Why was this Dynasty Trade Vetoed?!?! - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Why was this Dynasty Trade Vetoed?!?!

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Matthias » Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:54 am

dgan wrote:Of course, the answer has already been given. The same reason the Yankees traded away their young talent every year for cash cows that would help them win that particular year. It is a short-term strategy...many would not do it, but I don't see how it is vetoeable.


That's assuming that the OP was actually aware that Tiki was going to retire which, given that the thread is titled, "Why was this trade vetoed" may not be the case.

Also, I can't find it right now, but someone made a point in another thread that he frowns upon this year for that year trades in his league. But that when he did allow them, he made sure to collect next year's fees from the guy selling out next year before the trade was approved.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby LoudmouthApostle » Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:17 am

In this keeper league, how many keepers do you retain? Must you determine after the draft but prior to the season who your keepers are and if so which of these players involved in the trade are keepers (or are all)?

If there are limited number of keepers then the concern of your opponents is that you are giving up a RB with no value this year (Portis) so really for this year it is Dunn and Jennings for D Will and Tiki which given Fosters injury could be a lethal combination for your opponents given your plus plus WR core.

Was there a trade deadline at which you could trade no matter what and you are now in some kind of review period? That may impact things too.

Anyways, just some devils advocate but very rarely should trade get a veto but it is late in the year and some of the facts above may bring clarity to the other owners decisions.

Good luck!
LoudmouthApostle
Cheerleader
Cheerleader


Posts: 19
Joined: 23 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby beanoX3 » Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:52 am

LoudmouthApostle wrote:In this keeper league, how many keepers do you retain? Must you determine after the draft but prior to the season who your keepers are and if so which of these players involved in the trade are keepers (or are all)?

If there are limited number of keepers then the concern of your opponents is that you are giving up a RB with no value this year (Portis) so really for this year it is Dunn and Jennings for D Will and Tiki which given Fosters injury could be a lethal combination for your opponents given your plus plus WR core.

Was there a trade deadline at which you could trade no matter what and you are now in some kind of review period? That may impact things too.

Anyways, just some devils advocate but very rarely should trade get a veto but it is late in the year and some of the facts above may bring clarity to the other owners decisions.

Good luck!

I'm guessing since the OP mentioned a dynasty league, he keeps all his players for next year.


Trade isn't really vetoable, but its likely whoever vetoed the trade (commish, league majority) is trying to protect league integrity. Maybe if the OP explains to his league why he's mortgaging his future for a retiring Tiki, the trade can be reinstated. If the OP just found out that Tiki is retiring, then I suppose the trade will stay vetoed.
beanoX3
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 5971
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby pangbones » Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:48 am

steelerfan513 wrote:it may be a little unbalanced, but there is logic behind this trade. youre trying to win this year, and youre giving up some future talent to get that. this trade isnt vetoable.



Ding, ding, ding!!! Just like they do it baseball. His team is out of it, and plays for next year and beyond. You're trying to win this year, and have to mortgage some of your future. Keepers and dynasties IMO, should have different "veto" guidelines.

In my big keeper league, draft picks are being traded left and right up until the trade deadline.

That deal should NOT have been vetoed.
Image
pangbones
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1178
Joined: 8 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Free Bagel » Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:37 am

This deal was probably vetoed because the trade makes perfect sense. That seems to be the way things are going these days.

Not even close to vetoable...
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby Posse » Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:49 am

There really shouldn't be any vetoable trades in a dynasty league. The only ones I can think of involve collusion.
Posse
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 467
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Matthias » Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:51 am

Free Bagel wrote:This deal was probably vetoed because the trade makes perfect sense. That seems to be the way things are going these days.

Not even close to vetoable...


"Not even close" is obviously too much. It is a trade that gives pause. And it's not even clear that the person making the trade is aware that Tiki is retiring. Although, what, exactly, would you then consider "close to vetoable" if not a rental and a shmuck for two studs and an emerging stud? Really. I'm curious.

And something that occurred to me, what would you, "see no veto"ers think of a trade in a keeper league (2 keepers, say) where one team traded their first four draft picks (pre-draft) this year for someone else's first four draft picks (pre-draft) next year? Any problem with it? Or is that just ok trading this year for next?
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby Matthias » Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:41 pm

Actually, the trade is really bad since Tiki isn't even that valuable this year. He's basically a yardage-only back. He gets a lot of yardage, sure, but he's only a marginal bump over Dunn. So even in the short term, the trade isn't that great.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby Free Bagel » Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:11 pm

Matthias wrote:
Free Bagel wrote:This deal was probably vetoed because the trade makes perfect sense. That seems to be the way things are going these days.

Not even close to vetoable...


"Not even close" is obviously too much. It is a trade that gives pause. And it's not even clear that the person making the trade is aware that Tiki is retiring. Although, what, exactly, would you then consider "close to vetoable" if not a rental and a shmuck for two studs and an emerging stud? Really. I'm curious.

And something that occurred to me, what would you, "see no veto"ers think of a trade in a keeper league (2 keepers, say) where one team traded their first four draft picks (pre-draft) this year for someone else's first four draft picks (pre-draft) next year? Any problem with it? Or is that just ok trading this year for next?


I shouldn't even humor you with a response as it's insanely obvious by the way you're labelling the players that you either have something to gain in this or you've already decided what you're going to believe.

You label Tiki as not even valuable this year because he doesn't score enough TDs. A few sentences earlier you labelled Dunn as a stud. Yet Tiki has easily outscored the 31 year old Dunn this year. Unless your definition of "stud" is "not very valuable" then that's quite an odd argument you're making there.

Likewise, you're labelling Jennings, a #2 WR losing his QB soon who has struggled coming back from his injury as an emerging stud. Yet at the same time, you label DeAngelo Williams who has come on very strong since his injury and could take over the starting RB role on a team that perenially has one of the leagues best rushing attacks and was a top 3 pick in rookie drafts this year and done pretty much exactly what most expected if not more as a schmuck.

Yeah...that makes sense Image[/quote]
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby Matthias » Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:45 pm

FreeBagel wrote:I shouldn't even humor you with a response as it's insanely obvious by the way you're labelling the players that you either have something to gain in this or you've already decided what you're going to believe.


Oh, thank you, your lordship. :-/

Now since you didn't get it, I'll break it down for you.

I did say that Tiki was a slight bump up from Dunn. And he is. But not a great deal. Through week 11:
Tiki - 998 yards rushing, 311 yards receiving, 1 TD, 2 Fumbles
Dunn- 813 yards rushing, 98 yards receiving, 3 TDs, 1 Fumble

Using 1 per 10, 6 pt TDs, and -4 pt fumbles, Tiki has 124.9 pts, Dunn has 105.1. So Tiki is gaining another 2 pts per week. So that's how Dunn is a stud and Tiki isn't very valuable. Because he's not that big of an improvement over Dunn. If this is being justified on some sort of, "big play for this year" kind of deal, he should be getting more out of it than an additional two points a week. And alright, DeAngelo is fine, better than a shmuck. But he's still a rookie. And unknown how long he's going to start.

So you're getting 2 pts a week and a rookie and giving up two established starters (and you know Portis isn't going anywhere) and a rookie. If you want to call DeAngelo and Jennings as pushes, fine.

So then you're giving up Portis, who will be a top-10 pick next year, and Dunn, who will be a top 20, for an additional 2 points a week. Makes zero sense. (And by the way, spreading sense is what I have to gain in this. I don't even know what this guy's league is, much less have any players involved).

So I asked you two questions, which you avoided answering.

1) What would you consider a close to vetoable trade? Do you have any idea?
2) Would you object if, in a 2-keeper league, one guy traded his first four picks for someone else's first four picks in the next season, before the draft happens in either year?
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 18:43 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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