Trade vetoed. (1 Viewer)

[footballnerd]

if you have a bunch of competitive knowledgeable owners who want to win, you don't need veto power. I don't know why you would want to play in a league with anyone else

 

[Noah Davis]

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?

I disagree with this - you only veto on the basis of collusion period.Vetoing on the basis of value is pointless because everyone's value of players is subjective. Case in point - Line-up Dominator values have options for the "2nd opinion" which is always vastly different. So if they experts you are paying money to for great fantasy football analysis have differing opinions of value wouldn't it only stand to reason that people within leagues would as well? What happens if the Jets hit their groove and Holmes ends up in the top 10, or D. Will goes down with a hammy and J. Stewart is the primary ball carrier?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Because he didn't say this:

I would've vetoed it too. If you give me veto power, I'm going to use it as I see fit to ensure my team remains as competitive as possible.

He said this:

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?

If I ever played in a league that allowed owners to vote on trades, I would vote in my team's best interests every time. I wouldn't play in such a league, of course, but if you give me that power, that's what I'm going to do with it. But I would never veto someone else's trade simply because I thought it wasn't an equal trade. That's asinine. Every year there are multiple threads with dunces like this, and by the end of the year they're usually proven wrong.

 

[verratti]

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?!?!?!?

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).

I guess, but generally a trade can be a bit speculative or maybe a little onesided but find a way to help both teams... The guy trading McFadden is going to now be forced to pick 2 between bush, Lynch, Beanie, Brandon Jacobs... All so he can play vick or newton depending on matchup. I just don't get it... if he was hurting at QB or had alot of RB's it's one thing... further the guy getting McFadden is his boss. I don't really care, but as commish kinda feel like I'm screwing all other 10 teams by letting it happen...

 

[footballnerd]

further the guy getting McFadden is his boss.

I can now see why you're uncomfortable with this trade. I wouldn't invite them back next year.