Thanks to everyone who offered sound advice about "the trade&quot (1 Viewer)

[billjohnson]

ah yes, claim i have a fixation on you, when you're busy tucking your tail between your legs and running when proven wrong. oh and let's not forget the tired "leave this to the big boys" quote, hoping so hard to be condescending! keep vetoing billjohnson - you keep showing who the big boys are!

Same. And take it easy on those eight year olds at next weeks wiffleballs tourney. No hard slides into home plate!!

 

[blake]

ah yes, claim i have a fixation on you, when you're busy tucking your tail between your legs and running when proven wrong. oh and let's not forget the tired "leave this to the big boys" quote, hoping so hard to be condescending! keep vetoing billjohnson - you keep showing who the big boys are!

Same. And take it easy on those eight year olds at next weeks wiffleballs tourney. No hard slides into home plate!!

thanks for the advice, stalker.

 

[AnonymousBob]

4 digiters vs. 5 digiters!! Fight!!!

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Bill, why don't you invite all of those so vehemently opposed to this trade over here? Maybe hearing the opinions of non-invested parties will help. I think that, besides all of the slap fighting going on, you've gotten some sound reasoning on why this trade: a) shouldn't be vetoed, and b) is not unfair (those two items are not the same thing).

 

[Ruffrodys05]

If I wanted to veto trade, the trade would already be vetoed.

The deal is this: I have a majority of the league upset and calling for veto....and minority saying all trades should pass. Just trying to make some peace here with $1000 at stake. The main problem is we don't have a hard and fast rule to cover this situation. That is why I was asking if perhaps a league vote would be the best option.

So I come on here...asking for some advice to remedy the situation...and all I get is a bunch of guys angry at me. If you don't have some advice to help with THIS situation....then post elsewhere.

As far as this particular situation..........there is nothing wrong with the trade, fair or not (as viewed by others not involved,) so, nothing to "fix."As far as future trades which may cause "headaches" for you (or the commish, if not you,) the only way to avoid this type of situation is to discuss a rule change with the rest of the league members now, which will be voted on by all league members and put into place next year. (I personally feel that rules should not be adjusted mid-season, only in the off-season.) The "new" rule should clearly state what criteria is required to veto a trade, if a veto clause is what is really desired by your league mates. I do not participate in any leagues that allow a trade to be vetoed, so I do not have any hard suggestions for such a rule. I almost hate to suggest it, but a post here asking for suggestions from other FBG'ers that have these types of rules might get you headed in the right direction. I could throw some ideas out there, but like I said, I have no experience with veto rules.

So, I have a question......Is there currently a rule in place which allows the commissioner to veto any trades? Under what circumstances is a veto allowed, if it is? If there are no rules in place allowing a trade veto by the commissioner, it cannot be vetoed. If there are rules in place, they must be followed.

My personal feeling is that no such rule should ever be incorporporated into a set of rules as I feel each manager is responsible for his/her own team and as such is allowed to do what he/she feels is in the best interests of his/her team. Collusion is extremely hard to prove unless blatantly obvious, which in my experience is very, very rare. Collusion, like others here have stated, is the only viable reason to veto a trade. That point should be the only point that matters when writing a veto clause into the rules, by the way.

I hope this helps Bill. Good luck the rest of the way!

Rody

BTW: please edit your thread title, as it's been reported that Westy has not been cleared to practice and the title is very misleading. TIA.

 

[MDSkinner]

I am starting to think that the guy who got Westy is getting hosed.

 

[encaitar]

I am starting to think that the guy who got Westy is getting hosed.

 

[fred_1_15301]

I am starting to think that the guy who got Westy is getting hosed.

I would probably take Slaton over Westy at this point.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

You need to change your league to a none vote league Billy. That I am totally convinved of after reading thread after thread of nonscence. Works so much better for me. Seems always a couple like you per league that just don't get it on tradeing and when to veto a trade and when not too!

I been in this business 25 years and even I myself sometimes veto a trade and look like a fool the very next week for doing it. Things move fast in fantasy football from week to week. I also make many trades and look like a fool the next week for doing it. Sometimes good and sometimes bad!

Bottom line everyone has there own crystal ball they think, and there own reasons for wanting to trade or veto a trade and it's not really right for the other owners within the league to speculate or be forced to make an opinion.

Change your league to free trade zone. Your save yourself a lot of typeing and worrying and senceless waste of time posting.

My rule of thumb has always been once the league is established and it's assured there are no multiple owners or farther son tandrems or whatever then it is time to allow free trades. Works much better for all of us! My touch bonus Dynasty clone league in it's second year voted almost unamiously to ban trade votes. 12-2 or 11-3 was the vote.

Yes we needed the trade vote the first year. Until we got used to each other.

But overwhelmly voted to ditch the trade votes altogether the second year.

Good leagues full of good owners do not need a trade vote period! That's a fact!

 

[billjohnson]

If I wanted to veto trade, the trade would already be vetoed.

The deal is this: I have a majority of the league upset and calling for veto....and minority saying all trades should pass. Just trying to make some peace here with $1000 at stake. The main problem is we don't have a hard and fast rule to cover this situation. That is why I was asking if perhaps a league vote would be the best option.

So I come on here...asking for some advice to remedy the situation...and all I get is a bunch of guys angry at me. If you don't have some advice to help with THIS situation....then post elsewhere.

As far as this particular situation..........there is nothing wrong with the trade, fair or not (as viewed by others not involved,) so, nothing to "fix."As far as future trades which may cause "headaches" for you (or the commish, if not you,) the only way to avoid this type of situation is to discuss a rule change with the rest of the league members now, which will be voted on by all league members and put into place next year. (I personally feel that rules should not be adjusted mid-season, only in the off-season.) The "new" rule should clearly state what criteria is required to veto a trade, if a veto clause is what is really desired by your league mates. I do not participate in any leagues that allow a trade to be vetoed, so I do not have any hard suggestions for such a rule. I almost hate to suggest it, but a post here asking for suggestions from other FBG'ers that have these types of rules might get you headed in the right direction. I could throw some ideas out there, but like I said, I have no experience with veto rules.

So, I have a question......Is there currently a rule in place which allows the commissioner to veto any trades? Under what circumstances is a veto allowed, if it is? If there are no rules in place allowing a trade veto by the commissioner, it cannot be vetoed. If there are rules in place, they must be followed.

My personal feeling is that no such rule should ever be incorporporated into a set of rules as I feel each manager is responsible for his/her own team and as such is allowed to do what he/she feels is in the best interests of his/her team. Collusion is extremely hard to prove unless blatantly obvious, which in my experience is very, very rare. Collusion, like others here have stated, is the only viable reason to veto a trade. That point should be the only point that matters when writing a veto clause into the rules, by the way.

I hope this helps Bill. Good luck the rest of the way!

Rody

BTW: please edit your thread title, as it's been reported that Westy has not been cleared to practice and the title is very misleading. TIA.

Thanks Rody. The trade went through and the rule for the rest of season is "commish veto". Basically, most/all trades will be allowed to pass, except for ones where bottom feeder is giving up and dropping/trading all his good guys. The trade rules will be reviewed during the offseason and will be well documented BEFORE the start of next year. Hopefully, each league member in 2009 will be football smart and competitive..and we will have no need for league veto vote rule.

However, I still think anyone trading Westy (even with the ribs) for Slaton is making a dumb, playoff losing move. My opinion on that has/will not change.