To Veto or Not To Veto (1 Viewer)

[Eric L]

I'm in a 12 team dynasty league. This trade was just agreed upon by two owners.

Team 1 (1-2 record) Gives up:

Jamaal Charles

Torrey Smith (Taxi Squad)

Bernard Pollard

2012 1st round pick

Team 2 (1-2 record) Gives up:

Lesean McCoy

Jamar Chaney

2012 2nd rond pick

2012 4th round pick

Team 1 is clearly looking to make a run this year and replace the injured Charles, while Team 2 looks to be planning for next year with a healthy Charles and some youth. Team 2 is left with Reggie Bush, Ben Tate, Danny Woodhead and Jason Snelling at RB (start 2 RB league).

Two Questions:

1. Do you think this trade is fair

2. Because Team 2 is left with a downgraded team for the remainder of this 2011 season, do you see it as tanking?

Thanks in advance...

 

[Multiple Scores]

I see NOTHING wrong with this trade at all.

If it is vetoed expect mutiny.

 

[Lester Long]

Even thinking about vetoing that makes me wonder what else has been vetoed in that league.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

1. Doesn't matter. This question should be is there collusion. And on paper, it doesn't look like it to me.

2. You are in a dynasty league. If player 2 wins your league the following 3 years, why should he care if he has an off year. Charles' career isn't over.

I think you are overestimating your role in the trade as commissioner. Your only real question in any veto should be "Is there collusion?"

Just my opinion.

 

[mcintyre1]

Yeah, nothing wrong at all with that trade on either concern. Are teams not allowed to rebuild?

 

[Lester Long]

Dynasty trades can sometimes be uneven. there is alot of variables to dynasty. a rebuilding team will sell many people low. it is how it works, just like the NFL.it is what makes Dynasty IDP the ultimate way to play fantasy football.

 

[davidwb]

There should be NO thought of veto for this trade.

 

[krsone21]

Just say NO to the VETO.

 

[The_Wolfman]

It seems to me the correct answer to these kinds of threads is "NO" 99% of the time. Unless there is reason to suspect collusion, no veto.

 

[runner06]

no way it should be vetoed.

 

[Captain Hook]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

 

[lynx4ben]

I'm in a 12 team dynasty league. This trade was just agreed upon by two owners.Team 1 (1-2 record) Gives up:Jamaal CharlesTorrey Smith (Taxi Squad)Bernard Pollard2012 1st round pickTeam 2 (1-2 record) Gives up:Lesean McCoyJamar Chaney2012 2nd rond pick2012 4th round pickTeam 1 is clearly looking to make a run this year and replace the injured Charles, while Team 2 looks to be planning for next year with a healthy Charles and some youth. Team 2 is left with Reggie Bush, Ben Tate, Danny Woodhead and Jason Snelling at RB (start 2 RB league). Two Questions:1. Do you think this trade is fair2. Because Team 2 is left with a downgraded team for the remainder of this 2011 season, do you see it as tanking?Thanks in advance...

 

[doeseatplace]

I didn't read your post, but the answer is no

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I didn't read your post, but the answer is no

/thread. say no to 'should it be vetoed' threads :IBTL:

 

[Getinthemix]

pathetic

 

[DoubleG]

Collusion? No. Veto? No.

The end. Please stop running everyone else's teams.

 

[indyram96]

1. Doesn't matter. This question should be is there collusion. And on paper, it doesn't look like it to me.2. You are in a dynasty league. If player 2 wins your league the following 3 years, why should he care if he has an off year. Charles' career isn't over. I think you are overestimating your role in the trade as commissioner. Your only real question in any veto should be "Is there collusion?"Just my opinion.

agreedstop running other peoples teams

 

[comfortably numb]

1. Yes

2. Tanking is 1 thing, rebuilding is another.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I see NOTHING wrong with this trade at all. If it is vetoed expect mutiny.

Even thinking about vetoing that makes me wonder what else has been vetoed in that league.

1. Doesn't matter. This question should be is there collusion. And on paper, it doesn't look like it to me.2. You are in a dynasty league. If player 2 wins your league the following 3 years, why should he care if he has an off year. Charles' career isn't over. I think you are overestimating your role in the trade as commissioner. Your only real question in any veto should be "Is there collusion?"Just my opinion.

Yeah, nothing wrong at all with that trade on either concern. Are teams not allowed to rebuild?

There should be NO thought of veto for this trade.

Just say NO to the VETO.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

 

[Wadsworth]

I didn't read your post, but the answer is no

That's the post of the week right there.

 

[duaneok66]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

can we have a rational conversation??

 

[fsufan]

not sure why the mods allows these thread in the SP or why people post. they belong in the AC

the SP is always against vetoing of trades

stop #####ing and let owners managing their own team

 

[DropKick]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

can we have a rational conversation??

I get his point. I've seen trades that involved obvious collusion although the people involved denied it. I personally believe the vast majority of trades are legit, but there are exceptions. Perry Mason isn't here to "prove" anything!

 

[The Comedian]

Not even sure which side makes it veto-able.

Got I hate these threads.

 

[~OMM~]

Not even sure which side makes it veto-able. Got I hate these threads.

Any kind of veto is a bad veto.

 

[shadyridr]

not sure why the mods allows these thread in the SP or why people post. they belong in the AC the SP is always against vetoing of tradesstop #####ing and let owners managing their own team

I actually enjoy these threads. They always give me a little chuckle.

 

[shadyridr]

Not even sure which side makes it veto-able. Got I hate these threads.

then why do you read them and reply?

 

[The Comedian]

Not even sure which side makes it veto-able. Got I hate these threads.

then why do you read them and reply?

To express my displeasure.

 

[flooredyas]

For the OP

Are there contracts involved?

Are there salaries?

With what you've offered as info, how can there be any thought of this not being a fair trade? Dynasty is 100% different than redraft, however collusion applies to both.

 

[Bronco Nation]

If you have to ask, the answer is no.

 

[OPS]

Veto this trade now! How else will you be able to exhibit your god-like powers as commissioner?

 

[footballnerd]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

If you have idiots that trade like this you should get out

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

If you have to ask, the answer is no.

Or you don't know what you're doing, in which case you shouldn't be commissioner.

 

[Phil4]

If this trade vetoed, then make it a no trade league

 

[nysportsfan]

If this trade vetoed, then make it a no trade league give everyone their money back.

 

[DoubleG]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

can we have a rational conversation??

Shark Pool down?

 

[DoubleG]

Veto this trade now! How else will you be able to exhibit your god-like powers as commissioner?

Why not just assign every team their players...or better yet, kick everyone else out of the league, that way not only do you still get to control each team, but you win!! EVERY! SINGLE! YEAR!!!!!

 

[Dr. Octopus]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

Anyone can create extreme examples to try to make a point. If a trade like that went through, it would certainly raise the spectre of collusions. The receiver of Nate Washington would never be able to justify why he thinks the deal makes his team better.

 

[BroadwayG]

Yes, veto the trade. Then go in and put McCoy and Charles on your roster. Then transfer all 2012 1st rounders to you. If you're going to be a rotten commish, go all the way.

 

[Road Warriors]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

Anyone can create extreme examples to try to make a point. If a trade like that went through, it would certainly raise the spectre of collusions. The receiver of Nate Washington would never be able to justify why he thinks the deal makes his team better.

This.

 

[Reepicheep]

The best way to handle this sort of thing is for you as commissioner to assign a numerical value to every single player and every single draft pick for the next 5 years, and tell your league's owners they can only make trades where the value is equal. I'm sure you'll appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate your fantasy knowledge by updating the player and draft choice values weekly, and it will be so much fun when everyone knows they are getting a "square deal" and the commish is looking out for them.

 

[Reepicheep]

Veto this trade now! How else will you be able to exhibit your god-like powers as commissioner?

Why not just assign every team their players...or better yet, kick everyone else out of the league, that way not only do you still get to control each team, but you win!! EVERY! SINGLE! YEAR!!!!!

 

[Nate]

Veto that ####. Gotta maintain that competitive integrity.

 

[mbuehner]

Veto that ####. Gotta maintain that competitive integrity.

Then you better fire the owner that agreed to it or you still have no competitive integrity. 'Is there collusion' is the only relevant question aside from did i stock my league with dopes (which is an issue to be addressed in the off season).

 

[glumpy]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

I like that concept.

 

[AmosMoses]

I'm in a 12 team dynasty league. This trade was just agreed upon by two owners.Team 1 (1-2 record) Gives up:Jamaal CharlesTorrey Smith (Taxi Squad)Bernard Pollard2012 1st round pickTeam 2 (1-2 record) Gives up:Lesean McCoyJamar Chaney2012 2nd rond pick2012 4th round pickTeam 1 is clearly looking to make a run this year and replace the injured Charles, while Team 2 looks to be planning for next year with a healthy Charles and some youth. Team 2 is left with Reggie Bush, Ben Tate, Danny Woodhead and Jason Snelling at RB (start 2 RB league). Two Questions:1. Do you think this trade is fair2. Because Team 2 is left with a downgraded team for the remainder of this 2011 season, do you see it as tanking?Thanks in advance...

Please quit fantasy football. Never play this game again.

 

[Ray_T]

I'm in a 12 team dynasty league. This trade was just agreed upon by two owners.

Team 1 (1-2 record) Gives up:

Jamaal Charles

Torrey Smith (Taxi Squad)

Bernard Pollard

2012 1st round pick

Team 2 (1-2 record) Gives up:

Lesean McCoy

Jamar Chaney

2012 2nd rond pick

2012 4th round pick

Team 1 is clearly looking to make a run this year and replace the injured Charles, while Team 2 looks to be planning for next year with a healthy Charles and some youth. Team 2 is left with Reggie Bush, Ben Tate, Danny Woodhead and Jason Snelling at RB (start 2 RB league).

Two Questions:

1. Do you think this trade is fair

2. Because Team 2 is left with a downgraded team for the remainder of this 2011 season, do you see it as tanking?

Thanks in advance...

it doesnt matter if it is tanking for this year.what matters is does the deal make sense?

I look at it this way:

A first round pick is worth roughly the same as a 2nd and a 4th.

You can argue semantics and say a first is worth a bit more if you like. I dont care. The big pieces to the puzzle here are Charles, McCoy, and the draft picks.

The other guys have value, but they are not the major pieces of the deal here.

so let us look at this. Charles is worth more than McCoy if both are healthy. but Charles is not healthy. So what this deal has become is present value traded for future value. and it does make sense. If Charles is worth 20 dollars and McCoy is worth 15 dollars, The risk premium due to charles injury probably makes up for most (if not all) of the difference. The Draft picks and other players combined are close enough that I would consider them to be a wash. You can argue that one player is worth more than another, but the bottom line is that none of the other players are huge point producers.

The deal appears to make sense from the perspective of both owners. As such, I would say that collusion is not a factor.

By my standards, this deal is nearly as fair as they get and this deal should not even be considered for a Veto.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

Anyone can create extreme examples to try to make a point. If a trade like that went through, it would certainly raise the spectre of collusions. The receiver of Nate Washington would never be able to justify why he thinks the deal makes his team better.

This.

Right, hence the need for the veto in the example I gave. I'm just saying that you can't say "never veto without proven collusion". There are extreme cases where it's necessary.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

There is ZERO reason to veto this trade

You may not like it, you may think it's stupid - but it's NOT your team and unless you can prove collusion then there should NEVER be a vote on trades.

One thing that many keeper leagues do is have teams pay half the league fee if they are making a trade involving future draft picks - if someone does screw up a team they are not just going to bail on the money as well (and if they do you can now get someone to take over for half the league fee)

So, ADP, AJ, and Gronk for Nate Washington should not be vetoed if both owners say no collusion was involved? I respectfully disagree.

can we have a rational conversation??

I get his point. I've seen trades that involved obvious collusion although the people involved denied it. I personally believe the vast majority of trades are legit, but there are exceptions. Perry Mason isn't here to "prove" anything!

I agree.