades. That is a terrible way to run a league. We tried it and it only ended up causing serious problems. People were vetoing trades because they believed it made a certain team too strong rather than judging whether the trade was really fair. It is a stupid, arrogant system.

I somewhat agree with this, but a pending suspension is where I sort of have an issue. I compare it to below:******************************************************************************************Let's say I see a story during practice that says, "Willis McGahee sprains his knee, helped (not carried) off field, goes for MRI today, doesn't look good." --reporter on scene...Would it be okay in YOUR HOME LEAGUE, for the McGahee owner to deal him today for DWill ? If the answer to this question is YES, then I say the guy OVER STEPPED his bounds by calling the DWILL owner. If the answer to this question is NO, then I say the guy who made the call to the DWILL owner acted in a FAIR manner that made sure owners weren't getting burned.

 

[Sanboy]

how many times do we have to go over this

unless there is cheating or collusion .. NO TRADE SHOUDL BE VETOED >.

why is this so hard for people to understand .. this type of stuff wrecks leagues

 

[= Ice Man =]

Let the trade stand. If Henry didn't have a probable suspension, your buddy would be absolutely raping the other owner. It would definitely be a 1-sided trade. But, now that he knows Henry might be suspended, he feels like it's 1-sided the other way. I honestly don't feel it's a 1-sided trade. DWill has had exactly 1 good game all year.....AND......it took a 75 yard run to do it. As long as Foster's toe doesn't fall off, he'll split carries. For the next few weeks, Henry is going to be the far better back. DWill will most likely never come off the point leader's bench.

 

[jbalicki10]

Let the trade stand. If Henry didn't have a probable suspension, your buddy would be absolutely raping the other owner. It would definitely be a 1-sided trade. But, now that he knows Henry might be suspended, he feels like it's 1-sided the other way. I honestly don't feel it's a 1-sided trade. DWill has had exactly 1 good game all year.....AND......it took a 75 yard run to do it. As long as Foster's toe doesn't fall off, he'll split carries. For the next few weeks, Henry is going to be the far better back. DWill will most likely never come off the point leader's bench.

Looks like an even trade... I own D Williams and if I needed a RB in the short term, this would be a great deal...

 

[Team Legacy]

Let the trade stand. If Henry didn't have a probable suspension, your buddy would be absolutely raping the other owner. It would definitely be a 1-sided trade. But, now that he knows Henry might be suspended, he feels like it's 1-sided the other way. I honestly don't feel it's a 1-sided trade. DWill has had exactly 1 good game all year.....AND......it took a 75 yard run to do it. As long as Foster's toe doesn't fall off, he'll split carries. For the next few weeks, Henry is going to be the far better back. DWill will most likely never come off the point leader's bench.

Looks like an even trade... I own D Williams and if I needed a RB in the short term, this would be a great deal...

In all fairness though, the DWILL owner was called, had NO idea about the possible suspension and asked for the trade to be vetoed.

 

[simmonjm]

Let the trade stand. If Henry didn't have a probable suspension, your buddy would be absolutely raping the other owner. It would definitely be a 1-sided trade. But, now that he knows Henry might be suspended, he feels like it's 1-sided the other way. I honestly don't feel it's a 1-sided trade. DWill has had exactly 1 good game all year.....AND......it took a 75 yard run to do it. As long as Foster's toe doesn't fall off, he'll split carries. For the next few weeks, Henry is going to be the far better back. DWill will most likely never come off the point leader's bench.

Looks like an even trade... I own D Williams and if I needed a RB in the short term, this would be a great deal...

In all fairness though, the DWILL owner was called, had NO idea about the possible suspension and asked for the trade to be vetoed.

Too bad for him. He is a grown man who should be responsible for his decisions. Its part of fantasy football sometimes trades dont make sense but later in the year the guy who looked like he got ripped suddenly got a steal. You have no idea what is going to happen to Henry. The bottom line is the guy agreed to a trade then later found out Travis Henry is going to get suspended. If he cant figure out why someone is offering him a good starting RB for someone who is second string maybe he shouldnt be in a FF league.

 

[CMU37484]

Let the trade stand. If Henry didn't have a probable suspension, your buddy would be absolutely raping the other owner. It would definitely be a 1-sided trade. But, now that he knows Henry might be suspended, he feels like it's 1-sided the other way. I honestly don't feel it's a 1-sided trade. DWill has had exactly 1 good game all year.....AND......it took a 75 yard run to do it. As long as Foster's toe doesn't fall off, he'll split carries. For the next few weeks, Henry is going to be the far better back. DWill will most likely never come off the point leader's bench.

Looks like an even trade... I own D Williams and if I needed a RB in the short term, this would be a great deal...

In all fairness though, the DWILL owner was called, had NO idea about the possible suspension and asked for the trade to be vetoed.

So what? If he's so freekin clueless to NOT have any idea of Travis Henry's possible suspension then that's his problem! It doesn;t give the league the right to have veto power simply because one of your owners is a moron.I traded Shaun Alexander and Engram for Brian Westbrook two weeks ago. Horrible trade for the guy getting Alexander and everyone called him an idiot for it. BUT no one suggested a "veto"Stupid people do stupid things and unless collusion is obvious leave it alone.

 

[Magnus_CA]

This is ######ed. There is no good reason this trade should be vetoed. Why do I bother reading these posts?

 

[CMU37484]

This is ######ed. There is no good reason this trade should be vetoed. Why do I bother reading these posts?

It's like the casino...........you know it's bad for you but you just can't help it.

 

[glumpy]

Disclaimer: I have not read through this thread.

Don't really feel like I need to, given my own feelings regarding trade vetoes based on equity, as well as knowing this board's normal reactions. I did want to point out, though, one passage from your constitution which really highlights why I am against having league members vote for/against trades:

Here are the rules in the League Constitution

Article XIV -- Trades

...... All trades are subject to a 48-hour hold period during which it can be revoked by a majority vote of the league owners not involved. ......

By definition--this is not possible. ALL league members are involved. Sure--they may not have any players who are actually being moved with this trade--but since they are in competition with the two teams making the trade, and since it will directly affect how those teams might perform against them--every other team is 'involved'. This is not an objective scenario, and they will always be inclined to vote in light of their own personal team interests.

 

[CrossEyed]

Why do some people feel the need to run every team in their league?

 

[Alex96]

I have Henry in one league and I wouldn't trade him right now for DW.

No Veto. Not even close.

 

[Liam]

[in all fairness though, the DWILL owner was called, had NO idea about the possible suspension and asked for the trade to be vetoed.

He shouldn't have agreed to a trade if he didn't know the condition of the players involved. Is it your responsiblity, or the other owners, to manage someone else's team? The trade should stand.

 

[Team Legacy]

Time for Full Disclosure:

I'm the Henry owner. I've been trying to deal him for weeks and the offers have been getting lower and lower. I posted this to get outside opinions from the FBG community.

I feel bad for Damian and don't want any bad blood between us, although he is a Wildcat fan... bleck...

I cancelled the trade on this alone and saw no reason to let the veto process carry on.

Each league has its own "direction" or the way it wants to best handle these when they come up. I personally agree that the league shouldn't be vetoing trades unless it's an attempt to push a team over the top, ie, a team out of contention is trying to help another team win. Collusion is a big no no. I turned over Commish duties of this league several years ago and its really not up to me. I see Jon's reasoning that he didn't want Damian to get swindled, but I personally don't think that phone call would have happened if it were between two teams that really had no playoff implications. (I may be wrong here) As long as other people get treated the same in trades, I don't see a problem with the call or the veto. It's each league's decision how they see fit to run a league, but I whole heartedly agree it's very difficult to seperate the personal team interest from the decision, although the integrity of this league is pretty high.

 

[pettifogger]

Time for Full Disclosure:I'm the Henry owner. I've been trying to deal him for weeks and the offers have been getting lower and lower. I posted this to get outside opinions from the FBG community. I feel bad for Damian and don't want any bad blood between us, although he is a Wildcat fan... bleck...I cancelled the trade on this alone and saw no reason to let the veto process carry on.Each league has its own "direction" or the way it wants to best handle these when they come up. I personally agree that the league shouldn't be vetoing trades unless it's an attempt to push a team over the top, ie, a team out of contention is trying to help another team win. Collusion is a big no no. I turned over Commish duties of this league several years ago and its really not up to me. I see Jon's reasoning that he didn't want Damian to get swindled, but I personally don't think that phone call would have happened if it were between two teams that really had no playoff implications. (I may be wrong here) As long as other people get treated the same in trades, I don't see a problem with the call or the veto. It's each league's decision how they see fit to run a league, but I whole heartedly agree it's very difficult to seperate the personal team interest from the decision, although the integrity of this league is pretty high.

I would vote to veto the trade of Henry back to your team because it's collusive. It's going to be interesting for the league if the judge issues an injunction and Henry plays the rest of the year.

 

[Ten Yard Fight]

Time for Full Disclosure:I'm the Henry owner. I've been trying to deal him for weeks and the offers have been getting lower and lower. I posted this to get outside opinions from the FBG community. I feel bad for Damian and don't want any bad blood between us, although he is a Wildcat fan... bleck...I cancelled the trade on this alone and saw no reason to let the veto process carry on.Each league has its own "direction" or the way it wants to best handle these when they come up. I personally agree that the league shouldn't be vetoing trades unless it's an attempt to push a team over the top, ie, a team out of contention is trying to help another team win. Collusion is a big no no. I turned over Commish duties of this league several years ago and its really not up to me. I see Jon's reasoning that he didn't want Damian to get swindled, but I personally don't think that phone call would have happened if it were between two teams that really had no playoff implications. (I may be wrong here) As long as other people get treated the same in trades, I don't see a problem with the call or the veto. It's each league's decision how they see fit to run a league, but I whole heartedly agree it's very difficult to seperate the personal team interest from the decision, although the integrity of this league is pretty high.

I'm the guy who called the guy who was trading for Henry. I also consider all of the other owners among my closest friends, so that should shed some light on the "cuttthroat" league question. I helped both previous commissioners formulate our rules and the "made in good faith" language was intended to prevent exactly this sort of scenario. You can trade Ronnie Brown before he goes on IR, but only if the guy getting Ronnie Brown has all the information. That's why I called - to evaluate whether or not I should veto the trade. If the owner would have just said, "I've got all the facts and I want Henry", I would have approved the trade. It should be noted that we've never vetoed a trade in this league, and I've formulated my anti-veto stance by reading responses like those above on this message board for several years. I helped write the rules in such a way that trades are NEVER vetoed in this league. We must get 6 votes in 24 hours! The only way that can be done is by one owner getting on the phone. We've let 99 bad trades stand. In the end, the Henry owner did the right thing by honoring the Williams owner to reverse the deal. That's why we've got a great league and so many of you guys are always complaining about yours.And when it comes to tactically blocking the better team or the division rival from improving his team, Team Legacy is the pioneer of this strategy and I've seen him execute it to perfection on many occasions!

 

[Team Legacy]

Time for Full Disclosure:I'm the Henry owner. I've been trying to deal him for weeks and the offers have been getting lower and lower. I posted this to get outside opinions from the FBG community. I feel bad for Damian and don't want any bad blood between us, although he is a Wildcat fan... bleck...I cancelled the trade on this alone and saw no reason to let the veto process carry on.Each league has its own "direction" or the way it wants to best handle these when they come up. I personally agree that the league shouldn't be vetoing trades unless it's an attempt to push a team over the top, ie, a team out of contention is trying to help another team win. Collusion is a big no no. I turned over Commish duties of this league several years ago and its really not up to me. I see Jon's reasoning that he didn't want Damian to get swindled, but I personally don't think that phone call would have happened if it were between two teams that really had no playoff implications. (I may be wrong here) As long as other people get treated the same in trades, I don't see a problem with the call or the veto. It's each league's decision how they see fit to run a league, but I whole heartedly agree it's very difficult to seperate the personal team interest from the decision, although the integrity of this league is pretty high.

That's why we've got a great league and so many of you guys are always complaining about yours.

 

[swirvenirvin]

How much do you get paid for babysitting other teams?

Trade stands

 

[swirvenirvin]

If you run a cut throat competitive league, let the trade stand. If you're league is a bunch of friend that have fun and are serious about play, then veto it and stop being an jackass.Depends. Seems like you have a lot of rules and a very well thought out process. I'd veto it just to be nice. Plus who wants the point leader to get DWilliams?

Everyone puts up I think $75 per year, so its not cut throat. It's a bunch of guys who the majority of which have played in the same league for close to 10 years. My thoughts are that the point leader shouldn't really get DWill in this case, and the other guy made a mistake when he hit submit. Had he had all the information about Henry he wouldn't have accepted.

Who stopped him from getting this info? The internet police??

 

[Ten Yard Fight]

Funny I posted this over on the yahoo board and got a very different response. It's easy to tell where the "sharks" hang out...and why the "sharks" are "sharks".

 

[Ignoramus]

And when it comes to tactically blocking the better team or the division rival from improving his team, Team Legacy is the pioneer of this strategy and I've seen him execute it to perfection on many occasions!

Are you still talking about vetoing trades here? Because that's pretty much the opposite of a "great league."

 

[Keith Lewis]

Should I mention the points leader is the one getting DWill in this trade.

Irrelevant. The guy is an idiot, is he living under a rock for the last 3 weeks? The trade should stand.

100% agree.

 

[top dog]

While I agree that it is really up to the owner to research trades and it's his own fault.. I still can't believe that the Williams owner didn't know that Henry is up for suspension.

I try to be honest with trades. A guy traded me Brandon Jacobs for Travis Henry 2 weeks ago, shortly after the story broke and he was into his appeal process.. Before I accepted I asked him, "You do realize Henry is probably going to get suspended right?" He told me "Yeah, but on the off chance he beats it out, I'll take that risk." Same guy offered me McNabb for Welker and Garrard on Tuesday morning.. I asked him if he realized that Garrard was hurt. He said "Yeah, but if I figured I might need a backup QB down the road in case Cutler gets hurt.. I'll hang on to Garrard and maybe he'll save me $5 down the road."

I felt better about the trade each time because I was upfront and honest with the other owner even though I could have accepted each trade not knowing if he realized what was happening. We are all friends so I try not to be a ####.