Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CamNewton

Should this trade be vetoed? (WHIR 100%)

Recommended Posts

Veto and don't look back or feel guilty

they should be ashamed of themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 'team b'. :รพ Our team is in 6th place, we have to win every remaining game to squeak into playoffs. We face him next week when our QB Wilson is on bye

Tony Romo is #4 player overall and #4 QB with a nice schedule, plus he lost Aaron Rodgers http://fantasyfootba...trade-deadline/

Team a is super flush at RB

Kendall Wright has an awesome schedule also. Fitzpatrick is QB for the remainder of the season and Wright is his #1 target http://rotoprofessor...<br /><br />harry Douglas remains Matt Ryan's number 1 target until Roddy White heals fully (even then defenses will target him and leave Douglas open), even more so if Tony Gonzalez is out. Besides NO, Douglas also has a juicy schedule.

Garrett Graham has a good schedule also and Case Keenum may make use of him also. TRich is facing Titans susceptible rush defense--and does so again. Colts will try to turn around their recent loss record--with Wayne out-TRich still gets rush touches and they involved him in the pass game also.

You can look at our league's trading history, people trade to their needs--he needs a QB and WRs--nor is it an unusual trade in the league, and it's not at all like our team would win from here on out. This just makes us competitive with current playoff teams that are all stronger. http://games.espn.go...8&seasonId=2013 I've been trying to trade team B since pre-season, as I'm sure others have. he has 2 spots open, so he can accept my trade without dropping anyone--I had to drop 2 players to offer the trade. he didn't set up his lineup the past 2 weeks, I think he just forgot because he made pickups--he said he wasn't gonna put in the same effort in this league as a money league--I don't think he's trying to tank though. I wouldn't have dropped 2 players and made the trade for giving up Romo and my team's depth for less than starter upgrades

I don't think you should veto a trade because it helps another team--otherwise, I'd have vetoed every trade in the league. If he was going to tank, he wouldn't have waited until now to do it--and wouldn't have set his lineups other weeks. The league isn't 'balanced' as it is--compare draft teams and current teams. Some owners will make better trades, like the op, some owners will make better pickups, and some start better lineups. Despite my team scoring the second highest points, we faced the greatest number of points against us--leaving us in 6th place--that's also not balanced. This is on a league vote. We're not colluding with team A to win, and this trade doesn't even guarantee that--it does make us more competitive or we wouldn't have done it. I just thought I'd give context because I felt the forum didn't have the full picture. I wish I replied earlier so the previous posters could consider, but I'm at school--which I'll try to get back to. have a good day, everyone!

Love this part of the justification as well.. LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have accepted most of the trades that happened in our league

I am justifying it :D hence Romo is being traded--on a straight comparison he has been better than McCoy, he has been better than Gronk. he has been better than Brown. Look at all the quantity for quality trades in our league. Plus that's not accounting for team needs. I traded to get the most I could convince the other team to trade for that would help my team. Our last league trade--traded Wes Welker, Brian hartline, and Shane Vereen for Blackmon, SJax, DhB, Boykin. Previous trades include Roddy White for Marlon Brown, Eric Decker & heath Miller for Blackmon and Rudolph, Decker and BJGE for Thompkins, Terrelle Pryor, and James Stark, Vikings Def for Ahmad Bradshaw and Michael Floyd, Andre Johnson and Martellus Bennett for Zach Dudfeld and Gio Bernard, etc

It doesn't screw over other teams--check the other playoff teams

So you'd accept that deal if it were offered to you from Team A's standpoint?

I wouldn't have accepted most of the trades in our league as one of the parties involved in the trade. I still didn't veto them--plus I've made stupid trades myself. From the trades mentioned, I traded for Vikings D (I had Bengals D and they tore it up) and gave up Bradshaw and Michael Floyd. My point in the part that made you LMAO is that the other player isn't intentionally tanking--several other players have forgot to set their lineups for longer periods--giving some winning teams better records. One team is 3-7 and they have a playoff team. It's not really fun if teams are sitting on good players and have losing records also. Anyways, like I said, I'm just giving context. From what I can tell, a lot of people veto trades if it makes another team stronger--if that's the metric then I'd say the majority of trades in our league are unfair. It's just basically an anti-trading attitude. You don't have to accept a trade that you don't like. This is my second time playing fantasy football, so maybe I don't know about some unwritten rule that league trades can't happen if they don't help your team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy veto. The explanation from Team B almost makes it worse. That's alot of wouldas couldas and great schedules for three bonafide ballers. Really? So he really needs a QB and WR and he's going to trade away his best WR and lose his only TE (who could arguably be the best TE ROS)? The drop off from Gronk to Graham is more points than any upgrade from a waiver wire QB to Romo. I'm not even sure this who would win this trade even if G. Graham was J. Graham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have accepted most of the trades that happened in our league

I am justifying it :D hence Romo is being traded--on a straight comparison he has been better than McCoy, he has been better than Gronk. he has been better than Brown. Look at all the quantity for quality trades in our league. Plus that's not accounting for team needs. I traded to get the most I could convince the other team to trade for that would help my team. Our last league trade--traded Wes Welker, Brian hartline, and Shane Vereen for Blackmon, SJax, DhB, Boykin. Previous trades include Roddy White for Marlon Brown, Eric Decker & heath Miller for Blackmon and Rudolph, Decker and BJGE for Thompkins, Terrelle Pryor, and James Stark, Vikings Def for Ahmad Bradshaw and Michael Floyd, Andre Johnson and Martellus Bennett for Zach Dudfeld and Gio Bernard, etc

It doesn't screw over other teams--check the other playoff teams

So you'd accept that deal if it were offered to you from Team A's standpoint?

I wouldn't have accepted most of the trades in our league as one of the parties involved in the trade. I still didn't veto them--plus I've made stupid trades myself. From the trades mentioned, I traded for Vikings D (I had Bengals D and they tore it up) and gave up Bradshaw and Michael Floyd. My point in the part that made you LMAO is that the other player isn't intentionally tanking--several other players have forgot to set their lineups for longer periods--giving some winning teams better records. One team is 3-7 and they have a playoff team. It's not really fun if teams are sitting on good players and have losing records also. Anyways, like I said, I'm just giving context. From what I can tell, a lot of people veto trades if it makes another team stronger--if that's the metric then I'd say the majority of trades in our league are unfair. It's just basically an anti-trading attitude. You don't have to accept a trade that you don't like. This is my second time playing fantasy football, so maybe I don't know about some unwritten rule that league trades can't happen if they don't help your team

Would you have accepted this trade is the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

k to all the people saying this shouldn't be vetoed, i hope i never play in a league with you, this is CLEARLY a stupid trade. The only piece team B is getting back is ROMO on a BYE!! VETO THIS, If i was in this league and this trade went through I would pretty much want to leave the league, just takes the fun out of it entirely. I love trades but this one is 3 stud/solid pieces for garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have accepted most of the trades that happened in our league

I am justifying it :D hence Romo is being traded--on a straight comparison he has been better than McCoy, he has been better than Gronk. he has been better than Brown. Look at all the quantity for quality trades in our league. Plus that's not accounting for team needs. I traded to get the most I could convince the other team to trade for that would help my team. Our last league trade--traded Wes Welker, Brian hartline, and Shane Vereen for Blackmon, SJax, DhB, Boykin. Previous trades include Roddy White for Marlon Brown, Eric Decker & heath Miller for Blackmon and Rudolph, Decker and BJGE for Thompkins, Terrelle Pryor, and James Stark, Vikings Def for Ahmad Bradshaw and Michael Floyd, Andre Johnson and Martellus Bennett for Zach Dudfeld and Gio Bernard, etc

It doesn't screw over other teams--check the other playoff teams

So you'd accept that deal if it were offered to you from Team A's standpoint?

I wouldn't have accepted most of the trades in our league as one of the parties involved in the trade. I still didn't veto them--plus I've made stupid trades myself. From the trades mentioned, I traded for Vikings D (I had Bengals D and they tore it up) and gave up Bradshaw and Michael Floyd. My point in the part that made you LMAO is that the other player isn't intentionally tanking--several other players have forgot to set their lineups for longer periods--giving some winning teams better records. One team is 3-7 and they have a playoff team. It's not really fun if teams are sitting on good players and have losing records also. Anyways, like I said, I'm just giving context. From what I can tell, a lot of people veto trades if it makes another team stronger--if that's the metric then I'd say the majority of trades in our league are unfair. It's just basically an anti-trading attitude. You don't have to accept a trade that you don't like. This is my second time playing fantasy football, so maybe I don't know about some unwritten rule that league trades can't happen if they don't help your team

Would you have accepted this trade is the question?

I think my answer is apparent--would I have set my lineups? yes Would I have drafted different players? yes. I'm not the other team, and yes, I'd play differently. What's your point? I'd also manage every other team in the league differently from their owners. Team A was going to drop all Steeler WRs after week 1, including Brown, and didn't on my advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And boxlurker team B, this forum is clearly not "anti-trading", and generally advises AGAINST vetos. The fact that the pretty overwhelming response is that this should be vetoed speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is this trade is unjustifiable to the point that not even you would accept it. Case closed. You seen to be avoiding the issue here and instead keep using the league/other owners to attempt to prove your point. We're talking about this trade and you got over on Team A.

In all fairness to you, provided everything you say is truth, it seems like this league is pretty f'd up already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And boxlurker team B, this forum is clearly not "anti-trading", and generally advises AGAINST vetos. The fact that the pretty overwhelming response is that this should be vetoed speaks volumes.

SOOO MUCH THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before everyone jumps on my case, I didn't mean the forum was against trading (I have no idea if it is as far as that)--I meant the idea that trades shouldn't be allowed if it benefits one party. I think it's two separate issues whether you would make a trade and whether you would veto it. That's the issue? If the trade should be vetoed? If you didn't get my point, RodgerThat, I wouldn't also play like other players. I wouldn't veto the trade, so I think that justifies it--I didn't veto other trades likewise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of trading is to make teams better, and more often than not one team will come out better than the other in the eyes of outsiders and that's okay. It doesn't become a problem until we see something like this, where one guy gives up his top-tier studs for a bunch of scrubs. Your selling points for why this trade is fair ("this practice-squad guy is the new #1 receiver!" and, "look at this bad player's schedule...he's gonna kill it!") don't change the essence of the trade or why everybody has such an issue with it.

Multiple studs for a bag of turds, no matter nicely you polish them, is bullsht and ruins leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a purely philosophical point, trades SHOULDN'T be allowed that benefit only one party. That is exactly what collusion is.

In reality, it is all based on perception, and usually the losing team in the trade at least perceives that the trade is helping them. In this case the trade is so ridiculously skewed, no one that plays fantasy football would legitimately have that perception. Team A has already admitted he doesn't care, is tanking this season, won't be back next season, and thinks it is funny to f- with your league, which is clearly why he made this trade. I wouldn't have even accepted this trade because what's the point of winning with a bull**** trade like this? You can't talk s--- to your friends that you beat because everyone knows there's a huge asterisk next to that win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before everyone jumps on my case, I didn't mean the forum was against trading (I have no idea if it is as far as that)--I meant the idea that trades shouldn't be allowed if it benefits one party. I think it's two separate issues whether you would make a trade and whether you would veto it. That's the issue? If the trade should be vetoed? If you didn't get my point, RodgerThat, I wouldn't also play like other players. I wouldn't veto the trade, so I think that justifies it--I didn't veto other trades likewise

But you tried justifying that the trade in question was a good trade when it is so far from that. I guess thats my problem with the whole thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a purely philosophical point, trades SHOULDN'T be allowed that benefit only one party. That is exactly what collusion is.

In reality, it is all based on perception, and usually the losing team in the trade at least perceives that the trade is helping them. In this case the trade is so ridiculously skewed, no one that plays fantasy football would legitimately have that perception. Team A has already admitted he doesn't care, is tanking this season, won't be back next season, and thinks it is funny to f- with your league, which is clearly why he made this trade. I wouldn't have even accepted this trade because what's the point of winning with a bull**** trade like this? You can't talk s--- to your friends that you beat because everyone knows there's a huge asterisk next to that win.

I disagree with this. Collusion to me is when Team A and Team B get together when one or the other is out of it to make a trade to benefit one of the teams and the other receives a kick back on winnings or whatever the case may be. One team winning on a deal isn't collusion necessarilly, it could just be a dumb owner making a bad trade that they perceive as a good one.

In this case, Team b says there was no collusion and none of us can say whether it was or wasn't so therefore I wouldn't veto. Is it a bad trade? ABSOLUTELY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you even need to suspect collusion for this, even though it looks like it is.

The trade is basically Gronkowski, McCoy, and Brown for Tony Romo. The other 4 guys are useless or droppable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boxlurker is just trolling, or i hope so for his sake. If he isnt then he is a retard. Never go full retard boxlurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Romo, Kendall Wright, harry douglas, Trent Richardson, Garret Graham are 'scrubs/turds/practice-squad guys'? The other party didn't give up Ben Tate, Ryan Matthews, Andre Brown, Rashad Jennings, hakeem Nicks, Randall Cobb, and Aaron Rodgers.

It's just not true that "Team A has already admitted"--"is tanking this season, won't be back next season, and thinks it is funny to f- with your league" The league manager is removing him. I justified the trade with the full picture. I'm a retard for making this trade?

Edit: The op traded TRich to me, tried to trade for KWright, and TRich was his first round pick, 2nd overall. I've had trade proposals for douglas also. I think also we'll disagree on the value of players--you must be in a really shallow league to think that the other players besides Romo are droppable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I justified the trade with the full picture. I'm a retard for making this trade?

No, just a poor sport. Doubly so for thinking it's okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You attempted to justify an unjustifiable trade. Give up man this one isn't even close. The guys you traded outside of Romo are WR3 RB2/3 TE2 kind of guys and got studs back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah boxlurker is the dude who just stole the league in that trade LOL no wonder why hes "justifying" it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and dont compare romo to mccoy, you cant compare a QB to a running back in terms of fantasy points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I justified the trade with the full picture. I'm a retard for making this trade?

No, just a poor sport. Doubly so for thinking it's okay.

I don't resent being called a poor sport for making the trade that I feel makes my team more competitive, especially against stronger playoff teams. I suppose you guys wouldn't make the trade on my side? I tried to make trades that helps my team win, 'unjustifiyable trades' that you wouldn't make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would accept that trade instantly but its still a bad trade and should be vetoed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I justified the trade with the full picture. I'm a retard for making this trade?

No, just a poor sport. Doubly so for thinking it's okay.

I don't resent being called a poor sport for making the trade that I feel makes my team more competitive, especially against stronger playoff teams. I suppose you guys wouldn't make the trade on my side? I tried to make trades that helps my team win, 'unjustifiyable trades' that you wouldn't make?

First of all, I would never offer that bad of a deal to someone, furthermore noone in either of my league would even give that offer a second look. Secondly, so you made the deal... whatever.. don't try and make it sound like you did the guy a favor after being called out on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.