Iam trying to trade for LT...For Ronnie Brown, A Green, LJ Smith, and the Colts Def...for LT.. They already rejected the trade without Green in it.. My comminiser said it makes me too strong, which i think is bullshit It makes the other team better, curently he has only 1 point from his TE"s the whole season, and his other rb's are Morris and Rhodes.. Should I leave this League ? Or what should I do? THANKS FOR ANY INPUT
RB"s--SJ, Henry, Deanglo Williams, D Mcalister WRs--Evans,Houshmanzada,Driver, Galloway, Kevin Curtis QB-Brees,Farve TE-- Cooley, LJ Smith Def-Seattle K- Gostkowski Ten team league--Half a point per completion Redraft,
it's part of fantasy football, being able to veto trades, and having trades vetoable. Think if you were in there position, would you let this go through if it made you biggest opponent that much stronger...
Get over it.
XHendrix wrote:it's part of fantasy football, being able to veto trades, and having trades vetoable. Think if you were in there position, would you let this go through if it made you biggest opponent that much stronger... Get over it.
That is NOT part of fantasy football. That's one thing that's VERY wrong about fantasy football. Everyone has different opinions on the values of certain players. A trade should never be vetoed just because you think the trade is unfair or makes 1 team too strong. A trade should only be vetoed if it's obvious collusion (cheating) between 2 teams. Some trades make you scratch your head but they shouldn't be vetoed unless collusion is suspected. Obviously the 2 owners involved in the trade feel they're getting equal or better value in return. You might think the trade is onesided but as long as it's not collusion the trade shouldn't be vetoed.
I wouldn't participate in the league next year if owners veto trades just because they are afraid the trade makes 1 team too strong. Again, that's NOT part of fantasy football.
XHendrix wrote:it's part of fantasy football, being able to veto trades, and having trades vetoable. Think if you were in there position, would you let this go through if it made you biggest opponent that much stronger... Get over it.
That is NOT part of fantasy football. That's one thing that's VERY wrong about fantasy football. Everyone has different opinions on the values of certain players. A trade should never be vetoed just because you think the trade is unfair or makes 1 team too strong. A trade should only be vetoed if it's obvious collusion (cheating) between 2 teams. Some trades make you scratch your head but they shouldn't be vetoed unless collusion is suspected. Obviously the 2 owners involved in the trade feel they're getting equal or better value in return. You might think the trade is onesided but as long as it's not collusion the trade shouldn't be vetoed.
I wouldn't participate in the league next year if owners veto trades just because they are afraid the trade makes 1 team too strong. Again, that's NOT part of fantasy football.
Agreed, it is the owners who are a part of the trades' responsibility to look at both sides of the deal and make sure it doesn't make one team too strong even if it may benefit both teams. If it is not collusion, and it is not simply a ridiculous trade, there is no grounds for a veto. Simple bias towards either what one team already has, or just if a commish doesn't like the trade for whatever reason, it is most certainly not a valid reason to veto a trade like this.
I would say that you shouldn't be in the league anymore either. Finish the year out, but make your complaints well known, maybe even point them to this thread so that they can see what the true rules involving the vetoing of trades (especially when just a commish is responsible for vetoes) should work.
XHendrix wrote:it's part of fantasy football, being able to veto trades, and having trades vetoable. Think if you were in there position, would you let this go through if it made you biggest opponent that much stronger... Get over it.
That is NOT part of fantasy football. That's one thing that's VERY wrong about fantasy football. Everyone has different opinions on the values of certain players. A trade should never be vetoed just because you think the trade is unfair or makes 1 team too strong. A trade should only be vetoed if it's obvious collusion (cheating) between 2 teams. Some trades make you scratch your head but they shouldn't be vetoed unless collusion is suspected. Obviously the 2 owners involved in the trade feel they're getting equal or better value in return. You might think the trade is onesided but as long as it's not collusion the trade shouldn't be vetoed.
I wouldn't participate in the league next year if owners veto trades just because they are afraid the trade makes 1 team too strong. Again, that's NOT part of fantasy football.
x100
I am almost sick of playing with my friends because of this. My friends are idiots, miss the draft (well i missed the draft but set up a real strong autodraft that got me a pretty good team and made some real strong pickups) w/o settingup autodraft, make stupid drafts, and then complain about how much they suck and other teams are real good. So they veto EVERY trade regardless. I worked on my friend for this trade:
Favre, B. Edwards, and Caddy Williams for C. Taylor and Marony. Well they saw it was me and him (2 of the stronger teams making a good trade to help us both) so they all veto and I thought for sure the commissioner wasn't going to veto because it was pretty fair. BUT NOOOOO
o well, I like FF to much to quit because of that, and I know I will make good drafts/pickups and take my friends money regardless.
yeah, I really thing that leagues should have rules stating that if you veto a trade, you must explain why, and saying because it makes a team to good should not be a valid reason. It should be looked at from the views of just the 2 teams involved, and not how it affects the rest of the league
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by donnie75 » Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:11 am 
