Archived

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

CamNewton

Should this trade be vetoed? (WHIR 100%)

Recommended Posts

If a guy is being kicked out of the league next year, and he hasn't been updating his team, any trade with him should automatically be looked at suspiciously. I would never even offer a trade to a player in that situation. If you're going to try to justify it, you almost need to be giving up more than you're getting in order for it to be perceived as fair. I've vetoed trades between a contending team and an unresponsive team that were far less lopsided than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the OP or boxlurker please post this link on the league message board? This thread is awesome so far and it can only get better as we add the opinions of the other people actually in this league.

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.

I gave the full picture--when did I make it sound like I did him a favour? Called out on what? On making a trade that makes my team more competiive against stronger playoff teams and helps me keep my playoff spot? "f you're going to try to justify it, you almost need to be giving up more than you're getting in order for it to be perceived as fair. " I have to lose a trade to make it fair? he has updated his team--he didn't set his lineup--Ie picked up someone he needed, but then didn't put them in. Other owners have left players on byes, not made pickups, etc, and they have worse records--and as a result other teams have stronger records

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.

I gave the full picture--when did I make it sound like I did him a favour? Called out on what? On making a trade that makes my team more competiive against stronger playoff teams and helps me keep my playoff spot? "f you're going to try to justify it, you almost need to be giving up more than you're getting in order for it to be perceived as fair. " I have to lose a trade to make it fair? he has updated his team--he didn't set his lineup--Ie picked up someone he needed, but then didn't put them in. Other owners have left players on byes, not made pickups, etc, and they have worse records--and as a result other teams have stronger records

By attempting to justify it you are saying that you made his team better no? hence you think you did him a favor. as for what you are being called out on... this entire topic is about you and your horrible trade is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a couple of points to make,

As an LM in a trade-happy league that subscribes to Matthew Berry's veto the veto mantra, I would still veto this deal. Trades at this point of the season (our deadline was today, don't know when yours was) need to be considered more harshly than at other times. Teams are dropping out of playoff contention, some people get bored, whatever - the possibility of tanking is markedly higher. There are less bye issues - along with injuries, the other genuine reason for "lopsided" trades. Trades at this time of the year must be squeaky clean.

My co-LM just had a trade agreed with someone where he gave up RGIII and Luke Moore for Harry Douglas and CJ Spiller. On the face of it fair enough. The trouble is, the guy he was trading with had no RB cover at all - literally none - and did not need RGIII anyway. The first guy is first, the second guy is bottom and dropped out of playoff contention this week. The point of my story is that, after I asked both to justify it, they agreed to pull the deal because the co-LM felt people would think it was unfair. If you, boxlurker, are someone who can veto deals in your league, then you must be seen to be above board. Otherwise, your league becomes the kind of league where people half-a** it, and miss weeks etc etc.

Ultimately if a team gives up quality for quantity in the middle of an awkward bye week then fair enough. If that quality is one stud for three people that fill gaps then fair enough - kudos to the guy who exploited the opportunity. If a team with nothing to play for at the end of the season gives up three studs to someone for a mixed bag of nuts, then there had better be some cast-iron situational justification. I think it is effectively collusion if someone gives up - they are colluding with the buyer to skew the results, with no concern for their team improving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this trade should be veto'd yes their giving more players back but half of the ones that A is getting will be just on the bench trent Richardson is just a filler. I don't know if B knows what he doing cause if there isn't collusion theres something wrong.. help http://forums.rotowo...topic=400787=

Well like I said, I think it's a separate issue on whether you would make a trade and whether you'd veto it. if you look at both teams--Romo would start after the bye. Kendall Wright and Douglas are starts this week over Sanders and Nicks. With Andre Brown, Tate, and Jennings (well and Matthews) TRich would ride the bench--but he has upside, especially more than people on the waiver wire. Graham would also start by default

Edit: Like I've stated before, the value of players is debatable. Top TEs Jordan Cameron and Julius Thomas went undrafted in my league--I picked up Cameron preseason off the wire, and another owner picked up Thomas. Tony Romo went 96 overall round 8, so far he's #4 player and #4 QB. Just cause some of you think players have no value, that doesn't make it so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this trade should be veto'd yes their giving more players back but half of the ones that A is getting will be just on the bench trent Richardson is just a filler. I don't know if B knows what he doing cause if there isn't collusion theres something wrong.. help http://forums.rotowo...topic=400787=

Well like I said, I think it's a separate issue on whether you would make a trade and whether you'd veto it. if you look at both teams--Romo would start after the bye. Kendall Wright and Douglas are starts this week over Sanders and Nicks. With Andre Brown, Tate, and Jennings (well and Matthews) TRich would ride the bench--but he has upside, especially more than people on the waiver wire. Graham would also start by default

See here you go again.... The point is you traded low end starters and bench players along with Romo for a top 5 RB, arguably the best TE in the league and a high end WR2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy but I can't believe there's this much argument in a league for no $.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This trade is criminally unfair to not only Team A but to the rest of the league.

I'm also against vetoing, but this guy is trading the #1/2 TE and the #1/2 RB in fantasy football for Tony Romo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I'm huge anti-veto, but this is a moronic trade...I'd still have a hard time vetoing tho just b/c I hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a couple of points to make,

As an LM in a trade-happy league that subscribes to Matthew Berry's veto the veto mantra, I would still veto this deal. Trades at this point of the season (our deadline was today, don't know when yours was) need to be considered more harshly than at other times. Teams are dropping out of playoff contention, some people get bored, whatever - the possibility of tanking is markedly higher. There are less bye issues - along with injuries, the other genuine reason for "lopsided" trades. Trades at this time of the year must be squeaky clean.

My co-LM just had a trade agreed with someone where he gave up RGIII and Luke Moore for Harry Douglas and CJ Spiller. On the face of it fair enough. The trouble is, the guy he was trading with had no RB cover at all - literally none - and did not need RGIII anyway. The first guy is first, the second guy is bottom and dropped out of playoff contention this week. The point of my story is that, after I asked both to justify it, they agreed to pull the deal because the co-LM felt people would think it was unfair. If you, boxlurker, are someone who can veto deals in your league, then you must be seen to be above board. Otherwise, your league becomes the kind of league where people half-a** it, and miss weeks etc etc.

Ultimately if a team gives up quality for quantity in the middle of an awkward bye week then fair enough. If that quality is one stud for three people that fill gaps then fair enough - kudos to the guy who exploited the opportunity. If a team with nothing to play for at the end of the season gives up three studs to someone for a mixed bag of nuts, then there had better be some cast-iron situational justification. I think it is effectively collusion if someone gives up - they are colluding with the buyer to skew the results, with no concern for their team improving.

I don't know if you noticed, but there is a major injury issue in that the other team lost Aaron Rodgers. There are still bye issues--I have Wilson on bye next week. Unlike your league, my trading partner has RBs to spare. There are no holes left. They haven't just given up. I explained the situation with team A's QB and WRs, and the fact he has RBs to spare. I can't veto trades on my own--we vote on them, when I said I didn't veto, I meant that I didn't vote a veto. Like I said, it seems some would veto the trade because they wouldn't make it

"See here you go again.... The point is you traded low end starters and bench players along with Romo for a top 5 RB, arguably the best TE in the league and a high end WR2. " I'm aware of the trade, if you want to hate on a deal because a stud RB and stud TE and a WR2 were sent then, so be it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this trade should be veto'd yes their giving more players back but half of the ones that A is getting will be just on the bench trent Richardson is just a filler. I don't know if B knows what he doing cause if there isn't collusion theres something wrong.. help http://forums.rotowo...topic=400787=

Well like I said, I think it's a separate issue on whether you would make a trade and whether you'd veto it. if you look at both teams--Romo would start after the bye. Kendall Wright and Douglas are starts this week over Sanders and Nicks. With Andre Brown, Tate, and Jennings (well and Matthews) TRich would ride the bench--but he has upside, especially more than people on the waiver wire. Graham would also start by default

Edit: Like I've stated before, the value of players is debatable. Top TEs Jordan Cameron and Julius Thomas went undrafted in my league--I picked up Cameron preseason off the wire, and another owner picked up Thomas. Tony Romo went 96 overall round 8, so far he's #4 player and #4 QB. Just cause some of you think players have no value, that doesn't make it so

That is indisputable, and is a reasonable justification for not vetoing. Except at this stage of the season value is so much less debatable (I mean, TRIch and upside? Be serious) - and the point here is not necessarily just balancing value, it's the whole picture. The only player you are picking up with a bye issue is McCoy. So the question should be - why is the other guy making the trade? If the only conceivable answer with all the cicumstantial evidence is "he's giving up", then a veto is appropriate. At RB he gives up a stud for a bust. At TE he gives up a super stud for someone who has done nothing for weeks. At WR he downgrades, but gets an extra squad player. The only position he upgrades at is QB, and the QB he upgrades to has a bye this week.

BTW, I do wonder about a league where nobody picked up Jordan Cameron in the draft. I paid a solid amount (not big, but solid) for him because it was clear he was going to do well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're only trying to convince yourself at this point, boxlurker. It should tell you something that not a single person here has thought that the trade is fair. Even the people who have said they are always against vetoing have still said that it wasn't a fair trade. Nobody here has anything to gain by going against you, we are just giving our honest opinion, and in all cases the opinions have been that it's not a fair trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you noticed, but there is a major injury issue in that the other team lost Aaron Rodgers. There are still bye issues--I have Wilson on bye next week. Unlike your league, my trading partner has RBs to spare. There are no holes left. They haven't just given up. I explained the situation with team A's QB and WRs, and the fact he has RBs to spare. I can't veto trades on my own--we vote on them, when I said I didn't veto, I meant that I didn't vote a veto. Like I said, it seems some would veto the trade because they wouldn't make it

Fair enough - I wondered if that was what you meant when you talked about the veto.

He lost Rodgers, but still has Big Ben and Locker as cover (of course Romo is an upgrade, but he is unable to play this week). If he had no cover and there was nobody on the wire that would be a major injury issue. Ultimately, you've exploited a situation for a lopsided trade which is fair enough (as long as you didn't actually collude, naturally) but I don't think his motives can conceivably be considered legitimate. That's up to your league though, of course. If I was in your place I would be embarrassed, but I don't know your circumstances so cannot judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a couple of points to make,

As an LM in a trade-happy league that subscribes to Matthew Berry's veto the veto mantra, I would still veto this deal. Trades at this point of the season (our deadline was today, don't know when yours was) need to be considered more harshly than at other times. Teams are dropping out of playoff contention, some people get bored, whatever - the possibility of tanking is markedly higher. There are less bye issues - along with injuries, the other genuine reason for "lopsided" trades. Trades at this time of the year must be squeaky clean.

My co-LM just had a trade agreed with someone where he gave up RGIII and Luke Moore for Harry Douglas and CJ Spiller. On the face of it fair enough. The trouble is, the guy he was trading with had no RB cover at all - literally none - and did not need RGIII anyway. The first guy is first, the second guy is bottom and dropped out of playoff contention this week. The point of my story is that, after I asked both to justify it, they agreed to pull the deal because the co-LM felt people would think it was unfair. If you, boxlurker, are someone who can veto deals in your league, then you must be seen to be above board. Otherwise, your league becomes the kind of league where people half-a** it, and miss weeks etc etc.

Ultimately if a team gives up quality for quantity in the middle of an awkward bye week then fair enough. If that quality is one stud for three people that fill gaps then fair enough - kudos to the guy who exploited the opportunity. If a team with nothing to play for at the end of the season gives up three studs to someone for a mixed bag of nuts, then there had better be some cast-iron situational justification. I think it is effectively collusion if someone gives up - they are colluding with the buyer to skew the results, with no concern for their team improving.

I don't know if you noticed, but there is a major injury issue in that the other team lost Aaron Rodgers. There are still bye issues--I have Wilson on bye next week. Unlike your league, my trading partner has RBs to spare. There are no holes left. They haven't just given up. I explained the situation with team A's QB and WRs, and the fact he has RBs to spare. I can't veto trades on my own--we vote on them, when I said I didn't veto, I meant that I didn't vote a veto. Like I said, it seems some would veto the trade because they wouldn't make it

"See here you go again.... The point is you traded low end starters and bench players along with Romo for a top 5 RB, arguably the best TE in the league and a high end WR2. " I'm aware of the trade, if you want to hate on a deal because a stud RB and stud TE and a WR2 were sent then, so be it

I'm not hating on the fact that they were sent to you, I'm actually blown away that you think it was a fair deal. He gained NOTHING this week with Romo on a bye and gave up a TON to gain that nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that the deal was good for my team, I was convinced when I made the trade or I wouldn't have made the trade. I don't dispute that these are your honest opinions--I think the there is a distinction between a bad trade and a fair trade. I know that some of you definitely disagree, but I think whether it's a fair trade is up to me and my trading partner--if it's a bad trade everyone and their mama can weigh in on if they want to. The issue was if it should be vetoed--and in all cases that wasn't the answer that it should. I'd say he did gain WRs this week, Romo for the rest of the season, RodgerThat. Yea neither WR alone will produce as much as Antonio Brown, but I'd say it's fair to think that Douglas and Wright could outproduce Brown and Sanders this week.

leffe186 Locker is out for the season. he picked up Big Ben after the trade, I assume for this week only. I didn't collude. I have been trying to trade from preseason till now with the team, as have others. I'm definitely not the only one who tried to trade for Gronk and McCoy. Embarrassed that I'm trying to make trades that help my team? Or embarrassed that I 'won' the trade? Look at how stacked the op's team is --Cam Newton, Marshawn Lynch, Eddie Lacy, Shane Vereen, Chris Ivory, Wes Welker, Jordy Nelson, Danny Amendola, DeAndre hopkins, Rishard Matthews, Rueben Randle, Nate Burleson, Antonio Gates, Martellus Bennett, Cardinals&Panthers D, Mason Crosby--I have to try to beat that -.- Plus I have to get into playoffs with my 5-5 record and 6th overall, with 3 teams just behind me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that the deal was good for my team, I was convinced when I made the trade or I wouldn't have made the trade. I don't dispute that these are your honest opinions--I think the there is a distinction between a bad trade and a fair trade. I know that some of you definitely disagree, but I think whether it's a fair trade is up to me and my trading partner--if it's a bad trade everyone and their mama can weigh in on if they want to. The issue was if it should be vetoed--and in all cases that wasn't the answer that it should. I'd say he did gain WRs this week, Romo for the rest of the season, RodgerThat. Yea neither WR alone will produce as much as Antonio Brown, but I'd say it's fair to think that Douglas and Wright could outproduce Brown and Sanders this week.

leffe186 Locker is out for the season. he picked up Big Ben after the trade, I assume for this week only. I didn't collude. I have been trying to trade from preseason till now with the team, as have others. I'm definitely not the only one who tried to trade for Gronk and McCoy. Embarrassed that I'm trying to make trades that help my team? Or embarrassed that I 'won' the trade? Look at how stacked the op's team is --Cam Newton, Marshawn Lynch, Eddie Lacy, Shane Vereen, Chris Ivory, Wes Welker, Jordy Nelson, Danny Amendola, DeAndre hopkins, Rishard Matthews, Rueben Randle, Nate Burleson, Antonio Gates, Martellus Bennett, Cardinals&Panthers D, Mason Crosby--I have to try to beat that -.- Plus I have to get into playoffs with my 5-5 record and 6th overall, with 3 teams just behind me

Of course it's good for your team :lol: .

Like I say, I don't know your situation or that of your league, so I cannot judge. On the face of it I would be embarrassed because I find it inconceivable that the other guy is not tanking. If you genuinely think otherwise then fair enough. I don't know his situation either, and if you were helping him out at the beginning of the season I presume you know it better than me,

I agree with you - everything that determines whether this trade should stand is between you two. The trouble is all on your trade partner's side. On the face of it you have done nothing wrong, but that alone is not enough for me to consider a trade legitimate - particularly at this stage. He would have to demonstrate that he is acting in good faith, and that is the single issue here. Most of us - me included - seem to dispute that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, throwing my hat into the ring. I am also a Commish that usually only vetos trades that have some sort of evidence of collusion.

I usually let bad trades go through as I feel that vetoing "unfair" or "uneven" trades is a bit subjective and tramples on the rights of owners to f--- up their teams. For instance, someone took a gamble by trading for Arian Foster on Saturday. I let it through, because any fool could do minimal research and realize they were trading for an injury risk on the thin chance of some upside. Boxlurker--you are in the right to try and defend this trade. It clearly benefits you and is very one-sided. I don't fault you for making your case; but I think your LM should veto the trade.

All that said, this trade looks like a garbage dump by a team out of commission who doesn't care because it's not a $$ league. I would grudgingly veto this trade and ask the parties to re-negotiate. Most league's trade deadlines ended today, but I would give them an extension to work something out by tomorrow at 10am.

http://forums.rotoworld.com/index.php?showtopic=400855

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no veto unless almost certain collusion, trade rape is a part of fantasy football

Earlier in the season, yes, but it shouldn't be a part of fantasy football at this point of the season. If I were in a league in which playoff teams regularly traded bench players / borderline starters for studs on teams that aren't competing any more, I would get out of that league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.