Don't panic or this may happen to you - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Don't panic or this may happen to you

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby CTC » Tue Sep 09, 2003 1:43 am

The real question is: Does your league allow vetos for stupidity, or only collusion?

If the former, then by all mean, veto this trade.

If the later, you're whole league is probably screwed.
CTC
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 155
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby AF » Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:05 am

In my league one guy has LT and Portis. I don't think he has the best team in the league either, outside of that he doesn't have much. The worst part is he cooked up the idea of keeping 2 players off your last years team this summer (after having Faulk, LT and Portis last year) and the rest of the league said oh hey, I like that idea. Retards. Needless to say I wasn't a fan since it wasn't agreed upon when we formed the league.
[b][color=blue]Owner of Absolutely Fabulous:[/b][/color]Miami Redhawks Defending League Champions, 10 team 2 keeper money league.
AF
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 657
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Browntown

Postby Ben_ffc » Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:42 am

this is ridiculous. this happened to me in baseball this season...i found a guy (a reds fan) that was willing to trade manny ramirez for not-yet-injured casey and kearns.

the trade was very one-side in my favor, but the guy wasn't tanking...he said he'd have an easier time following his fantasy team's progress if he had the best reds' players on his team.

well, everybody got all huffy, called me a cheat. that's malarkey. the whole *point* of a trade is to generate a better situation than the one you had...especially if you don't have to give up much.

people get upset because they couldn't pull off a deal of similar caliber. i say feck 'em. move on. good job.

b
yeah...yes
Ben_ffc
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 630
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: hiding behind anthony munoz

Postby Challie » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:47 am

anth wrote:the only reason a trade should be vetoed is if one team is tanking to try to help another team. This doesn't sound like that's happening. You can't regulate stupidity and you can't force someone to value a player the same as you


Randy Moss is a legitimate player and Team A can actually possible improve with this trade if the upgrade from his worst starting WR to Moss gets him more than LT down to Gary. How can that be vetoable? What if Moss outperforms LT (look at 2000 and 2001 stats to see if that's possible)? What do you tell the owner of Team A after he misses the playoffs in that scenario? "Sorry"?

Also, as somebody who watched that Charger game on Sunday, I can say that the Bolts' offensive line looks inept. This shouldn't happen, LT should certainly get his with a coach committed to the running game. But another 2-3 games like this last one and Team A will have been lucky to get Moss for LT in any league.

Team B hasn't won the league just yet. How many preseason #1 and #2 RBs end up both in the Top 5? Maybe a lot, but what I'm saying that they are far from guaranteed to win your championship.

All of that being said, TEAM B IS FLEECING TEAM A. This isn't at vetoable level. But we'd all agree that Team B really got himself a sweet trade. If I were you, I'd be jealous, but wouldn't even bring up a veto. First thing I would do would be to try to construct Team A's next trade ... with you.
... in my opinion, of course - but that should always go without saying.
www.bigfellas.net (home of the golf rap "On The Green")
Challie
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1531
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: San Diego

Postby Ben_ffc » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:51 am

"people that protest these trades should shampoo my crotch."

b
yeah...yes
Ben_ffc
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 630
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: hiding behind anthony munoz

Postby Homeless » Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:21 am

he shouldnt be giving up on LT, but I dont think the trade is veto-able. Moss has huge value.
Image
Image
Homeless
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 10011
Joined: 21 Aug 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: I could be anywhere! and so could my SILK scarf! M&M's anyone ?

Postby brdmaverick » Tue Sep 09, 2003 10:05 am

definitely DO NOT veto.

like you said, you would have offered more for LT, BUT YOU DIDN'T, DID YOU? No. That's right, he beat you to it. The opportunity was there for you and everyone else in your league, but he was the one to capitalize. Don't veto because you lost out.

Only veto when there is definite cheating going on. I hate people that abuse the veto power.
Go Pats!
brdmaverick
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1829
Joined: 13 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby anth » Tue Sep 09, 2003 10:50 am

A similar trade (probably even worse) went through w/o being vetoed.

C.Garner/E.George for Priest Holmes.

Portis and Holmes are on the same team now.

What if Holmes stiffs the rest of the year and Garner breaks records. (99.9% sure not going to happen but you never know)
The guy paid 50 bucks to get in the league. What do you tell him?
sorry, I screwed you but I had a hard-on for the player you were trading away? oh yeah. and thanks for your 50 dollar contribution.
anth


Home Cafe: Football
Friendliness: %

Previous

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 18:37 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact