Sign in to follow this  
BurgundyBooger

Veto trade? Russ Wilson for....Chase Edmonds?

Recommended Posts

Russ owner has DWatson and so is fine with trading away one of his QB1s. He's arguing that Chase will be lead back in Arizona at some point this year and RB1

Everyone's up in arms about it and wants this trade to be rejected but I suspect it's because the Chase Edmonds owner is 6-1 and getting Russell Wilson would pretty much make him unstoppable.


Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he really feels that way about Edmonds there's not much you can do. If Edmonds turns out to be a RB1, he looks like a genius. Unfortunately the odds are against that happening. You can't veto a trade just based on a great team becoming even greater though. That's the privilege of the team's owner for having drafted/signed great players and having good depth and it's tough cookies for the rest of the league.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nickmo said:

If he really feels that way about Edmonds there's not much you can do. If Edmonds turns out to be a RB1, he looks like a genius. Unfortunately the odds are against that happening. You can't veto a trade just based on a great team becoming even greater though. That's the privilege of the team's owner for having drafted/signed great players and having good depth and it's tough cookies for the rest of the league.

Agree with this 100%!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nickmo said:

If he really feels that way about Edmonds there's not much you can do. If Edmonds turns out to be a RB1, he looks like a genius. Unfortunately the odds are against that happening. You can't veto a trade just based on a great team becoming even greater though. That's the privilege of the team's owner for having drafted/signed great players and having good depth and it's tough cookies for the rest of the league.

 

I feel the same way. The other playoff contenders have threatened to leave the league if the trade goes through lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BurgundyBooger said:

Russ owner has DWatson and so is fine with trading away one of his QB1s. He's arguing that Chase will be lead back in Arizona at some point this year and RB1

Everyone's up in arms about it and wants this trade to be rejected but I suspect it's because the Chase Edmonds owner is 6-1 and getting Russell Wilson would pretty much make him unstoppable.


Thoughts?

Dr. Strange saw 14,000,605 possible futures out of which only one was a favorable one. Sometimes you have to just give Thanos the stone. As long as no collusion exists, then it's a deal that should go through. My league unfortunately vetoed a trade for this same reason, which I 100% disagreed with. You shouldn't be vetoing a trade just because you feel it is unfair. GMs should be free to make the deals they feel is right for their respective teams.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm one for no vetoing except for collusion.  We had a trade yesterday, Chubb, Godwin and a 2020 8th round pick for Miles Sanders, Boyd and a 2020 6th round pick.  It is a keeper league and the Chubb Godwin owner is in last place and looking for picks for next year.  Also new to Fantasy so doesn't realize the quality he has.  Owners went berzerk, but as the commissioner I didn't feel I could veto it.  I asked the trade owners what they wanted and they decided to collectively void the trade.  It is a brand new league, so we are all feeling it out.

 

I will say, one owner made a good point that if a trade screws the rest of the league out of the natural parity of fantasy football, it should go to vote.  So we are implementing that.  I don't think there is a great option but still, an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, croikee said:

 

I will say, one owner made a good point that if a trade screws the rest of the league out of the natural parity of fantasy football, it should go to vote.  So we are implementing that.  I don't think there is a great option but still, an option.

 

Who determines that? More importantly, how is that determined?

Edited by BurgundyBooger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No veto whatsoever. As a DJ owner with a weak RB stable, I was willing to give up Chark or Sutton (who per multiple trade value charts are more valuable than Russ) for Edmonds, and the offer actually got declined. 

Edited by jwk1325

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

Who determines that? More importantly, how is that determined?

No clue.  This is a startup keeper league we want to keep going for years.  There are really experienced owners and brand new owners.  I guess by natural parity I mean the natural game of chance that fantasy football is week in and week out, NOT the increased probability of success at a trade that takes advantage of an inexperienced owner in a brand new keeper league.  I hate the trade vote period in ESPN but it does provide an opportunity for other owners to go to the new owners and argue how they are getting screwed.  Do NFL GMs have that?  No.  But they DO have a team of people around them offering advice before it gets to that point.

 

In this situation it was clearly an experienced owner taking advantage of a new owner who is also in last place.  One person here said "You can't veto stupid."  I agree, but if the spirit of your league is fun competitiveness (it is a $50 buy in) and you want to create longevity with owners who are all in, some system needs to be in place to preserve the spirit of the league in its early stages.

 

That being said, our new system I implemented yesterday is if a trade is announced and an owner has a serious issue with it, they can voice their discontent.  The trade owners can argue their points.  If the disgruntled owner gets a second (another agrees) then we put it to vote on our slack channel and 75% of the league MUST vote to veto, for the veto to go through.  So, still unlikely to veto a trade, but gives owners a voice, and that is important to longevity of a league.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commish veto trades only in the face of obvious collusion, i.e. Miles Boykin for Amari Cooper in a redraft league.

In dynasty it would be almost impossible to find no plausible argument for nearly any trade.

Chase Edmonds for Russell Wilson could be a home run for either side, depending on the very uncertain health of David Johnson.

No veto.  League mates who are threatening to quit should be shown the door.  They are going to be league-poisoning whiners for this and any other issue that arises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, croikee said:

 

That being said, our new system I implemented yesterday is if a trade is announced and an owner has a serious issue with it, they can voice their discontent.  The trade owners can argue their points.  If the disgruntled owner gets a second (another agrees) then we put it to vote on our slack channel and 75% of the league MUST vote to veto, for the veto to go through.  So, still unlikely to veto a trade, but gives owners a voice, and that is important to longevity of a league.  

 

Interesting.

Can another GM just vote against a trade without putting up an argument or articulating any discontent? Would that GM's vote count or do they have to present a reasonable case first before his or her nay vote is considered?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Nickmo said:

If he really feels that way about Edmonds there's not much you can do. If Edmonds turns out to be a RB1, he looks like a genius. Unfortunately the odds are against that happening. You can't veto a trade just based on a great team becoming even greater though. That's the privilege of the team's owner for having drafted/signed great players and having good depth and it's tough cookies for the rest of the league.

100% spot on! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not collusion, it shouldn't be vetoed. Period. 

Everyone needs to stop trying to micromanage other owner's moves. If they think it improves their team, that's their call. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

Interesting.

Can another GM just vote against a trade without putting up an argument or articulating any discontent? Would that GM's vote count or do they have to present a reasonable case first before his or her nay vote is considered?

 

HAS to be a legitimate argument.  "I don't like that trade because it hurts my feelings" doesn't fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No collusion then no veto.  Plus give me a break Russ isn't playing like Mahomes last year.   Getting him at QB is not gonna make any team unstoppable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BurgundyBooger said:

 

I feel the same way. The other playoff contenders have threatened to leave the league if the trade goes through lol

Have the trade go through and have them leave the league and replace them.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.