What does it take to get a trade veto'd? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

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

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Members Only Jackets_ffc » Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:55 pm

Bowie wrote:
Members Only Jackets wrote:
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
One for the thumb...
Members Only Jackets_ffc
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 2005
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Bowie » Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:22 pm

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).
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby BGbootha » Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:22 pm

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.
Image
BGbootha
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 3830
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Teaching is the Greatest Job in the World!!! (during the Summer)

Postby Vlad the Impaler_ffc » Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:03 pm

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.
Vengeance is mine.
Vlad the Impaler_ffc
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 535
Joined: 9 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tirgoviste, Walachia

Postby bungle613 » Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:07 am

bgbootha wrote: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.
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

Postby The Guru » Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:21 am

bungle613 wrote: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.
"Let's hug it out"
The Guru
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 561
Joined: 26 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: New York, NY

Postby Bowie » Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:24 am

Agreed. Stupid owners are there to be taken advantage of. If you don't do it, than you may be one of them.
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby fiz » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:03 am

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.
Last edited by fiz on Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
fiz
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 317
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: chillin' out maxin' and relaxin' all cool and all shooting some bball outside of the school

Postby fiz » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:04 am

oops double post - here's a pic instead

Image
fiz
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 317
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: chillin' out maxin' and relaxin' all cool and all shooting some bball outside of the school

Postby awwchrist » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:10 am

bgbootha wrote: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.
Image
________________________________________
26-13
Only 3 leagues this year. No sense in rooting for everyone in the NFL.
awwchrist
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterInnovative MemberSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9433
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: see that 1:hidden? That's me.

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 16:38 hours
(and 34 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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