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!

Veto or not? (1 Viewer)

B

Brueggcj

Footballguy
In almost all circumstances I believe the only time you should veto is if there is clear collusion but this just looks way too ridiculous to allow.

12 team league, PPR league, espn standard rosters

Team 1: Out of the playoffs, has Tannehill as their starting qb

Team 2: Barely in the playoffs at the moment, also the commissioner's team

Team 1 trades Julio Jones

Team 2 trades Colin Kapernick

There's no way in hell this should go through correct, Kaepernick is not even close to being an upgrade over Tannehill, and especially not for the price of Julio.

Your thoughts are welcome.

 
I have Julio and he has sucked for many many weeks?

I have Keap also and he has sucked for many many weeks?

:D

I don't think it is a veto

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It now appears this member who is not in the playoffs is just giving away his entire roster, just traded jamaal charles for frank gore.

 
Next year you should:

A. Move the trade deadline to earlier

B. Not invite the person into the league again

Unless you take a league-wide vote to lock this person from trading/dropping in order to maintain fairness I don't see how you can do anything. Either league majority says yes, or just leave it as is and regret joining a league with that person.

 
I was going to say vote against based on collusion. But if the out of contention owner also traded away Charles for gore, then he was probably not colluding with the commissioner, just proposed him a sweetheart deal. I would vote against both trades based on not acting in good faith. Maybe commissioner will look past his own gains and prevent the guy from giving his players away and affecting the whole playoff race.

 
Brueggcj said:
In almost all circumstances I believe the only time you should veto is if there is clear collusion but this just looks way too ridiculous to allow.

12 team league, PPR league, espn standard rosters

Team 1: Out of the playoffs, has Tannehill as their starting qb

Team 2: Barely in the playoffs at the moment, also the commissioner's team

Team 1 trades Julio Jones

Team 2 trades Colin Kapernick

There's no way in hell this should go through correct, Kaepernick is not even close to being an upgrade over Tannehill, and especially not for the price of Julio.

Your thoughts are welcome.
Click to expand...
VETO

 
Or their should be a rule to not allow owners out of playoff contention to trade... That is Some bs Charles for Gore and Julio for Kaep when he has Tannehill. Not good for integrity of league if you ask me.

 
1. Your commish should step in and fix this as this guy is ruining the season for multiple owners and the entire league by his actions.

2. This guy should not be invited back.

3. You guys need to put in either a deadline for trading to prevent this OR a rule that states that any such actions will result in immediate removal from the league permanently.

You don't need a rule that states adults should act like adults. I'm still amazed that people do these things and that a commish needs help stepping in here. This is what commishes are for (not just to setup a league and collect funds).

 
gianmarco said:
1. Your commish should step in and fix this as this guy is ruining the season for multiple owners and the entire league by his actions.

2. This guy should not be invited back.

3. You guys need to put in either a deadline for trading to prevent this OR a rule that states that any such actions will result in immediate removal from the league permanently.

You don't need a rule that states adults should act like adults. I'm still amazed that people do these things and that a commish needs help stepping in here. This is what commishes are for (not just to setup a league and collect funds).
Click to expand...
This particualr commish is part of the problem. That said, if there's nothing stopping either of them it's a league problem. The best comment here so far is from the chap that suggested it's time to start making offers.

 
Brueggcj said:
Kaepernick is not even close to being an upgrade over Tannehill
Click to expand...
According to Footballguys Top 200 Forward he is.

This isn't like Dan Orlovsky for Demaryius Thomas. Let people manage their teams. If you have a problem with teams out of playoff contention making trades, make a rule to prohibit that going forward.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Brueggcj said:
Kaepernick is not even close to being an upgrade over Tannehill
Click to expand...
According to Footballguys Top 200 Forward he is.

This isn't like Dan Orlovsky for Demaryius Thomas. Let people manage their teams. If you have a problem with teams out of playoff contention making trades, make a rule to prohibit that going forward.
Click to expand...
This. And start making offers.

 
Apple Jack said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Brueggcj said:
Kaepernick is not even close to being an upgrade over Tannehill
Click to expand...
According to Footballguys Top 200 Forward he is.

This isn't like Dan Orlovsky for Demaryius Thomas. Let people manage their teams. If you have a problem with teams out of playoff contention making trades, make a rule to prohibit that going forward.
Click to expand...
This. And start making offers.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And Charles should be on your team right now. Or his next ripest plum.

 
Veto.

I don't think trades should be vetoed if a manager is making a trade he believes will improve his team, even if I strongly disagree with his rationale. This does not appear to be such a case. He is giving away his best players just to upset the balance of the league. These trades are not made to improve the team--they are made because the team is out of contention and is entertaining himself by making lopsided trades.

And don't invite this tool back either.

 
thunderguns said:
Veto.

I don't think trades should be vetoed if a manager is making a trade he believes will improve his team, even if I strongly disagree with his rationale. This does not appear to be such a case. He is giving away his best players just to upset the balance of the league. These trades are not made to improve the team--they are made because the team is out of contention and is entertaining himself by making lopsided trades.

And don't invite this tool back either.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. As the commish we don't like getting involved in trade disputes, but it is the commish's job to protect the league from itself in extreme issues of negligence that is a direct attack on the league's integrity and this is one of those times. That trade does nothing for the team trading Jones and has the look of collusion to me, which is something you cannot ever prove, but I feel the commish has to do the hard thing and stop it.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Brueggcj said:
Kaepernick is not even close to being an upgrade over Tannehill
Click to expand...
According to Footballguys Top 200 Forward he is.

This isn't like Dan Orlovsky for Demaryius Thomas. Let people manage their teams. If you have a problem with teams out of playoff contention making trades, make a rule to prohibit that going forward.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Even teams out of contention should be encouraged to continue to improve their teams and try their best to win their remaining games.

 
Brueggcj said:
In almost all circumstances I believe the only time you should veto is if there is clear collusion but this just looks way too ridiculous to allow.

12 team league, PPR league, espn standard rosters

Team 1: Out of the playoffs, has Tannehill as their starting qb

Team 2: Barely in the playoffs at the moment, also the commissioner's team

Team 1 trades Julio Jones

Team 2 trades Colin Kapernick

There's no way in hell this should go through correct, Kaepernick is not even close to being an upgrade over Tannehill, and especially not for the price of Julio.

Your thoughts are welcome.
Click to expand...
I see know evidence of collusion. Own your words. Or admit you really don't believe what you just said.

 
I agree with start making offers and send a personal note to hear his thoughts on what he is trying to accomplish with those trades. By speaking with him you may get a better idea on how to judge the trades he is making. It may point out that he needs to be replaced in the future. He may be trading in a desperate attempt to shake things up because the league has been dead and he is bored with it? Who knows? It helps you evaluate the owners and the league.

 
If your ####ty league full of ####ty people doesn't have a trade deadline to prevent ####ty trades like this than you're #### out of luck.

 
Warhogs said:
I agree with start making offers and send a personal note to hear his thoughts on what he is trying to accomplish with those trades. By speaking with him you may get a better idea on how to judge the trades he is making. It may point out that he needs to be replaced in the future. He may be trading in a desperate attempt to shake things up because the league has been dead and he is bored with it? Who knows? It helps you evaluate the owners and the league.
Click to expand...
LOL

 
This sounds like a sketchy league. The commish is stacking his team, while a guy who's out of the running, is willingly making bad trades with him. Its not blatant, but its pretty obvious.

If I were you, I'd bale on the league unless the commish and the other owner are gone next season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thunderguns said:
Veto.

I don't think trades should be vetoed if a manager is making a trade he believes will improve his team, even if I strongly disagree with his rationale. This does not appear to be such a case. He is giving away his best players just to upset the balance of the league. These trades are not made to improve the team--they are made because the team is out of contention and is entertaining himself by making lopsided trades.

And don't invite this tool back either.
Click to expand...
This.

I agree with the general sentiment thatr you don't veto lopsided trades when the owner is trying to improve his team. But you should when he's doing it simply to turn the league on it's head

 
No owner should be trading away Charles unless they are stacked at the RB position and want to upgrade at another. That is not the case here so your league has serious integrity issues

 
I think the first step is always to have the owner involved explain why he believes this trade improves his team.

The one owner is going to have to explain why he thinks Kaep is a bigger improvement over Tannehil than the drop off from Julio to whoever his bench player is that will replace Julio. He should also explain why he believes what he got was reasonable market value, why he didn't think he could get better.

You don't have to agree with him, but it needs to be reasonable enough you actually believe he believes it. I don't imagine that's going to end up being the case, but should ask before acting.

 
Brueggcj said:
It now appears this member who is not in the playoffs is just giving away his entire roster, just traded jamaal charles for frank gore.
Click to expand...
you reverse both deals and kick him out of the league.

Simple

 
gianmarco said:
1. Your commish should step in and fix this as this guy is ruining the season for multiple owners and the entire league by his actions.

2. This guy should not be invited back.

3. You guys need to put in either a deadline for trading to prevent this OR a rule that states that any such actions will result in immediate removal from the league permanently.

You don't need a rule that states adults should act like adults. I'm still amazed that people do these things and that a commish needs help stepping in here. This is what commishes are for (not just to setup a league and collect funds).
Click to expand...
Commish just got CHarles for Gore..................my guess is that is he does that, he has no interest in making this right

 
I had a new guy take over a team in a dynasty a few years ago. About 4-5 weeks in he made two of the absolute worst deals ever on the same day, one of which was with the guy who brought him into the league.

It didnt take long (another day or so) for me to reverse both deals, boot him out of the league, refund his money, slightly lower the league payouts, and basically let the team run the rest of the year on auto pilot where as commish I would set his best lineup based on what he had on his team.

It sucked for a year, but the league didnt fold (which it very well would have for multiple reasons, namely people threatening to quit, that guy made a couple other teams look like super teams, and his team was so bad after those two deals I never would have been able to find a replacement).

Here we are a few years later, league is fine and running as it should.

Never veto????? Couldn't disagree more

 
thunderguns said:
Veto.

I don't think trades should be vetoed if a manager is making a trade he believes will improve his team, even if I strongly disagree with his rationale. This does not appear to be such a case. He is giving away his best players just to upset the balance of the league. These trades are not made to improve the team--they are made because the team is out of contention and is entertaining himself by making lopsided trades.

And don't invite this tool back either.
Click to expand...
Exactly, Easy way to fix that is to not allow teams out of the playoffs to make trades 1 and you have to be able to decipher if a guy is just screwing off and trying to help other people win. You don't know it could be some type of Collusion between the owner of Julio or Charles with a money split. Either way Limiting trades to only teams in contention will fix alot of that Kiddie stuff that F's up Fantasy leagues.... And don't invite or even play in a league with that Commissioner. Start your own or find new people for fantasy because that ##### is not right pal...

 
ghostguy123 said:
I had a new guy take over a team in a dynasty a few years ago. About 4-5 weeks in he made two of the absolute worst deals ever on the same day, one of which was with the guy who brought him into the league.

It didnt take long (another day or so) for me to reverse both deals, boot him out of the league, refund his money, slightly lower the league payouts, and basically let the team run the rest of the year on auto pilot where as commish I would set his best lineup based on what he had on his team.

It sucked for a year, but the league didnt fold (which it very well would have for multiple reasons, namely people threatening to quit, that guy made a couple other teams look like super teams, and his team was so bad after those two deals I never would have been able to find a replacement).

Here we are a few years later, league is fine and running as it should.

Never veto????? Couldn't disagree more
Click to expand...
Good post and Good decision making and Commissioner taking care of problem quickly and keeping integrity of league. Glad to hear your league is running. I also commish a few leagues that previous Commish took the money and ran. Happy to say I have a bunch still running after that debacle that literally had all the leagues owners in limbo. Veto is good sometimes for certain situations...

 
I don't want to speak for everyone, but when *I* say 'never veto' i'm talking about league veto by majority vote. This does not mean 'leave no way to stop league-harming trades.' The commissioner should have the ability to vacate any trade and that is a power that should be exercised at times.

However when the league as a whole votes on whether trades should go through, it has always been the case in my experience that trades almost never happen because other owners will either decide the trade doesn't seem 'fair' to them (not their job to determine and not what veto is even for) or else vote it down just for spite, not wanting anyone else's team to get better, or other inappropriate reasons.

I think the reason for league veto by vote are just to either protect the league from a corrupt commissioner or to protect the commissioner from accusations of corruption (there's probably no way to make every decision in such a way that everyone is happy). But really in order to make a league functional you just have to have an honest commissioner and that's all there is to it, and having veto by league vote creates more problems than it solves.

 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Lots of different ways to look at this, IMO, but when the commissioner is involved in shady deals it's time to move on. Simple as that. I was involved in a situation similar to this where the commissioner of the league attempted to trade a bag of beans for a couple of money players (I've forgotten the specifics). We had a voting based veto system at the time, but it was rarely if ever used. So I lobbied every owner in the league whose number I had to vote against the trade and it didn't go through. I suppose I used the voting system to my advantage in this case, but they all agreed it was a BS trade (apparently). Had I not done what I did most of them probably wouldn't have voted. That's the problem with the voting system. It's a lot like our current political system in that regard. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]As fate would have it I played and beat the commissioner in the championship for the title that year. We eliminated voting altogether the following season and I actually voted for that to happen. I hate allowing people to suggest how I should run my team. It's just best in redraft, IMO, to bank on trustworthy people. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]If you stay in this league, try to get the trade deadline moved up to prevent this or simply leave the league and start one of your own. People are ####ty. [/SIZE]

 
thunderguns said:
Veto.

I don't think trades should be vetoed if a manager is making a trade he believes will improve his team, even if I strongly disagree with his rationale. This does not appear to be such a case. He is giving away his best players just to upset the balance of the league. These trades are not made to improve the team--they are made because the team is out of contention and is entertaining himself by making lopsided trades.

And don't invite this tool back either.
Click to expand...
Yep. Veto it. And do it now before too much happens to undo.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
Need your help, just took over league, uses tiebreaker player in playoffs (never used), but not regular season
Replies
34
Views
1K
Dizzy
Dizzy
R
Drop A. Richardson or G. Smith?
Replies
3
Views
318
Redsox fan
R
K
Team Draft Strategy: Hero RB vs. Heavier RB (PPR)
Replies
17
Views
1K
Gally
G

Users who are viewing this thread

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