Please Define: Veto - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Please Define: Veto

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Matthias » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:06 pm

Kilroy1872 wrote:Collusion? Veto.

"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.


Yah, but the problem basically boils down to, "Collusion? How do you prove collusion?" Ask the guys involved making the trade... are you cheating? No? Ok. Thanks.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Kilroy » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:20 pm

Matthias wrote:
Kilroy1872 wrote:Collusion? Veto.

"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.


Yah, but the problem basically boils down to, "Collusion? How do you prove collusion?" Ask the guys involved making the trade... are you cheating? No? Ok. Thanks.


Trades involving collusion usually aren't very hard to spot. (Example, 2 Years ago an owner in my $$ League traded Willis McGahee to a buddy's team who had a better record...For a Kicker.)
Image

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Kilroy
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 13587
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Making My List and Checking It Twice...

Postby Kensat30 » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:09 pm

Veto = an owner can vote against a trade for any reason whatsoever or even no reason at all. That's not the way it should be, but that is the way it is.


Honestly, if you have a trade veto voting process in place, it is going to be abused. Guaranteed. Some people will veto against a trade because they don't want other teams to get better. Others will do it out of spite because their previous trade got vetoed. Hell, I know guys who will hit veto just because the button is there and they have the option to veto in the first place.

It's a complicated issue that you really need to work out with your individual league how you want to deal with it. In my local friends league, we have had trading problems for years and we revise the rules almost every year. This year we've made trades cost $10 bucks per player involved (5% of entry fee), and in order to veto 8 out 10 remaining owners have to veto.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby steelerfan513 » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:48 pm

The only way a trade can be vetoed is collusion. Once a league is accepted by both owners in any form, it should go up to the league or the commish. I favor the commish system b/c individual managers dont have to give a reason for veto, but they will veto for any bit of unfairness in the trade. Unless collusion is involved (besides something obvious like Matt Hasselbeck for Tim Hasselbeck), there is no other reason to veto a trade.
Image
Image
Kudos to Leber for the amazing sig and to Metroid for the userbar and making them both fit
2008 and 2009 Defunct Dynasty League Champion
steelerfan513
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 11906
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Emil420 » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:09 pm

This trade only went to a vote due to the commish vetoing the trade. I'm part owner of the team that was making the trade with bootha and we're actually not really concerned with the whole vote thing cuz we know that the other teams are gunna vote against it because we are already a strong team and this woulda filled our only problem area.

I would like if all the guys reading this can take a look at just the trade involved and let us know if they think this trade is fair or unfair.

On a side note, We were the ones that the trade was offered too, both sides accepted and then 20+ hrs later, the other side emailed the commish to not approve the trade due to him not realizing that westy had the same bye week as edge and the westy was questionable for week 3.

The commish stated that this didn't influnce his decision to veto the trade but stated that he was already 95% going to veto it anyways and wanted to contact the other owner before hand to make sure he wanted to do the trade, so when he got the email from that owner, he then vetoed it.

Once again, please look over our trade which is posted on page 2 of this forum and let us know if you think is it fair or unfair.

Thanks in advance..... ;-D
Image
Big Thanks to BGboothA for the sig!!
Emil420
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar
Matchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 293
Joined: 2 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Vegas... where else in the world would anyone want to be?

Postby dgan » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:03 pm

This is so simple, I don't know what the big deal is. Everyone puts different values on different players. Why don't you veto bad draft picks? If someone selects Jake Plummer in the second round, why not veto that and make them pick again?

If the guy thinks Johnson and Moss are going to have more production later on, and thinks Westbrook is going to miss half the season with injury, great. The other guy might think that owner is a lunatic and he will ride Westbrook to the championship. Great.

You can't determine as a league what the value of the players are. If you are going to do that, just vote on a top 200 list and let the computer draft for you. Fantasy football is about each owner making his own decisions and if you think it is a stupid decision, then so be it. It's his choice.

We have owners vote in our league. This is the most common comment accompanying a vote - "I think you're an idiot but I approve."

One year, I traded Tony Gonzalez for a backup RB. Everyone thought it was completely unfair. Maybe it was. But the backup RB happened to be Dominick Davis who took over the starting job two weeks later. The fact is I had Gates as well, and wanted to trade Gonzalez for a RB with upside because I was terribly thin at that position, and I knew there was a good chance Davis would take over the starting job.

Don't take away an owner's right to gamble. If he's 0 - 4 and needs to shake things up if he's going to have any chance to make the playoffs, let him do it. Unless it is clearly collusion. It helps to have returning owners as well, who actually care about the league and not just the winnings.

Summary: You are not the owner of every team in your league. Let them run their own team -- even if it is into the ground. Hell, Al Davis does it every year...
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

Postby Kilroy » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:07 pm

Emil420 wrote:This trade only went to a vote due to the commish vetoing the trade. I'm part owner of the team that was making the trade with bootha and we're actually not really concerned with the whole vote thing cuz we know that the other teams are gunna vote against it because we are already a strong team and this woulda filled our only problem area.

I would like if all the guys reading this can take a look at just the trade involved and let us know if they think this trade is fair or unfair.

On a side note, We were the ones that the trade was offered too, both sides accepted and then 20+ hrs later, the other side emailed the commish to not approve the trade due to him not realizing that westy had the same bye week as edge and the westy was questionable for week 3.

The commish stated that this didn't influnce his decision to veto the trade but stated that he was already 95% going to veto it anyways and wanted to contact the other owner before hand to make sure he wanted to do the trade, so when he got the email from that owner, he then vetoed it.

Once again, please look over our trade which is posted on page 2 of this forum and let us know if you think is it fair or unfair.

Thanks in advance..... ;-D


Do you guys get the better end? Maybe?

Is it Vetoable? H**l no.

Is it "Fair"? Who cares? "Fair" is a subjective term. It means different things to different people.

As far as him being worried about Edge and Westy having the same bye he shouldn't. If he doesn't upgrade at RB he'll be out of it by Week 9 anyway.

IMO you guys got hosed. :-t

EDIT: On second look you guys were takin' a h**luva risk tradin' Westy to shore up your WRs. I respect that. ;-D If every team in your league is as thin at RB as those two it just makes that deal even less vetoable, as it increases the value of Quality Backs. (by which I mean Westy) Yep, you guys got hosed. :-t
Image

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Kilroy
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 13587
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Making My List and Checking It Twice...

Postby Emil420 » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:28 pm

Thanks to everyone that gave us some input, but it looks like there is no way that this is gunna get reversed. Commish is being slow to respond to emails and the league voted against the trade. Once again, thanks for everyone taking the time to put there 2 cents in here. I'm just amazed that the commish of our league decided he needed to baby sit the rookie owner.
Image
Big Thanks to BGboothA for the sig!!
Emil420
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar
Matchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 293
Joined: 2 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Vegas... where else in the world would anyone want to be?

Postby Crippler » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:23 am

LS2throwed wrote:
Twisted Sister wrote:
The Miner Part 2 wrote:only should be vetoed if it's obvious collusion. that's it.


Bingo ;-D


To some noobs - Antonio Bryant > Tory Holt, Fitz, TO, or etc because he has done better thru 2 weeks.




exactly, i have bryant, if someone wanted to trade me holt and addai because they like how bryant has done its on them, obviously its reasons they think so, and a trade happens when 2 managers agree to it....


ONLY time, and i repeat, ONLY time a trade should be vetoed or even thought about it, is if its noticibly unfair....

Shaun Alexander for addai is FAIR game to me now, one ownde mite like addai's upside better and the colts offense, and not like shaun A and how the o line is playing...


unfair is trading LT for tatum bell...there is no reasonably good argument one could have for wanting tatum bell over LT...

although the people are almost the same, at least in trade one there is fair grounds as to why one owner would rather have addai then alexander, thats the way i judge....


This makes no sense to me. Why is SA for Addai fair and LT for Bell isnt? Who says that Addai has upside and Bell doesnt? What if I think LT is going to get hurt soon? I dont see your logic at all.
Image

"Cincinatti leads the league in 'Johnsons'" - John Madden

$$$ Leagues $$$
ChaunFL: 11-5 *2nd Place*
BGKFL: 15-1 *Champion*
Dirty Dukes: 12-5 *2nd Place*
Win %: 77.55
Crippler
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Eagle EyeLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1946
(Past Year: 8)
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby bobbing_headz » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:24 am

It seems like the general consensus is that essentially all trades are fair unless there is blatant collusion and I agree on this principle. There are only two times though where it gets a bit tricky in my opinion:

A: When one player goes on IR or is out for the season. Example: In one of my leagues this year owner accepted JLewis for DDavis. This was about 2 days before it was announced he was going on IR. On one hand the owner took a big risk knowing Davis was hurting but on the other he could not forecast this happening.

B:When a player switches teams (after the deal has been accepted). This could greatly effect a player's value. Is it worth vetoing?

I have no answers to either of those situations. Just like to throw them out there for discussion.
bobbing_headz
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 5602
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: North of the Border

PreviousNext

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 2:04 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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