Commissioner of my league is in my division. This is the second time I have had a trade accepted to get TOwens. Now he has already protested, and I am sure will try to get others to do the same.
The guy I am trading with has as his RBs;
Ahman Green, Mashall Faulk, Ricky Williams, and some other non-starter who I can't remember!!! He is giving me TO and R Williams and I am giving
C Portis, S Davis, D Foster, K McCardell.
(1st time around it was just S Davis W Dunn and MCCardell). Then it got vetoed, and I had to sweeten the pot, cause they trading partner had an "out". Now they are trying to do it again. What is the point of playing FF if you can't trade? Guy had offers from lots of other players the 2nd time around, and he still accepted mine! So what is up with the protest tactic! I am soooo pissed off! If this normal in FF? (this is my 1st year). Any advice or sympathy appreciated.
- edited. -aww
Last edited by ampant on Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It's time to put down the crack-pipe and step away from the keyboard.
Are you kidding Rosebud? thats a fine trade for both players. The guy with TO is getting RBs that will actually do something adn the guy getting TO is getting a good reciever and maybe but probably not a serviceable RB. That is completely an unvetoable trade.
He already has a decent RB in green, and ricky will be back...
TO is a stud.. and you gave up nothing...Davis is hurt AGAIN....
Davis has been getting his number called a lot, AND he gets goalline carries on a power running team. Plus I shipped D Foster (who was slotted as the feature tailback until Davis won it back).
Ahman Green hasn't done .... Williams doesn't play till week 5. So who is he gonna start in the meantime? Now he has 3 starting NFL backs to play matchups with, none of whom are splitting carries, plus an insurance backup RB and a decent WR.
I got the best wideout in the game, and a RB who has been gone for more than a year, and came into the season 20lbs underweight, who has to play behind the phins #2 pick.
I still think it's a good trade for me, cause I had depth, kept Deuce, and now I can trot Holt and TO into my lineup every week with Boldin, Diver and J Smith as my #3 options!
Williams MAY be starting by the 2nd half of the season, but I am in a TD only league, and Williams never did score a lot of TDs, just yards. He's a gamble.
-edit -aww
Last edited by ampant on Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's time to put down the crack-pipe and step away from the keyboard.
I believe this topic generates more controversy than anything else. Many owners believe it is their right to veto a trade in which they view as unfair. Others believe that you shouldn't veto a trade unless there is hard proof of collusion.
Most of the people here at the cafe (atleast that is my conclusion) believe that trades should be allowed unless they are proved collusion. I am with that crowd.
proKrastinate wrote:I believe this topic generates more controversy than anything else. Many owners believe it is their right to veto a trade in which they view as unfair. Others believe that you shouldn't veto a trade unless there is hard proof of collusion.
Most of the people here at the cafe (atleast that is my conclusion) believe that trades should be allowed unless they are proved collusion. I am with that crowd.
Sure. The thing is, these guys didn't even claim it was unfair. They said "I didn't know TO was on the block." They all wanted to make offers, and the guys in my division flat out said they didn't want me to get TO . . . period.
It's like I got penalized for making a deal good enough to convince the guy to get TO. Any of these guys could have made an offer at any time. They just didn't. Everybody has a price. I saw the need and innovated a deal first, with a high enough price that the guy was willing to bite, and had more depth in my roster to give. It's not an unfair trade, or collusion (this isn't even a money league).
Kind of makes me want to just say " you guys", drop all my players to FA, and just walk away. I work with a lot of these guys, so its hard to manage.
-edit -aww
It's time to put down the crack-pipe and step away from the keyboard.
Plus, we closed the deal on thursday, so I could play em this weekend. Now I can't use em for another week, and because it got vetoed, the guy was able to ask for more (traded Davis, Foster, Portis and McCardell, where originally it was Davis, Dunn, and McCardell)
Of course, one of the people who protested was my opponent this week.
It's time to put down the crack-pipe and step away from the keyboard.
Absolutely ridiculous! No matter what standard you use, that trade is not vetoable. You made a fair offer (twice it seems) and he accepted. That should be end of story. With no money at stake, along with the fact you work with them, you should probably take the league for what it is and look for a more reasonable group of owners next season.
Sorry to continue to vicariously vent, but if anyone in my leagues ever protested on the grounds "I didn't know he was on the block, I should get a chance to make offers too" he would automatically lose any "fantasy" respect he had established. Despite the presence of yahoo's clever "trade block" feature, no one should need any sort of headline to realize someone is on the trade block. An owner's willingness to trade a particular player is not something that needs to be advertised. Rather, it is something that savvy owners pick up on through the course of trade negotiations.
cards05 wrote:Absolutely ridiculous! No matter what standard you use, that trade is not vetoable. You made a fair offer (twice it seems) and he accepted. That should be end of story. With no money at stake, along with the fact you work with them, you should probably take the league for what it is and look for a more reasonable group of owners next season.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by ampant » Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:31 am 
