What about this case, which I don't think is out of the realm of possibility because anyone who has started out 0-5 before (like me) has definitely thought this:
After 8 weeks:
Team A is good and 5-3 with a mediocre QB, a great No. 1 RB and an above-average No. 2 RB.
Team B is 1-7 with Larry Johnson, Carson Palmer and a bunch of nobodies or injured players. Things simply have not gone well.
The owner of Team B is pissed. They say f*** it all. Team A, for whatever reason, says, "Hey, I will offer you Channing Frye and Troy Brown for Palmer and Johnson." The owner of Team B doesn't know the owner of Team A at all. In fact, he dislikes Team A alittle bit. You guys have seen it in your message boards, they have jarred back and forth in a somewhat mean-spirited way.
You guys say this would never happen, but you should NEVER say never. When i was 0-5, I felt like doing this, but I didn't. Had I lost two more, I may have-in a self-destructive pissed off mood. Now, according to you "collusion only" guys, this trade should be allowed through-no questions asked. There is no cheating. Like I said, Team B sincerely does not give a crap who wins at this point. They just want to shoot themselves in the foot.
How many of you really think this trade should go through?
Oh, and if all you are going to say is, "This would NEVER happen," then don't reply. It's simply an extreme hyopthetical example of a non-cheating trade that should be vetoed (IMO).
tyger1147 wrote:I am from the league that the person who started this thread is in. He posted it in our message board, so I'm guessing he has no problem with us posting our opinions. I like that he asked for the general idea of vetoing trades--generalizations about situations are good. However, I would like to fill in the rest of the story and think if anyone has any different opinions.
First off, here are some rules from our "constitution" or whatever you want to call it: "All trades must be approved by the commissioner." "Trades vetoed by the commissioner can be appealed to a league vote." "A trade deadline will be used, and all trades must be completed before week 12 begins. In addition to that, no team which is determined by the commissioner to be ouf of contention can trade with a team determined to be still in contention from week 10 on." "*The commissioner will judge, and ahve the final say in, all situations that may arise, and in the best interest of keeping the league legitimate, will strive toward the goal of total fairply throughout.*"
So... that being said, these are key points to be made: the commissioner puts a TON of time and energy into running this league. He does not want to see stupid shit happen that ruins the competitive balance. You may think that's stupid, but everyone knows that coming in. Plus, this is the second year these guys have been in this league. Also, we are not "democratically" run. The commissioner has the final say. Again, everyone knows this going in. Even so, the "final say" on a vetoed trade, can still be put to a vote.
Now, about the teams involved. First, the guys who got vetoed. There are two of them running one team. Fine. However, in any voting process, like an appeal, this gives them two votes to every other team's one. using the site we do, this cannot be changed. They are good, and veteran's.
Here is their roster: (2-0) Warner Barber Gore Keyshawn Javon Walker Crumpler
Brees Westbrook Norwood Troy Brown Randy Moss Jerry Porter Vernon Davis
The other team is a rookie. Here is his roster: (0-2) Bledsoe Edgerrin James Kevin Jones Santana Moss Andre Johnson Tony Gonzalez
Kitna Alex Smith Barber III Dayne Cotchery Berrian Chad Jackson
Here is the trade at hand: Westbrook, Davis, Troy Brown --for-- Kevin Jones, Andre Johnson, Santana Moss
Is this lop-sided enough to ruin the integrity. Does the rookie, with this new team have any chance of winning games the rest of the year? In most of our minds' in the league (we already voted down the appeal) it is less about how good the good team gets, and more about how bad the lesser team gets. It does not make the good team so good that he cannot be beaten, but more that it makes the bad team bad that he will struggle to get every win.
I did not want to disagree with this trade (I am not the commissioner) because I KNOW that cheating was not involved, but I felt it was so stupid that it couldn't be let through. Had there been or two differences in the trades, I would have let it go through, although I feel it would have been just as good for the better team: a) had the lesser team had a need for a TE-Vernon Davis would have been big part (even if an eventual bust) of that trade --or-- had Randy Moss or Javon Walker been thrown in instead of Troy Brown. Then the lesser team gets at least one legitimate fantasy player (althoug calling any Oakland player legitimate is sort of retarded right now) to play at WR.
Anyway, there's the whole story. Like I said, I like the genral question posed but I'm curious if this specific example changes anyone's mind.
I just don't see what the problem is. Yes Team A gets two Decent (but not Great) WRs, but Team B gets some Desperately needed RB Help. Team B can then plug Berrian and Cotchery into his starting lineup. It hurts his depth, but if he doesn't get some help at RB depth will be the least of his problems.
Trades are inherently unbalanced. If they were always 100% "even" then why trade in the First Place? If your league is going to be so nitpicky that this trade is, in your opinion, vetoable then you might as well do away with trading in your league altogether.
No Offense, but that trade being voted down/vetoed is just ridiculous.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
A trade should be vetoed under only one circumstance and that is that the trade just isn't fair. It is pretty obvious when someone is getting ripped off, however it should be without a doubt that they are getting ripped off and this can be for a variety of reasons. The biggest being a newb gets taken advantage of. It is a greta component because it keeps that newb manager that you got just to fill that 12th spot in your league from getting taken advanatge of by some a-hole. Also, it ultimately helps keep things competitive. A trade that is collusion is easily spotted and of course goes along with the whole instance of something not being fair. Other than a trade not being fair anything goes.
Sorry man, I see no problem with that trade. Bad veto
Especially in $$$ leagues... a commish trying to keep a "competitive" league by vetoing trades - is DISGRACEFUL.
New to FF? Guess what, join a free league - there are plenty out there (I'm in quite a few).
When I put up $$$, yeah I playhard ball on my trades... because I want to win and collect the pot. I don't need some commish blowing away my trades that took a lot of time and effort to structure. AT THAT POINT THE LEAGUE IS COLLUDING AGAINST A SINGLE TEAM - get it? That's why team votes on trades can be a form of collusion.
Again, COLLUSION is the only reason. Nothing in that trade says collusion.
Bullcrap trade vetoes are a bane to fantasy sports, It really chaps my backside that team-owners anonymously block trades and never own up to it. It takes at least 3 or 4 vetoes in most league to block a trade. But when someone points out a trade that was unfairly blocked, Everyone says "I didn't veto the trade".
I wish Yahoo & CBS leagues offered the option of making all trade vetoes, viewable to the entire league so that people would at least be held responsible for their votes.
I had a similar situation in my baseball league this year. This is a top $$$ dynasty league and I was out of the playoffs with the trade line coming up. The league leader was looking for some help and had given me about 15 offers over the course of the month. None of them I liked until he threw this my way:
Eddy Martinez(SF prospect)
Eric Patterson(Cubs prospect and brother of Corey Patterson)
I deliberated and figured that this will be good for me next year and even the future since I figured that Dye could be good next year again but I get some good young players and a decent #5 pitcher in Contraras.
The trade was almost vetoed (5 votes, 6 to be vetoed) and the thing was I didn't get it. First, I didn't offer the trade, he did. Second, this benifited my team, and it benefited him because it gave him a solid OF for the playoffs. I got no explanations but I figured that everyone vetoed because they didn't want him to (maybe) win the season with this move. Right now he's in the 3rd place game winning so he'll get some good money out of it. I just hate the fact that people veto trades because it doesn't benefit them.
Hall of Fame Hero
Joined: 1 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Singing songs of satisfaction toooooo the wooooooorld..... (the world).
jdsun1 wrote:A trade should be vetoed under only one circumstance and that is that the trade just isn't fair. It is pretty obvious when someone is getting ripped off, however it should be without a doubt that they are getting ripped off and this can be for a variety of reasons. The biggest being a newb gets taken advantage of. It is a greta component because it keeps that newb manager that you got just to fill that 12th spot in your league from getting taken advanatge of by some a-hole. Also, it ultimately helps keep things competitive. A trade that is collusion is easily spotted and of course goes along with the whole instance of something not being fair. Other than a trade not being fair anything goes.
"Fair"? What's "Fair" but a matter of perspective and opinion? What's "Fair" to Owner A may not be to Owner B.
The purpose of the veto is to prevent cheating, not to protect owners from themselves and/or each other. So long as both owners involved in a trade have their reasons for making it and that reason isn't collusion then "Fairness" should'nt have anything to do with it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire