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 Trade Have Been Vetoed? (1 Viewer)

Interseptopus

Footballguy
Owner A gave up P. Manning (on his bench)

Owner B gave up D. Anderson and Graham (graham would start for him if healthy)

Owner A expressed that he made a mistake in accepting the trade, even though it asks you multiple times if you want to make the trade. This came after a few people pointed out that he lost on this deal. It was vetoed

Thoughts?

 
Owner A gave up P. Manning (on his bench)Owner B gave up D. Anderson and Graham (graham would start for him if healthy)Owner A expressed that he made a mistake in accepting the trade, even though it asks you multiple times if you want to make the trade. This came after a few people pointed out that he lost on this deal. It was vetoedThoughts?
Of course it should not have been vetoed but so what?? If you are in a league that ALLOWS VETO of trades than what is the point of complaining about whether or no you agree with it?? You made the choice to be in this league right? You're complaining about something that you KNEW could happen anyways based on the setup of the league. :goodposting:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did he know that Anderson was no longer the starter?

Did you purposely offer the trade, hoping he didnt know that?

 
Owner A gave up P. Manning (on his bench)Owner B gave up D. Anderson and Graham (graham would start for him if healthy)Owner A expressed that he made a mistake in accepting the trade, even though it asks you multiple times if you want to make the trade. This came after a few people pointed out that he lost on this deal. It was vetoedThoughts?
No!There's no collusion. If he took on Anderson after he got benched, the trade is even worse. Still, it's toolish to say you made a mistake after you accepted it.
 
Owner A gave up P. Manning (on his bench)Owner B gave up D. Anderson and Graham (graham would start for him if healthy)Owner A expressed that he made a mistake in accepting the trade, even though it asks you multiple times if you want to make the trade. This came after a few people pointed out that he lost on this deal. It was vetoedThoughts?
last I checked, stupidity IS NOT an acceptable reason to reverse a trade...dummy will think twice next timetrade stands
 
I'm not sure what Anonymous Bob will do with all this clutter!!!

:loco: :loco: :loco: :loco:

Thanks for the responses, keep em comin

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The "debate" is irrelevant. They can arguie all day about who wins and loses a trade and it just doesn't matter anyways. Trading is BASED on opinions and if they can't handle that mail them some boxes of kleenex. :loco:

The fact that people participate in online leagues where all trades can be vetoed is one thing.....the fact they than COMPLAIN when they DO get vetoed is just hilarious to me.

 
The "debate" is irrelevant. They can arguie all day about who wins and loses a trade and it just doesn't matter anyways. Trading is BASED on opinions and if they can't handle that mail them some boxes of kleenex. :loco: The fact that people participate in online leagues where all trades can be vetoed is one thing.....the fact they than COMPLAIN when they DO get vetoed is just hilarious to me.
:loco:
 
A premium QB for a crappy TE and a roster filler is not reasonable. He said he made a mistake. Just reverse it. Be a sport.
Granted it doesn't specify, but I was assuming E Graham. If that's the case, I don't think the trade is extremely lopsided. I think you could get more for Manning, but maybe he tried and couldn't... Definitely not veto-worthy considering the info provided (Manning being Team A's #2 QB & Graham being a starter for Team B if healthy).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top