fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Is vetoing trades completely ridiculous? If it isn't why do you have have any input on what another team does?
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!
Vetoing Trades (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fantasycurse42
- Start date
Keith Lewis
Footballguy
Been discussed to death. Everyone is going to agree with you with the exception of collusion.
/thread
/thread
KCitons
Footballguy
mquinnjr
Footballguy
The shortest way I can put this is that it breeds an environment where you're not negotiating trades with an owner, it's your entire league. Of teams who get to interject their agenda/desire to win into your trade. Why allow this at all? Pro sports don't. Could you imagine an owners' vote in MLB, NFL, etc. on trades? Same thing here. Leave it to the commish, and if a trade is collusive (cheating), bring it up with the commish.
:IBTL: thread.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Its funny, the 4 geniuses that voted for acceptable didn't leave any rationale or reasoning for it being acceptable
ebsteelers
Footballguy
I guess its acceptable if you think your commish is an air head and doesnt veto anything.
Lydia
Footballguy
"No veto without collusion" is problematic for a couple of reasons.
1: It provides no guidance on how to prove collusion, absent spying on your friends and hacking into their e-mail accounts. It's like saying that the way you win leagues is drafting good players. Great. Fantastic. Thanks so much. Now how do I do that?
2: It doesn't account for the IDGAF trades that people may do, not because they're colluding with somebody but simply because they're not trying and they really want their 4th Jets player or they want the guy with 10 syllables in his name.
Both these things can be solved by limiting who you play with to people who are honest, care about how they do, and have a modicrum of integrity but that wasn't an option in the poll.
Signed,
One Genius
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Is this the league you play in? I wan t the guy with 10 syllables in his name? Really??? Grasping at straws there other genius.
Lydia
Footballguy
Pipes
Footballguy
Since without a confession from either party collusion is impossible to prove so I can't say only when collusion is involved that trade should be vetoed. I also don't think that every trade should be subject to a vote. Our league has 3 longstanding members "review" every trade. If one or two of the 3 are involved in a trade the commish steps in. 95% of the trades are just rubber stamped, no questions asked. Occassionally a "lopsided" trade is posed and we reach out to that owner, who is perceived to be receiving the short end of the stick, and ask him to explain. In every case but once they made a valid point and the trade goes through. 1 time we disallowed the trade...One owner brought a guy into the league, who didn't know anyone else, and completely ripped him off in a mid season trade. While we couldn't prove collusion 100% is was pretty apparent what was going on. Neither guy is in the league anymore, for the better of the league. League's been going strong since 1991.
What was the specifics of the trade?
What was the specifics of the trade?
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
PPR league - Darren Sproles for Brandon Marshall... The Marshall owners RBs are MJD and Felix Jones, he had to make a deal, yet everyone is still going nuts.
GregR
Footballguy
A court of law doesn't hold to that rigorous a standard even for criminal cases. I don't think it's necessary to require it for fantasy football.
If there is enough to reasonably believe it was collusion, then for these purposes it is collusion.
Pipes
Footballguy
Pipes
Footballguy
Not great but hardly veto worthy especially since the Marshall owner has a strong need at RB and Sproles is fine...especially in PPR.
ebsteelers
Footballguy
at some point you have to say
david garrard and a bag of skittles for brandon marshall and andrew luck is collision whether the owners admit to it or not
The problem is that people feel like they should veto, or vote against, any trade that seems to favor one team over another. Not all trades are going to be straight across, equal value/benefit to both sides, in the eyes of every other league member. That's just not going to happen. It is an unrealistic expectation that too many people seem to have.
The above mentioned example, Sproles for Marshall in PPR...given that info and only that info, let alone the additional lineup/roster info that was given...there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to veto or vote against that trade.
You want a real life example of a trade I would veto? I'm in a random throw-away Yahoo public league from a day when I just had to do a "real" draft... the proposed trade was:
Marshawn Lynch for Jonathan Stewart, straight up. (this was before Stewart was known to be starting on the PUP, at least).
Unless you are looking at something like that, the trade is not (directly) your business. Leave it alone. (and even in this case given that it was a Yahoo public league collusion seems basically impossible...)
Well, you could take a stick and poke fun at the guy you think got screwed, and hopefully you won't be eating your words in two months when things go much differently than you expected, but beyond that...nope.
The above mentioned example, Sproles for Marshall in PPR...given that info and only that info, let alone the additional lineup/roster info that was given...there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to veto or vote against that trade.
You want a real life example of a trade I would veto? I'm in a random throw-away Yahoo public league from a day when I just had to do a "real" draft... the proposed trade was:
Marshawn Lynch for Jonathan Stewart, straight up. (this was before Stewart was known to be starting on the PUP, at least).
Unless you are looking at something like that, the trade is not (directly) your business. Leave it alone. (and even in this case given that it was a Yahoo public league collusion seems basically impossible...)
Well, you could take a stick and poke fun at the guy you think got screwed, and hopefully you won't be eating your words in two months when things go much differently than you expected, but beyond that...nope.
Last edited by a moderator:
adrenaline
Footballguy
How do you prove collusion? Should there be league funds set aside to hire a P.I.?
Billy Bats
Footballguy
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
Lydia said:
mquinnjr
Footballguy
I've seen very fair trades get veto'ed mid-season. Good ones where, say, someone loaded at RB trades a strong RB2/low end RB1 to a team loaded at WR for their top WR1. Trade helps both sides. Say we're 6-7 weeks in and the trade deadline/playoffs are getting close. Other owners, if they have veto power, freak out and run to hit veto when this happens. Thus by virtue of the trade, they now have to compete with two improved teams.
This is why I'll never play in a league veto league ever again as long as I participate in this hobby.
ETA: Yeah, this is definitely a bad trade. Lunch for Stewart on the PUP, that's collusive.
Last edited by a moderator:
Insein
Footballguy
Most leagues I've been in that had veto power never used it. The ones that did and rejected fair trades I left the next season. Pretty simple solution if its not a league with your friends. If it is then you need to work to get veto power limited to the commish only. Just no need for it to be there.
adrenaline
Footballguy
bagger
Footballguy
who is even getting the better of the deal?this is an example of two teams probably getting stronger so everyone is mad.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
Letting owners veto trades is ####### stupid.
DropKick
Footballguy
bagger
Footballguy
this.this is how i run my league. no trade vetoes. only rule regarding trading is no trade backs (aka renting players). other than that i have never vetoed any trade even if i thought it was dumb.mbuehner said:
in cam newtons rookie year the cam owner also had aaron rodgers. he traded cam for a top 10 te which was much less than "value" but he had such a need at te and no need for cam that was the best he could do. i am sure many here would vote against that.
but here are two owners making a deal that helps them both. upgrading a position of need while not giving up any "starter" is a net upgrade for the owner who traded cam. if the trade market cannot provide a better value, such is life.
