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!

Trade vetoed. (1 Viewer)

NeverEnough

NeverEnough

Footballguy
This is my work league, but $ is on the line. Decided to trade away Holmes & Stewart for Nicks & Cobb.

What happens less than 24 hours later? It gets vetoed! What a load of bs IMO.

These guys are not FF savvy. They just saw something they didn't like for no good reason and/or were upset b/c they didn't get Nicks. I know that at least 1 other owner was trying to trade for Nicks, but the Nicks owner liked my offer better.

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

EDIT: I'd also like to add that the Nicks owner just sent Newton packing for Hightower & that was not vetoed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well at least you ahve something to bring up in the organizational meeting in July...never have, and never will play in a league that vetos trades sans collusion. Vetoing in itself is really a form of collusion if they are hampering a team from trying to get better.

 
I would've vetoed it too. You're getting a top 5 WR for a top 20 WR and a RBBC guy. Who would want to start Stewart ever this season?

 
Really, since it is a work league and you got savvy, you got to adjust to the rules. You can ##### and whine about it but you will look like a #####y whiner to your coworkers. So there won't be any trades in this league, deal with it. You veto every trade you don't like too, that's the rules. Might be bs, but they are a bunch of schlubs, you should own them any way. I know I would. Always have.

:banned:

 
'firstseason1988 said:
Really, since it is a work league and you got savvy, you got to adjust to the rules. You can ##### and whine about it but you will look like a #####y whiner to your coworkers. So there won't be any trades in this league, deal with it. You veto every trade you don't like too, that's the rules. Might be bs, but they are a bunch of schlubs, you should own them any way. I know I would. Always have. :banned:
Click to expand...
I do. I won last year & am off to a 2-0 start this year.I won't be proposing any trades or accepting any after this bs. I think I will veto any trade that comes through too. F these clowns.
 
'Darryl Talley said:
I would've vetoed it too. You're getting a top 5 WR for a top 20 WR and a RBBC guy. Who would want to start Stewart ever this season?
Click to expand...
Didnt know your opinion on value was the only one that matters?No trade should ever be vetoed, ever...unless it is obvious collusion.Vetoing a trade always puts the commishes rep on the line, if you veto a trade...you better be prepared with a good dang argument, or else you will look like a fool, and buh bye league and your respect.
 
'Magic_Man said:
'firstseason1988 said:
Really, since it is a work league and you got savvy, you got to adjust to the rules. You can ##### and whine about it but you will look like a #####y whiner to your coworkers. So there won't be any trades in this league, deal with it. You veto every trade you don't like too, that's the rules. Might be bs, but they are a bunch of schlubs, you should own them any way. I know I would. Always have. :banned:
Click to expand...
I do. I won last year & am off to a 2-0 start this year.I won't be proposing any trades or accepting any after this bs. I think I will veto any trade that comes through too. F these clowns.
Click to expand...
Bet this is making for a great work environment.
 
'Sweet Love said:
Well at least you ahve something to bring up in the organizational meeting in July...never have, and never will play in a league that vetos trades sans collusion. Vetoing in itself is really a form of collusion if they are hampering a team from trying to get better.
Click to expand...
That is all very fine, but how do you prove collusion? Unless you have a smoking gun in the form of emails sent between the parties, the only way to prove collusion is inferentially, by looking at the trade.Now with that said, I am not in favor of the league itself voting on every trade, as people sometimes (not always) vote their own interests - I had a trade vetoed years ago in one league because I had the best team, not because there was anything wrong with the trade.

I think that the Commish should have the power to call for vote if he believes it looks extremely one sided or if a certain number of owners (maybe 3) object to a trade.

In this instance, I didn't have a problem with the trade in question.

 
Nothing wrong with that trade. It looks like one team is improving WR while the other team is getting a WR (although not as good as Nicks) and a starting RB. If the team needs a RB, this trade is fair. At the end of the day, just because you don't like the trade doesn't mean the trade isn't fair.

 
We have a 3 person committee that includes me, the commish, and one other guy that are all original members in a 12 team league. We have veto power, but only veto if obvious collusion.

That trade, while one-sided isn't collusion. You have to trust who has a vote on these things, because if you give a vote to everyone they will vote with their own interest in mind and then it becomes congress. Now you are ticked and would probably veto ANY trade that comes next.

 
'Sweet Love said:
Well at least you ahve something to bring up in the organizational meeting in July...never have, and never will play in a league that vetos trades sans collusion. Vetoing in itself is really a form of collusion if they are hampering a team from trying to get better.
Click to expand...
what he said; don't allow league vetos. only two teams ever want a trade...the rest, well, should veto.
 
I quit playing in leagues where the owners voted on trades years ago. It's a ridiculous system that breeds controversy, discontentment, and eventually payback voting. I think you got the better end of the trade it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what you and the other trader think and that there is no reason to suspect collusion.

 
'DocHolliday said:
'Magic_Man said:
'firstseason1988 said:
Really, since it is a work league and you got savvy, you got to adjust to the rules. You can ##### and whine about it but you will look like a #####y whiner to your coworkers. So there won't be any trades in this league, deal with it. You veto every trade you don't like too, that's the rules. Might be bs, but they are a bunch of schlubs, you should own them any way. I know I would. Always have. :banned:
Click to expand...
I do. I won last year & am off to a 2-0 start this year.I won't be proposing any trades or accepting any after this bs. I think I will veto any trade that comes through too. F these clowns.
Click to expand...
Bet this is making for a great work environment.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: I feel your pain on the trade veto. But you gotta be smart about wearing your bitterness on your sleeve. However inappropriate it may be to whine and moan on these here boards (varying opinions on that), far better to complain here than screw up a work environment.One had to treat 'work leagues' as special cases. There are all sorts of different dynamics and mojos. While one can participate in that hubbub and perhaps even win at that game within the game, the safest tack is to rise above it or step away from it, just let it roll. Other folks can see the nonsense factor, as well. Sure, you could win that game within a game, alpha male manhandling of a league's dynamic, letting it help your fantasy team in the process. But do you want to?
 
'Darryl Talley said:
I would've vetoed it too. You're getting a top 5 WR for a top 20 WR and a RBBC guy. Who would want to start Stewart ever this season?
Click to expand...
So your evaluation of talent should rule what these other owners can do? It never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance shown by FF players and their own evaluations of players, or their inability to look past names and reputations. If the guy getting Holmes feels he's improving, why should you have any say at all in his ability to manage his team as he sees fit.
 
According to the NFL Trade Analyzer, the team getting Holmes/Stewart is the winner of this trade.

Seemed like a pretty good 2 for 1 offer to me!

Team 1

13.75 S. Holmes (WR)

14.75 J. Stewart (RB)

Team 2

20.55 H. Nicks (WR)

2.5 R. Cobb (WR)

28.5 WINNER!

 
'BigDave said:
According to the NFL Trade Analyzer, the team getting Holmes/Stewart is the winner of this trade. Seemed like a pretty good 2 for 1 offer to me! Team 1 13.75 S. Holmes (WR) 14.75 J. Stewart (RB) Team 2 20.55 H. Nicks (WR) 2.5 R. Cobb (WR) 28.5 WINNER!
Click to expand...
Years ago, the last time I played in a league with owner veto power there was a big trade that got vetoed and in fact 9 of the 12 owners voted against. There was huge uproar about how unfair the trade was and how this type of trading had to be stopped for the good of the league. When I polled the owners 5 of the them voted against because they thought Team A ripped off Team B and 4 voted against because they thought Team B ripped off Team A. Owner veto is a terrible system.
 
'BigDave said:
According to the NFL Trade Analyzer
Click to expand...
I just checked out that trade analyzer (assuming this is the link:http://www.fantasysp.com/nfl_trade_analyzer/). The only thing I can say is that it is pretty sad. They are giving Arian Foster a negative score at -0.5. When I can say the trade is Roy Helu for Arian Foster, and the person getting Roy Helu wins.... Then I don't even waste anymore time. Tool is worthless.
 
'Saint said:
'BigDave said:
According to the NFL Trade Analyzer
Click to expand...
I just checked out that trade analyzer (assuming this is the link:http://www.fantasysp.com/nfl_trade_analyzer/). The only thing I can say is that it is pretty sad. They are giving Arian Foster a negative score at -0.5. When I can say the trade is Roy Helu for Arian Foster, and the person getting Roy Helu wins.... Then I don't even waste anymore time. Tool is worthless.
Click to expand...
OK, then just use the FBG's top 250 going forward and compare values. I don't disagree with the trade and wouldn't veto it. It's basically two average players for one good player. If the team in need wants two players then why not let it go through?
 
'BigDave said:
OK, then just use the FBG's top 250 going forward and compare values. I don't disagree with the trade and wouldn't veto it. It's basically two average players for one good player. If the team in need wants two players then why not let it go through?
Click to expand...
:goodposting: That's the tool to use. I agree with you on the trade though... Looked legit to me too.
 
'Darryl Talley said:
I would've vetoed it too. You're getting a top 5 WR for a top 20 WR and a RBBC guy. Who would want to start Stewart ever this season?
Click to expand...
Hmmm,Stewart pulled down 8 receptions for 100 yards last week and outscored Nicks and Santonio Holmes put up I think a point less than Nicks. Let someone else be the master of their teams, you never know how the end of year turns out.
 
I don't see anything wrong with the trade. However, I do think vetoes are necessary in any league that allows trading. Most big money Vegas leagues don't even allow trading because it is practically impossible to prove collusion and a single lopsided trade can completely ruin a league.

I have only vetoed two trades in 15+ years of FF. I vetoed a trade in 1999 when the commissioner traded Robert Holcombe straight up for Randy Moss. Since the commissioner was involved of course the trade didn't get vetoed. I also vetoed a trade in 2008 when an owner traded Larry Fitzgerald for Brian Griese after a 400 game by Griese. That veto didn't hold up either. In both cases, the obvious winner of the trade went on to dominate the league. I didn't continue playing in either league.

 
'Saint said:
Nothing wrong with that trade. It looks like one team is improving WR while the other team is getting a WR (although not as good as Nicks) and a starting RB. If the team needs a RB, this trade is fair. At the end of the day, just because you don't like the trade doesn't mean the trade isn't fair.
Click to expand...
His only starting RB is BJGE & we start 2 RBs so he needs RBs.
 
In all of my leagues we changed the veto process to League Manager only because of people abusing it to keeper other teams from improving. Not a fan of league wide votes for veto process.

 
'Touchdown Syndrome said:
It sucks, but this is the problem you run into when you have league veto rules in place.You knew the rules when you joined the league.
Click to expand...
Actually, we told him to remove the veto option.One of the dopes that vetoed it decided to post
sending multiple trade offers to block another person from offering the trade that was verbally made and that someone overheard via a conversation at work = a #### blocker and #####, do the math
Click to expand...
Apparently, he thinks that b/c I sent miltiple offers to the guy w/Nicks (So he could pick the 1 he likes most as I had several deals that I would have been happy with) makes him think I was blocking him getting a deal done. Anyone that uses Yahoo! knows you can only submit X number of trade offers. I submitted the max amount allowed. No rules broken there. The Nicks owner obviously liked my offer better. No rules broken there. We were also talking about a Nicks deal way before this guy jumped in, but the Nicks owner wanted DMC at the time & I was not going to do that.As you can also see, this guy is clearly very mature & eloquent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Teams shouldn't be able to veto trades BUT if you give that power to them...they'd be stupid not to use it.

Vetoing a trade is a power your league has given teams. If they don't use it to help their team they're tying one hand around their back. Don't blame owners for using powers you've given them. Blame the league for having a dumb rule in place.

Whining isn't going to change anything. Either quit the league or propose eliminating that power in the offseason.

 
i've been in a veto league in the past. If you want to get it done, just keep accepting different versions of the trade until the rest of the league sees how ridiculous it is try to stop it.

 
'atcdav said:
'Darryl Talley said:
I would've vetoed it too. You're getting a top 5 WR for a top 20 WR and a RBBC guy. Who would want to start Stewart ever this season?
Click to expand...
OK Darryl Du-M###find a new league
Click to expand...
Why is everyone attacking this guy? The argument was the poster submitted multiple offers legally. The trade was accepted legally. Well, other owners vetoed the trade legally. The same argument applies for their rationale.If he would have vetoed it too, more power to him. You want to give owners a specific power but whine and cry when they use it? The solution is to take that power away; not berate people when they use a veto power every owner has.
 
'sn0mm1s said:
I don't see anything wrong with the trade. However, I do think vetoes are necessary in any league that allows trading. Most big money Vegas leagues don't even allow trading because it is practically impossible to prove collusion and a single lopsided trade can completely ruin a league.

I have only vetoed two trades in 15+ years of FF. I vetoed a trade in 1999 when the commissioner traded Robert Holcombe straight up for Randy Moss. Since the commissioner was involved of course the trade didn't get vetoed. I also vetoed a trade in 2008 when an owner traded Larry Fitzgerald for Brian Griese after a 400 game by Griese. That veto didn't hold up either. In both cases, the obvious winner of the trade went on to dominate the league. I didn't continue playing in either league.
Click to expand...
Let's hear from the "veto for collusion only" guys on this one. Let's say both of these guys denied collusion was involved. Would that be all she wrote and the trade goes through?
 
'Neil Beaufort Zod said:
'atcdav said:
'Darryl Talley said:
I would've vetoed it too. You're getting a top 5 WR for a top 20 WR and a RBBC guy. Who would want to start Stewart ever this season?
Click to expand...
OK Darryl Du-M###find a new league
Click to expand...
Why is everyone attacking this guy? The argument was the poster submitted multiple offers legally. The trade was accepted legally. Well, other owners vetoed the trade legally. The same argument applies for their rationale.If he would have vetoed it too, more power to him. You want to give owners a specific power but whine and cry when they use it? The solution is to take that power away; not berate people when they use a veto power every owner has.
Click to expand...
I'd also like to add that the Nicks owner just sent Newton packing for Hightower & that was not vetoed.I should change my team name to "Veto This" :lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'My Hope Street Alias said:
'sn0mm1s said:
I don't see anything wrong with the trade. However, I do think vetoes are necessary in any league that allows trading. Most big money Vegas leagues don't even allow trading because it is practically impossible to prove collusion and a single lopsided trade can completely ruin a league.

I have only vetoed two trades in 15+ years of FF. I vetoed a trade in 1999 when the commissioner traded Robert Holcombe straight up for Randy Moss. Since the commissioner was involved of course the trade didn't get vetoed. I also vetoed a trade in 2008 when an owner traded Larry Fitzgerald for Brian Griese after a 400 game by Griese. That veto didn't hold up either. In both cases, the obvious winner of the trade went on to dominate the league. I didn't continue playing in either league.
Click to expand...
Let's hear from the "veto for collusion only" guys on this one. Let's say both of these guys denied collusion was involved. Would that be all she wrote and the trade goes through?
Click to expand...
yup, your perceived value of players may not only be different than the parties involved, but could also prove to be totally incorrect in the long run. Stay out of it.
 
Now the Nicks owner doesn't want to do it anymore. Instead, he wants Ryan Matthews for Nicks.

I'm done w/these clowns. I will simply set my lineup each week & win the whole thing again.

 
This is what you must deal with if you want to play in leagues with owners who are as you put it, "not savvy". I don't like the veto system, but I can also tell you that I've played in leagues in the past with unscrupulous owners who were absolute MASTERS at conning "not savvy" owners in to lopsided trades that wrecked my playoff or championship aspirations, and that is extremely frustrating too. If you like playing in leagues with noobs and dummies and taking their money, that's fine and your prerogative, but you have to take the bad with the good, and while crying like a schoolgirl when bad things happen might make you feel better, it isn't going to accomplish anything.

 
Man I want so very badly to veto this but I trust they aren't colluding so guess I can't...

Darren McFadden, Oak

Mike Williams, TB

Danny Amendola, StL

for

Michael Bush, Oak

Devery Henderson, NO

Cam Newton, Car

and the guy getting Newton has Vick?!?!?!?

 
'Wadsworth said:
'BigDave said:
According to the NFL Trade Analyzer, the team getting Holmes/Stewart is the winner of this trade. Seemed like a pretty good 2 for 1 offer to me! Team 1 13.75 S. Holmes (WR) 14.75 J. Stewart (RB) Team 2 20.55 H. Nicks (WR) 2.5 R. Cobb (WR) 28.5 WINNER!
Click to expand...
Years ago, the last time I played in a league with owner veto power there was a big trade that got vetoed and in fact 9 of the 12 owners voted against. There was huge uproar about how unfair the trade was and how this type of trading had to be stopped for the good of the league. When I polled the owners 5 of the them voted against because they thought Team A ripped off Team B and 4 voted against because they thought Team B ripped off Team A. Owner veto is a terrible system.
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
'verratti said:
Man I want so very badly to veto this but I trust they aren't colluding so guess I can't...Darren McFadden, OakMike Williams, TBDanny Amendola, StLforMichael Bush, OakDevery Henderson, NOCam Newton, Carand the guy getting Newton has Vick?!?!?!?
Click to expand...
The "collusion only" concept says that lop-sided trades are okay. The other camp says that you can only make even value trades (which ultimately aren't worth executing because you can't improve your overall value).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Dynasty Winners / Losers of Draft Days 1-3
2 3
Replies
113
Views
8K
Faust
Faust
T
Travdogg's Free Agency Predictions and 2 round mock (updated 4/8/22)
2
Replies
73
Views
6K
rockaction
rockaction
T
My final 2022 mock draft, 3 rounds
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top