Should this have been vetoed??? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Should this have been vetoed???

Moderator: Football Moderators

Should this have been vetoed???

Postby Alvarado13 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 am

This trade (the trade is Larry Fitzgearld and Selvin Young for Roddy White and Julius Jones ) was just vetoed in my league. I was wondering if people thought this trade was fair. Keep in mind the team trading Fitzgerald and Young is 0 and 4 (non keeper league) while the other team is 2 and 2. League scoring is basic Yahoo rules with no points for catches or runs. Trading deadline is week six. The first time these team tried this trade it was Fitzgerald and Pierre Thomas for Julius Jones and Brandon Lloyd. That was quickly vetoed as well. I would love to hear what people think before the league rips each other apart lol...jk. Here are their full line ups...

Team 1 (2-2)

Tony Romo Kurt Warner
Roddy White Donald Driver Brandon Lloyd Marques Colston Patrick Crayton Owen Daniels
LaDainian Tomlinson Julius Jones Jonathan Stewart Fred Taylor Darren Sproles
Dallas Clark
Matt Prater
Tampa Bay

Team 2 (0-4)

Jay Cutler
Larry Fitzgerald Eddie Royal Hines Ward Lance Moore Antonio Bryant Chris Chambers
Selvin Young Willis McGahee Pierre Thomas Rudi Johnson
Jason Witten
Steve Breaston
Rob Bironas
Minnesota
New York
Last edited by Alvarado13 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Alvarado13
Monday Morning Quarterback


Posts: 4
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby bungle613 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:40 am

It's not a very smart deal by team 2 but it is not even close to a veto. Jones while doing fine is not an every down back and will lose carries to Morris upon his return and Fitz is just better and in a better situation the White but there is zero chance I would veto it.
Image
Image
bungle613
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10988
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: straight ahead, hang a left, look down

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby Goody » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:37 am

Unless they are colluding, the trade should be allowed. It is not up to the other owners to say how these teams can manage their rosters. You league needs to stop being trade nazis and let these owners manage their own teams.
Image
OKCHomers
OKCFFL Auction
Goody
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2413
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby grover99 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:01 pm

Alvarado13 wrote:This trade (the trade is Larry Fitzgearld and Julius Jones for Roddy White and Selvin Young) was just vetoed in my league. I was wondering if people thought this trade was fair. Keep in mind the team trading Fitzgerald and Young is 0 and 4 (non keeper league) while the other team is 2 and 2. League scoring is basic Yahoo rules with no points for catches or runs. Trading deadline is week six. The first time these team tried this trade it was Fitzgerald and Pierre Thomas for Julius Jones and Brandon Lloyd. That was quickly vetoed as well. I would love to hear what people think before the league rips each other apart lol...jk. Here are their full line ups...

Team 1 (2-2)

Tony Romo Kurt Warner
Roddy White Donald Driver Brandon Lloyd Marques Colston Patrick Crayton Owen Daniels
LaDainian Tomlinson Julius Jones Jonathan Stewart Fred Taylor Darren Sproles
Dallas Clark
Matt Prater
Tampa Bay

Team 2 (0-4)


Jay Cutler
Larry Fitzgerald Eddie Royal Hines Ward Lance Moore Antonio Bryant Chris Chambers
Selvin Young Willis McGahee Pierre Thomas Rudi Johnson
Jason Witten
Steve Breaston
Rob Bironas
Minnesota
New York


I think you mean Fitz and Young for White and Jones. I see absolutly no problem with that trade. I am also in the group that only thinks a trade should be vetoes if there is cheating going on. The way you have the trade would make me question both of the owner to make sure that they both had solid reasons for the trade, IMO that trade(Fitz,Jones for White, Young) is very lopsided, and I would want to make sure there wasn't any collusion taking place.
12 Team 1/2 PPR Dynasty Auction League.
QB: Cutler, Hill
RB: Turner,Slaton,Benson,Mendenhall,Harrison,Robinson, Greene
WR: CJ2, Fitz, Smith(NYG), Brunce, Morgan,Bryant
TE: Carlson
grover99
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterTrivia Time Trial ChampionSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 1821
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: missouri

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby Alvarado13 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:44 pm

You're correct and thanks for pointing that out. I meant Fitz & Young for Jones & White.

I think the problem people are having is that the owner trading Fitzgearld & Young is very much lacking in football knowledge. In fact one year he purposely released all his players so that "everyone can have a shot at them" since he wasn't making the playoffs.

People also see an 0 and 4 team trading with a contender as a bit fishy. Personally I understand both sides of the agruement.
Alvarado13
Monday Morning Quarterback


Posts: 4
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby Script-Ohio » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:27 am

An 0-4 team trading with a contender isn't fishy at ALL, what the heck? An 0-4 team needs wins NOW and might have to take less than face value or take some risks in a trade to shake things up. And guess who usually has the depth to trade with them? Guys at the top of the league. Heck I'm in 1st place in my league right now and I'm *targeting* the guys at the bottom to trade with because I know they need to make moves to stay in it.
But, yeah, the guy shouldn't be trading Fitz for what he's getting back but people shouldn't veto a trade because one guy is smarter than the other
Script-Ohio
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 657
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby Goody » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:13 am

Alvarado13 wrote:You're correct and thanks for pointing that out. I meant Fitz & Young for Jones & White.

I think the problem people are having is that the owner trading Fitzgearld & Young is very much lacking in football knowledge. In fact one year he purposely released all his players so that "everyone can have a shot at them" since he wasn't making the playoffs.

People also see an 0 and 4 team trading with a contender as a bit fishy. Personally I understand both sides of the agruement.


The veto is not used to protect an owner for his lack of fantasy football knowledge. The veto is used to protect the league from collusion (cheating) and that is it. You all do not have the right to manage this owners team. Record has nothing to do with anything in trades unless there is a reason to suspect collusion which in this case, I do not believe is happening.

The case of this owner dropping all of his players in the past is called roster dumping and it is up to the commissioner to put all of the players that he dropped back on his roster and to lock the owner from making moves. Roster dumping is not allowed.
Image
OKCHomers
OKCFFL Auction
Goody
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2413
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby flotsamnjetsam » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:12 am

Goody wrote:The veto is not used to protect an owner for his lack of fantasy football knowledge. The veto is used to protect the league from collusion (cheating) and that is it.



;-D

Trades should be vetoed for 1 reason: if cheating/colluding is suspected. If you don't suspect cheating/colluding, you must allow the trade to go through no matter how lopsided it looks on paper. A bad trade like that might help the "unknowledgable" owner actually learn something and get better in the future. This is also the reason why no leagues should allow the owners to vote on trades. A lot of owners don't understand the concept of how vetoing trades should really work, so they veto a trade just because they think it makes 1 of the teams better. :-t
Image

Thanks to deluxe_247 for the awesome sig!
flotsamnjetsam
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 17169
(Past Year: 78)
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: New York State Of Mind: 18-1

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby knighttrain1 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:49 pm

I couldn't agree more with those opinions above. You should really educate your league members on why trades should be vetoed. It's a shame when players vote to veto trades because they are jealous that they didn't get as good a deal on their trade offers. Besides. Julius Jones looks like a stud this week, but suddenly the Hawks become the passing offense they were late last year when they were losing and his sudden stud status evaporates. There is always a reason somebody is prospecting a deal. I traded a guy Marvin Harrison for Chris Johnson earlier this year. Everyone thought I was crazy for letting Marv go for some rookie who had so-so stats in a time share. Not so dumb now.

Please help

viewtopic.php?t=414475
12 team redraft: QB Warner; RB LT, R. Brown, F. Jones; WR R. Moss, V. Jackson; TE Carlson: LB Barrett Ruud; DL Kevin Williams; DB Erik Coleman; K Prater: Bench -- Wells, Sproles, Ginn, Coffee, Campbell, Norwood, Meachem, Henry, Davis, Britt
knighttrain1
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 104
Joined: 5 Sep 2008
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Should this have been vetoed???

Postby spodog » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:12 pm

flotsamnjetsam wrote:
Goody wrote:The veto is not used to protect an owner for his lack of fantasy football knowledge. The veto is used to protect the league from collusion (cheating) and that is it.



;-D

Trades should be vetoed for 1 reason: if cheating/colluding is suspected. If you don't suspect cheating/colluding, you must allow the trade to go through no matter how lopsided it looks on paper.


Agreed 100%. Don't manage their teams for them, just oversee the league.
Image
spodog
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerCafe SpotterWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4058
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: At my trailer on the beach in Malibu


Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 20:16 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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