What does it take to get a trade veto'd?

[Members Only Jackets_ffc]

I gave:
-T Henry
-M Booker

I got:
-T Owens
-K Jones

That trade should not get vetoed anyway.

That's what I thought! The other guy is very happy and so am I.....everyone else is pissed and thinks I pulled a fast one.....

My WR's are now:
-Hines
-TO
-J Porter
-Fitz
-Watts

[Bowie]

Don't get me wrong, you got the better of the trade. It's just that a trade should only be vetoed if it looks like callusion. This trade could be argued either way (Henry is more proven than Jones). You are taking a risk getting rid of Henry, but I happen to think it will pay off (Jones could be good, could be great, and TO is way better than Booker).

[BGbootha]

Now see these are the threads that get the blood boiling. I know its been beat to death in the baseball side of hte cafe. But am i the only one out there that believes that a trade should only be vetoed if you think there is cheating going on.

It amazes me that people will veto or vote to veto a trade simply because they would not do it. Personally, if you veto a trade that i am involved in, you are calling me a cheater. The veto is put into place to stop collusion, not to stop a trade that you don't like.


*i know this doesn't really fit in with the rest of the thread. but i am a little bitter after a trade i liked got vetoed and no one is posting why they vetoed it.

[Vlad the Impaler_ffc]

I totally agree BGB. With every single trade there are going to be opinions that one side got the better of it. People who vote to veto a trade like this one totally miss the point. The question is not "would I do this trade?" or "does this trade help or hurt my team?". The question is does this trade stink so bad that these guys are cheating.

[bungle613]

Now see these are the threads that get the blood boiling. I know its been beat to death in the baseball side of hte cafe. But am i the only one out there that believes that a trade should only be vetoed if you think there is cheating going on.

It amazes me that people will veto or vote to veto a trade simply because they would not do it. Personally, if you veto a trade that i am involved in, you are calling me a cheater. The veto is put into place to stop collusion, not to stop a trade that you don't like.


*i know this doesn't really fit in with the rest of the thread. but i am a little bitter after a trade i liked got vetoed and no one is posting why they vetoed it.

I'm almost with ya on this one BG. Collusion is rally the only reason to definitely veto a trade

BUT...

On occasion, a deal needs to be vetoed to protect the stupid. There are owners out there that are weasels and will try and go after the rookies to FF. The rookies and the stupid need to be aided on accoasion. You can't simply say... well, too bad newb, learn as you go and hand another guy a championship that is unearned.

Those are the only 2 reasons I ever have to veto a deal.

[The Guru]

BUT...

On occasion, a deal needs to be vetoed to protect the stupid. There are owners out there that are weasels and will try and go after the rookies to FF. The rookies and the stupid need to be aided on accoasion. You can't simply say... well, too bad newb, learn as you go and hand another guy a championship that is unearned.

Those are the only 2 reasons I ever have to veto a deal.

I disagree.

If there is a stupid owner in your league then every single owner has just as much of an opportunity to take advantage of them as everyone else.

Its your job to be the first owner to get him to do a bad trade before another owner does it.

There are plenty of stupid owners out there who aren't FF rookies. Some people have played for years, but they just don't "get it."

In my local league that I play in every year with the same guys there is one owner who always makes bad trades. He's been playing for years and knows what he is doing, but he just doesn't "get it" and does bad trades.

I recently got him to trade me Ahman Green and every other owner in our league said, "I raped him." But no one veto'ed the trade because it wasn't cheating. It was him just being a moron.

[Bowie]

Agreed. Stupid owners are there to be taken advantage of. If you don't do it, than you may be one of them.

[fiz]

It's like the old saying - If you can't identify the sucker in the room, it's you.

i also think collusion should be the main reason for vetoing a trade, and depending on the competitive level of the league, protecting people new to FF is ok too...but if the parties to the trade knows what's going on for the most part, let managers manage.

[fiz]

oops double post - here's a pic instead

[awwchrist]

But am i the only one out there that believes that a trade should only be vetoed if you think there is cheating going on.

No dude..I'm totally with you.

As a commish, I give all the rope to my franchise owners need to hang themselves with.

You can tell the trades that are "honest mistakes" from collusion cases.