Our commish is a moron!!

[alkaline]

Yeah, you're trade should have been allowed, but this one is quite fair.

If you didn't want to get flamed, you should have said your commish was an idiot for vetoing your trade, not for allowing this one.

I had said before, I should've mentioned that too. It was the root of the whole thread. I spontaneously posted this as soon as it was accepted.

lol..As for getting flamed, I really could care less. Especially the ones that stoop to name calling or essentially call me stupid. It's a internet forum for cryin' out loud. Pretty sure life goes on (well..I won't speak for all of you).

your going to talk to us about name calling after YOU call your commish a moron? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

[mtuhusky]

Yeah, you're trade should have been allowed, but this one is quite fair.

If you didn't want to get flamed, you should have said your commish was an idiot for vetoing your trade, not for allowing this one.

I had said before, I should've mentioned that too. It was the root of the whole thread. I spontaneously posted this as soon as it was accepted.

lol..As for getting flamed, I really could care less. Especially the ones that stoop to name calling or essentially call me stupid. It's a internet forum for cryin' out loud. Pretty sure life goes on (well..I won't speak for all of you).

your going to talk to us about name calling after YOU call your commish a moron? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

I know my commish personally (i'm friends with the guy) and called him MORE than a moron to his face about this. Big difference between that and people that have never met me saying stuff don't ya think??

**Btw..Berrian had a huge day again. I never said I was all knowing and am willing to eat crow when it's deserved. If the kid keeps it up I will definitly do so**

[Kilroy]

In my work FFL..our commish is the one that vetoes trades. He actually allowed the following trade:

R. Droughns (Cle - RB)
B. Berrian (Chi - WR)

for

E. Kennison (KC - WR)
R. Brown (Mia - RB)

I'm boiling. That trade is ridiculous. The guy now has LJ and Brown at RB...Holt and Boldin at WR...and Chicago's defense.

This is a bunch of BS. He gave up a flash in the pan WR for a top 5 RB. I can't believe I put money into this craphole.

R. Droughns (Cle - RB) - RB36
B. Berrian (Chi - WR) - WR5

vs.

E. Kennison (KC - WR) - WR50
R. Brown (Mia - RB) - RB10

What is the problem? Oh, I see. According to you this trade is unfair and thus should not be allowed. Maybe you should apply for the trade guru job at yahoo or cbs sportsline if you are so well versed in trade values. I mean obviously RB36 and WR5 is worth way less than RB10 and WR50...

RB36/WR5
vs.
RB10/WR50

Get over yourself pal. Let people manage their own rosters.

---

Or are you one of those guys that still points to the August/September initial draft well into October. In that case, I'll trade you Randy Moss for Donovan McNabb.

I agree 100%. In the league where I'm commish I'd have no problem OKing that trade. Or the SA one for that matter. I'm the commish, not the all-knowing arbiter of the mystical concept of "fair".

[Twisted Sister]

As commish, I just recently had to deal with several nitwit owners saying trades I were approving were so UNFAIR.

After this year, I hanging up the commish hat because of the know-it all owners who have their own sense of "fair." I have never heard grown men whine so much in my life and have such outbursts. They also have made crazy accusations about me on message boards... but then stand down when I talk to them face to face.

I find when owners complain about unfairness, it's really for just 1 of two reasons:

1) they are upset with themselves for not trading with the team first (typical jealously)

2) A team, that they fear, just got very strong by trading a bunch of decent bench players for a starter upgrade.

COLLUSION is the ONLY reason for VETO. This whole "fairness" thing is why league votes do not work... owners vote the way that will prevent a front-runner from taking the whole league - which is essentially LEAGUE COLLUSION.

I've had to put up with so much crap this season, it's unbelievable...

In regards to the specifics of this thread - neither trade should be vetoed... END OF STORY.

Communist commish's are the worst... they want the league to stay very average... that's dandy for a noob non-$ league... but when $ is on the line, don't F- with my trades.

[spodog]

In my work FFL..our commish is the one that vetoes trades. He actually allowed the following trade:

R. Droughns (Cle - RB)
B. Berrian (Chi - WR)

for

E. Kennison (KC - WR)
R. Brown (Mia - RB)

I'm boiling. That trade is ridiculous. The guy now has LJ and Brown at RB...Holt and Boldin at WR...and Chicago's defense.

This is a bunch of BS. He gave up a flash in the pan WR for a top 5 RB. I can't believe I put money into this craphole.

1. This trade is fine.

2. Even if it was shaky, trades should not be vetoed on the basis they improve one of the teams (in your view). The entire point of doing a trade is to improve your team.

3. Leagues should not allow other owners to vote on trades. This seems like a good idea, but it is not.

4. Quite whining and go work a trade that improves your team.

[mtuhusky]

4. Quite whining and go work a trade that improves your team.

Apparently you can't read.

[mysticphysh]

Looks like an ok trade to me

[dilydaly]

trade looks fine to me.....and as much as you deny you wernt boiling cause his team got better,

"I'm boiling. That trade is ridiculous. The guy now has LJ and Brown at RB...Holt and Boldin at WR...and Chicago's defense"


id have to say this is what is bothering you. why else would you post your boiling? what would boil your brain in reagrds to that trade other than that fact that his team got better, and may dominate

i understand your SA trade didnt go through but you added that on later when you cooled down and realized your error.

the reason many leagues dont let everyone vote is for this exact reason ppl knocking trades down just cause a team is getting much better even though that trade at hand is completely fair.



good luck

[A Fleshner Fantasy]

You are simply wrong. It is not the commish's job to veto trades based on stupidity. It is the commish's job to veto trades if he thinks there is corruption going on in the league. Just because this trades doesn't look good for you personal interest doesn't mean that he should veto it. If you think it is that bad, get a trade done with the person who gave up Brown, and get as good a deal from them as this one.

[Fritzenhammer]

Thumbs down for the league votes system.

That is all.

FH