Trade Vetoed - Opinions? (1 Viewer)

[SecondString]

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

I don't understand the imbalance. Staring requirement would be helpful.

Here is a quote from one of the owners who vetoed:

"You are receiving the 1 overall receiver and giving up the 54 and 31 ranked player at his position to me that is a bulls***t trade!"

He is referring to the position rankings (after week 2) listed by ESPN of the players involved. Starting requirements are:

1 QB / 1 RB / 1 RB or WR / 2 WR's / 1 TE / 1 DST / 1 K

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You should NEVER allow other owners to vote on a trade.

But if you do I will ALWAYS vote in my team's best interest.

So if a trade makes a team stronger that threatens my playoff chances, I'm voting against it.

So you prefer where just the commissioner gets to veto trades? Odd stance considering you freely admit that you are only capable of acting in a selfish manner. What makes you think a commissioner would be any different?

Or do you prefer no trades at all, or simply allowing all trades to go through?

I prefer commissioner veto where the commissioner understands the parameters. That is, unless it's a clear violation of the spirit of the rules, it goes through.

Example:

Team A gets mad over a scoring discrepancy and starts trading all their good players to Teams B and C out of frustration.

That kind of thing.

By the way, I'm very capable of not acting selfishly. But I'm also not stupid. If a team is given a power, and everyone else can do it, you're only hurting yourself by not using it. This isn't a loophole to exploit. It's a clear, open power we're given in the league.

If I don't like the waiver wire system, I don't hurt anyone but myself if I pledge not to use the waiver wire all season long. I'll use it but I won't like the setup.

As commissioner, you are not supposed to simply act in your team's best interest. You're supposed to act in the league's best interest. Big difference.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You should NEVER allow other owners to vote on a trade.

But if you do I will ALWAYS vote in my team's best interest.

So if a trade makes a team stronger that threatens my playoff chances, I'm voting against it.

You are the reason my leagues are commish approval (have never not approved immediately) or no approval at all they just go immediately.

I can get behind the no approval required leagues but having a commish doesn't seem like a viable solution considering everyone in here seems to be entirely selfish. What makes you think a commish wouldn't be equally self interested, or just stupid enough to think a trade like this was imbalanced and veto it?

Because that's their job. Don't accept if you can't handle it. I've been a commish for several years. In that role, I'm not allowed to be selfish and think only for myself. I have to put what's best for the league first, even if it hurts my team. If a league doesn't trust the commish, it falls apart.

That's why I enjoy playing a more selfish role when I'm just an owner. That's my "fantasy football" within fantasy football. Not sure if that makes sense. But a commissioner can't just be an owner who adds on some clerical duties. Your mindset has to be different. In a perfect world, a league commish wouldn't even be an owner. But they can't be afford to be selfish like if they were a regular owner. It costs the league too much.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You should NEVER allow other owners to vote on a trade.

But if you do I will ALWAYS vote in my team's best interest.

So if a trade makes a team stronger that threatens my playoff chances, I'm voting against it.

You are the reason my leagues are commish approval (have never not approved immediately) or no approval at all they just go immediately.

Good. Then we're on the same page. We want the same thing, though I prefer the former to the latter. Somebody should look at a trade (not for "fairness" but to make sure the motivation isn't to harm the league or their own team or something).

 

[Uruk-Hai]

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

I don't understand the imbalance. Staring requirement would be helpful.

Here is a quote from one of the owners who vetoed:

"You are receiving the 1 overall receiver and giving up the 54 and 31 ranked player at his position to me that is a bulls***t trade!"

He is referring to the position rankings (after week 2) listed by ESPN of the players involved. Starting requirements are:

1 QB / 1 RB / 1 RB or WR / 2 WR's / 1 TE / 1 DST / 1 K

First - that this was vetoed is a disgrace.

Second, it appears you can only start 1 TE. Leaving aside the fact that he must've burned 2 pretty high picks at TE, either Gronk or Thomas is doing him no good. Trading one is smart - he got a good WR and a startable RB (I'm assuming he's weak at at least one of those spots because Thomas/Gronk).

OP, are you one of the teams involved? Was there a backlash against the backlash?

 

[SecondString]

I would have

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

I don't understand the imbalance. Staring requirement would be helpful.

Here is a quote from one of the owners who vetoed:

"You are receiving the 1 overall receiver and giving up the 54 and 31 ranked player at his position to me that is a bulls***t trade!"

He is referring to the position rankings (after week 2) listed by ESPN of the players involved. Starting requirements are:

1 QB / 1 RB / 1 RB or WR / 2 WR's / 1 TE / 1 DST / 1 K

First - that this was vetoed is a disgrace.

Second, it appears you can only start 1 TE. Leaving aside the fact that he must've burned 2 pretty high picks at TE, either Gronk or Thomas is doing him no good. Trading one is smart - he got a good WR and a startable RB (I'm assuming he's weak at at least one of those spots because Thomas/Gronk).

OP, are you one of the teams involved? Was there a backlash against the backlash?

Yes, I was involved, I would have received JT, and yes, we can only start 1 TE. So yes, he very much needed to trade one TE, as he had tremendous value wasted on his bench. Also, yes he is weak at both WR and RB, could use both Allen and Ellington.

I actually posted this question in this forum so that I could share the responses with my league. For some reason, there is the mentality in this league that it is the collective owners' place to evaluate trades and veto them where it is not "even". I am using this thread as evidence to try to persuade them otherwise. Some of them just don't get that it is not their place to interfere with other owners running their own teams unless collusion exists.

I told a fellow league mate that if I made such a post in this thread that the responses would be 100% in agreement with me that this trade should never have been vetoed. So far, I am correct, 55 posts in.

 

[Chaka]

It's nice to be in leagues like that. I definitely wouldn't trust them with the awesome power of votes though. Wouldn't want to risk anarchy.

Votes are far too slow. You have to give a couple days so everybody has a chance to see it/log in/possibly vote.

Yeah, that is a legitimate issue/concern. But in my experience with 10-12 owners and only requiring a simple majority it is pretty easy to drum up the vote in a short time frame.

Then again I only play in one league where most of the owners have been together for almost 20 years so things just go smoother in that circumstance. We had one of the worst trades that I have ever seen pass through last week (super-flex QB, non-ppr, 12 team, 16 man roster, 9 starters) Dez Bryant and Shane Vereen for Jake Locker and Trent Richardson. It's an awful trade even in a super-flex (dude lost RGIII and panicked) but we all know for a fact that there was no collusion and our owners generally believe that people should be allowed to make bad decisions even if it makes one team much stronger.

I think most of the owners primary complaint was that they didn't get to the guy willing to trade Dez for a bag of wet paper first. I would hate to play in a league where a majority of owners or the high and mighty commish overturned such a deal just because they felt it upset "competitive balance". People need to be allowed to trade Herschel Walker for 12 players/draft pics, even if it is a terrible decision.

I mean waiting a couple days for the trade to go through takes too long.

I see no reason people can't/shouldn't be able to agree to a trade and immediately, or very shortly, have it actually happen. None of this...oh the trade was agreed to on Friday or Saturday so it won't be usable until after the next week of games crap

I know that is what you meant and I think it isn't that difficult to drum up votes if you actually know the people in your league. In those leagues where no one know each other (again I have no idea why people play in those) it may be different.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I would have

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

I don't understand the imbalance. Staring requirement would be helpful.

Here is a quote from one of the owners who vetoed:

"You are receiving the 1 overall receiver and giving up the 54 and 31 ranked player at his position to me that is a bulls***t trade!"

He is referring to the position rankings (after week 2) listed by ESPN of the players involved. Starting requirements are:

1 QB / 1 RB / 1 RB or WR / 2 WR's / 1 TE / 1 DST / 1 K

First - that this was vetoed is a disgrace.

Second, it appears you can only start 1 TE. Leaving aside the fact that he must've burned 2 pretty high picks at TE, either Gronk or Thomas is doing him no good. Trading one is smart - he got a good WR and a startable RB (I'm assuming he's weak at at least one of those spots because Thomas/Gronk).

OP, are you one of the teams involved? Was there a backlash against the backlash?

Yes, I was involved, I would have received JT, and yes, we can only start 1 TE. So yes, he very much needed to trade one TE, as he had tremendous value wasted on his bench. Also, yes he is weak at both WR and RB, could use both Allen and Ellington.

I actually posted this question in this forum so that I could share the responses with my league. For some reason, there is the mentality in this league that it is the collective owners' place to evaluate trades and veto them where it is not "even". I am using this thread as evidence to try to persuade them otherwise. Some of them just don't get that it is not their place to interfere with other owners running their own teams unless collusion exists.

I told a fellow league mate that if I made such a post in this thread that the responses would be 100% in agreement with me that this trade should never have been vetoed. So far, I am correct, 55 posts in.

Invite the guys all hot under the collar in here

 

[Chaka]

So the commish's in here believe they are not biased and completely trustworthy, mature and responsible while the owners are a bunch of children who can't be trusted to cut their own food and need to be guided by the commissioner's benevolent wisdom.

Got it.

 

[SecondString]

I would have

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

I don't understand the imbalance. Staring requirement would be helpful.

Here is a quote from one of the owners who vetoed:

"You are receiving the 1 overall receiver and giving up the 54 and 31 ranked player at his position to me that is a bulls***t trade!"

He is referring to the position rankings (after week 2) listed by ESPN of the players involved. Starting requirements are:

1 QB / 1 RB / 1 RB or WR / 2 WR's / 1 TE / 1 DST / 1 K

First - that this was vetoed is a disgrace.

Second, it appears you can only start 1 TE. Leaving aside the fact that he must've burned 2 pretty high picks at TE, either Gronk or Thomas is doing him no good. Trading one is smart - he got a good WR and a startable RB (I'm assuming he's weak at at least one of those spots because Thomas/Gronk).

OP, are you one of the teams involved? Was there a backlash against the backlash?

Yes, I was involved, I would have received JT, and yes, we can only start 1 TE. So yes, he very much needed to trade one TE, as he had tremendous value wasted on his bench. Also, yes he is weak at both WR and RB, could use both Allen and Ellington.

I actually posted this question in this forum so that I could share the responses with my league. For some reason, there is the mentality in this league that it is the collective owners' place to evaluate trades and veto them where it is not "even". I am using this thread as evidence to try to persuade them otherwise. Some of them just don't get that it is not their place to interfere with other owners running their own teams unless collusion exists.

I told a fellow league mate that if I made such a post in this thread that the responses would be 100% in agreement with me that this trade should never have been vetoed. So far, I am correct, 55 posts in.

Invite the guys all hot under the collar in here

I've shared the link.

 

[Chaka]

I would have

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

I don't understand the imbalance. Staring requirement would be helpful.

Here is a quote from one of the owners who vetoed:

"You are receiving the 1 overall receiver and giving up the 54 and 31 ranked player at his position to me that is a bulls***t trade!"

He is referring to the position rankings (after week 2) listed by ESPN of the players involved. Starting requirements are:

1 QB / 1 RB / 1 RB or WR / 2 WR's / 1 TE / 1 DST / 1 K

First - that this was vetoed is a disgrace.

Second, it appears you can only start 1 TE. Leaving aside the fact that he must've burned 2 pretty high picks at TE, either Gronk or Thomas is doing him no good. Trading one is smart - he got a good WR and a startable RB (I'm assuming he's weak at at least one of those spots because Thomas/Gronk).

OP, are you one of the teams involved? Was there a backlash against the backlash?

Yes, I was involved, I would have received JT, and yes, we can only start 1 TE. So yes, he very much needed to trade one TE, as he had tremendous value wasted on his bench. Also, yes he is weak at both WR and RB, could use both Allen and Ellington.

I actually posted this question in this forum so that I could share the responses with my league. For some reason, there is the mentality in this league that it is the collective owners' place to evaluate trades and veto them where it is not "even". I am using this thread as evidence to try to persuade them otherwise. Some of them just don't get that it is not their place to interfere with other owners running their own teams unless collusion exists.

I told a fellow league mate that if I made such a post in this thread that the responses would be 100% in agreement with me that this trade should never have been vetoed. So far, I am correct, 55 posts in.

Invite the guys all hot under the collar in here

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Just out of curiosity - what picks were his TEs taken in?

Also, rosters of both teams?

 

[SecondString]

Just out of curiosity - what picks were his TEs taken in?

Also, rosters of both teams?

Auction draft, 2-keeper league. JT was one of his keepers.

Cam Newton

Terrence West

Frank Gore

Danny Woodhead

Victor Cruz

Brandin Cooks

James Jones

JT

Gronk

Bears

Mason Crosby

Luck

R. Jennnings

Spiller

Ellington

K. Allen

C. Patterson

Michael Floyd

Josh Gordon

Zach Ertz

Patriots

Cody Parkey

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I'm out of my depth on auction/keeper leagues, but it seems even worse to my mind that this was vetoed based on the above.

 

[cstu]

It was vetoed by owners purely because of self-interest.

 

[Leonidas]

I had a similar situation in pre season, right after the draft.

I accidentally drafted Graham and Julius thinking I could flex one, but I could start 1 and only 1 TE.

I traded Graham for Julio and one guy went nuts about it.

Funny thing though, when I started a thread in this forum to get feedback like this OP did it was closed within like an hour because these belong in the AC forum.

Nice consistency.

 

[Fantasy Wins Reality Loses]

Original Post: By Second String

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Info by OU812:

League info: 14 teams, $100 entry, Auction Draft, keeper (up to 2) and 2 LM’s

Rosters: QB, RB, RB/WR, 2WR, TE, K, DT & 3 bench

I can add some insight because I did not veto the trade even though I feel Ellington and Allen are terrible…. And personally I would never trade JT for them, maybe injury prone Gronk. Also to note that Dez Bryant was offered for JT and I had to end up trading for Graham.

(Please Note) these are consensus views/ not personal (except where noted)

- The trade is between LM (Dad) and Son.

- Owners are always waiting for an issue or midseason league rules change.

- I.E. everyone is waiting for him to add a bench spots because he is holding onto Gordon and we have a small bench with bye weeks.

- Was demanding in writing why trade got vetoed (Not going to happen).

- I do feel he gets an unfair judging from past issues/ kind of under the radar always

- The league is getting more and more divided unfortunately

The resolution here is since this league has 2 LM’s. This trade should of been handled by the 2nd LM (since it involved the primary LM). Where I could of handled the concerns from vetoing owners. Some actions that could have been taken would be a revote, 2nd LM overriding or have all league owners pony up for a better offer in a designated time frame!

So with that being said, Vetos do work, but in this instance it is an extremely bad scenario. The whole damn thing, from it getting vetoed to the actions after. It’s sad that our league has this link to this thread. Fantasy Football is suppose to be fun and when that is taken away one should consider a new hobby!

 

[SecondString]

Original Post: By Second String

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Info by OU812:

League info: 14 teams, $100 entry, Auction Draft, keeper (up to 2) and 2 LM’s

Rosters: QB, RB, RB/WR, 2WR, TE, K, DT & 3 bench

I can add some insight because I did not veto the trade even though I feel Ellington and Allen are terrible…. And personally I would never trade JT for them, maybe injury prone Gronk. Also to note that Dez Bryant was offered for JT and I had to end up trading for Graham.

(Please Note) these are consensus views/ not personal (except where noted)

- The trade is between LM (Dad) and Son.

- Trades only with Son or side kick who slanders league owners

- Owners are always waiting for an issue or midseason league rules change.

- I.E. everyone is waiting for him to add a bench spots because he is holding onto Gordon and we have a small bench with bye weeks.

- The league endures rants through emails & LM posts on his view.

- Forceful on his views and downplays everyone’s concern.

- Was demanding in writing why trade got vetoed (Not going to happen).

- I do feel he gets an unfair judging from past issues/ kind of under the radar always

- The league is getting more and more divided unfortunately

The resolution here is since this league has 2 LM’s. This trade should of been handled by the 2nd LM (since it involved the primary LM). Where I could of handled the concerns from vetoing owners. Some actions that could have been taken would be a revote, 2nd LM overriding or have all league owners pony up for a better offer in a designated time frame!

So with that being said, Vetos do work, but in this instance it is an extremely bad scenario. The whole damn thing, from it getting vetoed to the actions after. It’s sad that our league has this link to this thread. Fantasy Football is suppose to be fun and when that is taken away one should consider a new hobby!

Let it be said that everything I have posted on this thread is exactly as represented. The resolution is that I already have notified the league (yesterday) that I would not be overturning the veto because I did not want to use LM powers to do so for my own trade. This even though we have a provision in the trade policy which states:

"Owners have the right to be able to manage their teams, and that includes​

trading. The only legitimate reason for vetoing a trade is if you feel that there is collusion/cheating

between owners, and one of the owners is making the trade for a reason other than improving his

own team's chances for success. Player valuations are subjective, you cannot veto a trade just because

you feel it is not “even”. Also, you cannot veto a trade just because you feel that it would help another

owners team, or hurt your own chances of success.

The League Managers reserve the right to reverse or enforce trade veto's based on this criteria."

But we will still have the same untenable trade veto policy in place, which includes veto votes. I do not even understand some of the bullet points being made above, but nice to know he chose to air those issues here rather than call me to discuss. I was simply trying to get some outside, independent opinions of this veto in order to share with league members.

Nice....

 

[meatwad1]

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

You play in a league full of rockheads. That is as fair a trade I have ever seen.

 

[meatwad1]

Original Post: By Second String

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Info by OU812:

League info: 14 teams, $100 entry, Auction Draft, keeper (up to 2) and 2 LM’s

Rosters: QB, RB, RB/WR, 2WR, TE, K, DT & 3 bench

I can add some insight because I did not veto the trade even though I feel Ellington and Allen are terrible…. And personally I would never trade JT for them, maybe injury prone Gronk. Also to note that Dez Bryant was offered for JT and I had to end up trading for Graham.

(Please Note) these are consensus views/ not personal (except where noted)

- The trade is between LM (Dad) and Son.

- Trades only with Son or side kick who slanders league owners

- Owners are always waiting for an issue or midseason league rules change.

- I.E. everyone is waiting for him to add a bench spots because he is holding onto Gordon and we have a small bench with bye weeks.

- The league endures rants through emails & LM posts on his view.

- Forceful on his views and downplays everyone’s concern.

- Was demanding in writing why trade got vetoed (Not going to happen).

- I do feel he gets an unfair judging from past issues/ kind of under the radar always

- The league is getting more and more divided unfortunately

The resolution here is since this league has 2 LM’s. This trade should of been handled by the 2nd LM (since it involved the primary LM). Where I could of handled the concerns from vetoing owners. Some actions that could have been taken would be a revote, 2nd LM overriding or have all league owners pony up for a better offer in a designated time frame!

So with that being said, Vetos do work, but in this instance it is an extremely bad scenario. The whole damn thing, from it getting vetoed to the actions after. It’s sad that our league has this link to this thread. Fantasy Football is suppose to be fun and when that is taken away one should consider a new hobby!

Let it be said that everything I have posted on this thread is exactly as represented. The resolution is that I already have notified the league (yesterday) that I would not be overturning the veto because I did not want to use LM powers to do so for my own trade. This even though we have a provision in the trade policy which states:

"Owners have the right to be able to manage their teams, and that includes​

trading. The only legitimate reason for vetoing a trade is if you feel that there is collusion/cheating

between owners, and one of the owners is making the trade for a reason other than improving his

own team's chances for success. Player valuations are subjective, you cannot veto a trade just because

you feel it is not “even”. Also, you cannot veto a trade just because you feel that it would help another

owners team, or hurt your own chances of success.

The League Managers reserve the right to reverse or enforce trade veto's based on this criteria."

But we will still have the same untenable trade veto policy in place, which includes veto votes. I do not even understand some of the bullet points being made above, but nice to know he chose to air those issues here rather than call me to discuss. I was simply trying to get some outside, independent opinions of this veto in order to share with league members.

Nice....

Just as I thought, a group of rockheads. All of the listed concerns are pretty much some of the dumbest drivel I have ever read. Why do any of you dolts even play which each other? It sounds as if you really do not like each other, let alone trust each other. I guess I am lucky as I play in a league of all faithful, practicing Catholics where all trades are allowed because a good Catholic would never even want to win if was from cheating. Plus anyone who has ever been a serious fantasy football player knows that on average about half of the trades that happen do not end up the way you think they will.

Keenan Allen will probably blow up over the next few weeks while JT blows out his knee.

 

[SecondString]

Original Post: By Second String

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Info by OU812:

League info: 14 teams, $100 entry, Auction Draft, keeper (up to 2) and 2 LM’s

Rosters: QB, RB, RB/WR, 2WR, TE, K, DT & 3 bench

I can add some insight because I did not veto the trade even though I feel Ellington and Allen are terrible…. And personally I would never trade JT for them, maybe injury prone Gronk. Also to note that Dez Bryant was offered for JT and I had to end up trading for Graham.

(Please Note) these are consensus views/ not personal (except where noted)

- The trade is between LM (Dad) and Son.

- Trades only with Son or side kick who slanders league owners

- Owners are always waiting for an issue or midseason league rules change.

- I.E. everyone is waiting for him to add a bench spots because he is holding onto Gordon and we have a small bench with bye weeks.

- The league endures rants through emails & LM posts on his view.

- Forceful on his views and downplays everyone’s concern.

- Was demanding in writing why trade got vetoed (Not going to happen).

- I do feel he gets an unfair judging from past issues/ kind of under the radar always

- The league is getting more and more divided unfortunately

The resolution here is since this league has 2 LM’s. This trade should of been handled by the 2nd LM (since it involved the primary LM). Where I could of handled the concerns from vetoing owners. Some actions that could have been taken would be a revote, 2nd LM overriding or have all league owners pony up for a better offer in a designated time frame!

So with that being said, Vetos do work, but in this instance it is an extremely bad scenario. The whole damn thing, from it getting vetoed to the actions after. It’s sad that our league has this link to this thread. Fantasy Football is suppose to be fun and when that is taken away one should consider a new hobby!

Let it be said that everything I have posted on this thread is exactly as represented. The resolution is that I already have notified the league (yesterday) that I would not be overturning the veto because I did not want to use LM powers to do so for my own trade. This even though we have a provision in the trade policy which states:

"Owners have the right to be able to manage their teams, and that includes​

trading. The only legitimate reason for vetoing a trade is if you feel that there is collusion/cheating

between owners, and one of the owners is making the trade for a reason other than improving his

own team's chances for success. Player valuations are subjective, you cannot veto a trade just because

you feel it is not “even”. Also, you cannot veto a trade just because you feel that it would help another

owners team, or hurt your own chances of success.

The League Managers reserve the right to reverse or enforce trade veto's based on this criteria."

But we will still have the same untenable trade veto policy in place, which includes veto votes. I do not even understand some of the bullet points being made above, but nice to know he chose to air those issues here rather than call me to discuss. I was simply trying to get some outside, independent opinions of this veto in order to share with league members.

Nice....

Just as I thought, a group of rockheads. All of the listed concerns are pretty much some of the dumbest drivel I have ever read. Why do any of you dolts even play which each other? It sounds as if you really do not like each other, let alone trust each other. I guess I am lucky as I play in a league of all faithful, practicing Catholics where all trades are allowed because a good Catholic would never even want to win if was from cheating. Plus anyone who has ever been a serious fantasy football player knows that on average about half of the trades that happen do not end up the way you think they will.

Keenan Allen will probably blow up over the next few weeks while JT blows out his knee.

It's all good, we'll work through it and figure out a way to make it fun.

 

[Chaka]

Whatever. That's a fair trade if I ever saw one, and if your league vetos it then the vetoers are a bunch of chuckleheads who probably shouldn't be allowed to breed let alone make fantasy GM decisions.

Seriously, if it isn't collusion let it pass, who cares if you think one team benefits more then another? If your fantasy football knowledge was so profound and accurate then you would win your league every season, and I'll bet my first born that you haven't done that, so your opinion on the value of any particular trade is not any better then those making the trade, so let it go.

If you are so petty that you can't let someone make a deal because you are angry you weren't savvy enough to garner the deal for yourselves then you probably shouldn't be allowed to participate in a fantasy football league in the first place. It doesn't matter if you or your chucklehead allies think it is unbalanced because you guys don't know #### all more than the people involved in the trade. It's just too much responsibility for you to handle. And, again, don't breed because we have enough morons in the world we don't need any more.

Everyone thinks Idiocracy was merely a marginal comedy film that missed the mark, but it was really a cautionary tale that far too many people ignore. I'm not kidding here, if society requires a license to drive, fish or hunt the we should probably require one to procreate and manage a fantasy football team. The morons just aren't ready to make those decisions for themselves quite yet.

Only a petty child-like subhuman would veto such a fair trade.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Serious question: If the NFL were allowed to veto trades, do you think owners would veto a trade that made one of their division rivals stronger?

I mean, would they be more concerned with the success of their own franchise, or would they allow it under the notion that eventually others could hurt them with a veto so they'll want to be cool about it? Kind of a short-term thinking vs long-term?

 

[mbuehner]

So the commish's in here believe they are not biased and completely trustworthy, mature and responsible while the owners are a bunch of children who can't be trusted to cut their own food and need to be guided by the commissioner's benevolent wisdom.

Got it.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Kay, Men In Black

 

[mrbigg]

depends on the leagues I play in. If its a money league with good players, I like owner veto

If its a money league with just friends, I perfer commish veto

 

[mbuehner]

Owner veto is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

 

[DropKick]

Original Post: By Second String

In an ESPN league, Julius Thomas was offered for Andre Ellington and Keenan Allen. Thomas owner also owns Gronk. Trade got vetoed (5 required votes) based on "imbalance".

Opinions?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Info by OU812:

League info: 14 teams, $100 entry, Auction Draft, keeper (up to 2) and 2 LM’s

Rosters: QB, RB, RB/WR, 2WR, TE, K, DT & 3 bench

I can add some insight because I did not veto the trade even though I feel Ellington and Allen are terrible…. And personally I would never trade JT for them, maybe injury prone Gronk. Also to note that Dez Bryant was offered for JT and I had to end up trading for Graham.

(Please Note) these are consensus views/ not personal (except where noted)

- The trade is between LM (Dad) and Son.

- Owners are always waiting for an issue or midseason league rules change.

- I.E. everyone is waiting for him to add a bench spots because he is holding onto Gordon and we have a small bench with bye weeks.

- Was demanding in writing why trade got vetoed (Not going to happen).

- I do feel he gets an unfair judging from past issues/ kind of under the radar always

- The league is getting more and more divided unfortunately

The resolution here is since this league has 2 LM’s. This trade should of been handled by the 2nd LM (since it involved the primary LM). Where I could of handled the concerns from vetoing owners. Some actions that could have been taken would be a revote, 2nd LM overriding or have all league owners pony up for a better offer in a designated time frame!

So with that being said, Vetos do work, but in this instance it is an extremely bad scenario. The whole damn thing, from it getting vetoed to the actions after. It’s sad that our league has this link to this thread. Fantasy Football is suppose to be fun and when that is taken away one should consider a new hobby!

I'll disagree that vetoes work... too much self interest. I'll stand by commish veto which is only to stop something stupid.

It's a shame that your league would point out the relationship (father/son) between the teams first... while I understand the rational - many leagues are friends/family and there are always teams that are closer than others.

The complaint's against the OP - such as mid-season rule changes is not lost on me. Sometimes you must sleep in the bed you made. Rules shouldn't be changed that way and it sounds like your league has some deep seated issues you have to resolve.

Good Luck.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

Your league sucks. You should find a new one.

 

[Chaka]

So the commish's in here believe they are not biased and completely trustworthy, mature and responsible while the owners are a bunch of children who can't be trusted to cut their own food and need to be guided by the commissioner's benevolent wisdom.

Got it.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Kay, Men In Black

Life lessons from the guy who wrote Mom and Dad Save the World and Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey.