Why was this Dynasty Trade Vetoed?!?!

[Deathwarmedover]

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.

This league gives yardage bonuses so Tiki is 4th in points right behind FWP. Dunn is OK but back in the pack. I know I overpaid even with the bonus but I am also counting on D Williams to be solid in the future. I watched the USC/ND game with some people from this league and only one would admit to voting to veto it and he said he was opposed to any trade that made one team stronger in one year and another stronger in a different year because it was unfair to the other 10 teams both years.

Thanks guys for reassuring me that I am not missing something important.

Steve

[spodog]

Should not have been vetoed.

You probably have a nazi commissioner, like a lot of leagues.

Absolutely this trade should have went thru.

[portisfan24]

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.

This league gives yardage bonuses so Tiki is 4th in points right behind FWP. Dunn is OK but back in the pack. I know I overpaid even with the bonus but I am also counting on D Williams to be solid in the future. I watched the USC/ND game with some people from this league and only one would admit to voting to veto it and he said he was opposed to any trade that made one team stronger in one year and another stronger in a different year because it was unfair to the other 10 teams both years.

Thanks guys for reassuring me that I am not missing something important.

Steve

Are you kidding me? How does this person remember to breathe let alone have a conversation and play fantasy football?

[TheRawDAWG]

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?

Dunn is Done. He's going to be 32 next year and probably not even the starter.

To consider Jennings a STUD is crazy. He's had what 2 good games this year? He's #2 rookie WR with a possible first year QB coming in next year.

Portis is a STUD. No question there.



Tiki, is a STUD. remember how well he did towards the end of last year. He doesn't score as much as one would like. But his yardage is huge!! Now he is struggling, but I'm sure he'll put up more points than portis will this year. And thats basically the point of the deal. And he'll also get more points than Dunn, who is losing some carries and hasn't looked good in weeks.


Plus, he probably gets the biggest WC of the trade in D-Will. This RB is a big time playmaker that could end up being the best player in the deal. Not yet, but it is possible. And even if he's not this is what the other team is getting for the future. The trade makes so much sense it's not even funny.



And with regards to your question about the picks. Well trading the picks is pretty much colusion. This is not the same thing. this is a team that realizes it has no chance to play for this year and is trying to get value for a RB that is retiring at the end of the year. And then you have the other team that has an injured RB but is in the playoffs hunt. And in order to make that playoff push he needs to get rid of this years dead weight. Like I said, this deal makes so much sense it's not even funny. The trading of the picks doesn't make any sense other than to colude to win.

[Twisted Sister]

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

[/quote]

I agree with Free Bagel.

[Matthias]

And with regards to your question about the picks. Well trading the picks is pretty much colusion. This is not the same thing. this is a team that realizes it has no chance to play for this year and is trying to get value for a RB that is retiring at the end of the year. And then you have the other team that has an injured RB but is in the playoffs hunt. And in order to make that playoff push he needs to get rid of this years dead weight. Like I said, this deal makes so much sense it's not even funny. The trading of the picks doesn't make any sense other than to colude to win.

Alright. I would just say that there is shades of collusion any time you have a big deal that helps one team in one year and another team in the next. It's not absolute, obviously. And I'm not saying teams that are out of it can't trade to help themselves in the next year. But it is a continuum to take into account.

[Crippler]

I dont know your league situation, but maybe they think you are just trading away your future because you wont stick around for next year? Just an idea.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

Whoever said that it might be because people are weary of you leaving is absolutley correct... It would be an easy thing for someone to just take the league title this year, and abandon in next year, especially in a money league...

And to answer the whole collusion part, I don't think it's collusion at all. And Matthias, are there shades of collusion in a trade where both teams gain, and neither lose?

Now there could be collusion, if somebody made a better offer for Tiki and the Tiki-owner said no.

Picks now for picks later? OK in my book. If somebody wanted to, they could "sabotage" that type of deal by offering a better deal for those 4 picks.

[Matthias]

And to answer the whole collusion part, I don't think it's collusion at all. And Matthias, are there shades of collusion in a trade where both teams gain, and neither lose?

Sure. Look at OPEC. They collude to restrict oil output, oil prices go up, and they all benefit. It's just this one idea of collusion (which is really just working together, against competition) of someone dumping their roster to their buddy that people have in their head while cooperative collusion is possible and happens all the time.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

So Matthias, would you say then that you are opposed to this type of collusion? Or are you just saying that this type of collusion is present...?

Because I think in FF, that this "cooperative collusion" should be legal. Otherwise, what's the point in trading?