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 bungle613 » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:23 am

The Guru wrote:
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.


I agree... well sort of anyways.

I'm all for getting the better end of a deal, sometimes a much better end. When I say stupid or rookie, I truly mean that. I'm not talking about getting Ahman for S. Davis and Booker. I'm talking about getting Ahman for Tatum Bell because the guy thinks Bell is going to be a star. I'm not letting that go through. I'm not going to call it collusion or cheating either but it ain't going to pass.
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 GateKeeper » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:38 am

Completely disagree with you guys,

First of all you can never pinpoint collusion...because no one will admit that they are cheating or trying to cheat. A trade is such a debatable subject. You can trade Randy Moss for Mcgahee, because 1 coach might believe that Mcagahee will be the starter.

My league works this way for the last 5 years. After 2 years of headaches the league elected a commishioner. The commishioner is voted cause he is very knowledgable and people know him to be an honest person. So that is the way we worked it out.

BTW: Booker and Henry for TO and K.Jones....at the beginning of the season it would be ok. Currently....this trade will get vetoed so fast.
GateKeeper
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 78
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby aussieboy » Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:11 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.



Well said. Trades should only be vetoed if collusion is either suspected or proved. Otherwise if both teams are doing a trade to improve their respective teams then no trade can be vetoed. Regardless of how much team A is better off than Team B in the deal.
aussieboy
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1398
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Lonely island

Postby bungle613 » Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:42 am

A question for all of you who feel collusion is the ONLY reason. I'm almost with you guys, almost.

Doug Gabriel for Priest Holmes. No collusion whatsoever. Does the deal go through?

LT2 for Jerry Rice because Rice is his favourite player. Does it go through?
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 aussieboy » Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:58 am

Ok this is tough because youve gone to the absolute extreme to make a point.

However in your examples, yes the trade still goes through. There is no collusion. Vetoing is not a safety net to stop idiots from unwillingly destroying their team.

Some people do things like take Vick 1st overall in a draft. Do you veto that pick and force them to pick again? No you dont, its their stupidiy.

Trade goes thru.
Last edited by aussieboy on Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
aussieboy
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1398
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Lonely island

Postby bungle613 » Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:55 am

aussieboy wrote:Ok this is tough because youve gone to the absolute extreme to make a point.

However in your examples, yes the trade still goes through. There is no collusion. Vetoing is not a safety net to stop idiots from unwillingly destroying their team.

Some people do things like take Vick 1st overall in a draft. Do you veto that pick and force them to pick again? No you dont, its their stupidiy. Same goes with your example

Trade goes thru.


wow. That is literally all I have on this one... wow!
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 East Bay Ray » Thu Sep 02, 2004 9:23 am

bungle613 wrote:
aussieboy wrote:Ok this is tough because youve gone to the absolute extreme to make a point.

However in your examples, yes the trade still goes through. There is no collusion. Vetoing is not a safety net to stop idiots from unwillingly destroying their team.

Some people do things like take Vick 1st overall in a draft. Do you veto that pick and force them to pick again? No you dont, its their stupidiy. Same goes with your example

Trade goes thru.


wow. That is literally all I have on this one... wow!


Thats a bad analogy. Everyone benefits if Vick is taken first. If there are rookies or noobs in the league, make them make mistakes in the draft.

Someone trading LT2 for Jerry Rice because Rice is his favorite player? It only benefits one owner and puts all the other owners at a disadvantage.
East Bay Ray
Water Boy
Water Boy


Posts: 90
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: NJ

Postby bolkonsky_ffc » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:46 am

The only reason to ever veto a trade is collusion or the strong suspicion of collusion.

The rationale behind this approach has many prongs:

1) It is virtually impossible to evaluate a trade at the time it is made. History tells all.

2) The veto power is a powerful tool...respect it. This is related to point 1.

Example: Prior to 2003 but aftet the draft/auction, Team A trades Gannon, W. Green and Burress to Team B for S. Moss, S. Smith and some rookie named D. Davis... League cries out in protest...trade vetoed...8 weeks into the year, Team A is furious b/c his trade was vetoed based on idle speculation and now his team is in last instead of first ...integrity of league severely damaged, perhaps beyond repair (and almost definitely so if it is a keeper or dynasty league).

3) It makes a league less fun when teams have to "justify" their trades to other teams or if they feel that they have to make a trade "look" fair.

4) It is not the American way.

Implementing the collusion-only veto system is actually quite easy when you understand the concept of burden of proof. Simply put, a trade that looks questionable (and I am not talking about a trade where everyone agrees that one of the teams probably got the better end of the deal...I'm talking about your Holmes for Calico-type deals) places the burden of proof on the owners who were involved. If the two (or more) owners cannot explain the their respective trains of thought (even if those trains are going off of a cliff), the trade is vetoed. Otherwise, and this will be the vast majority of the time, the trade stands.

If you have people in your league that can lie to the enitre league then you have bigger problems than that trade.
"I'll moider da bum."
- Heavyweight boxer Tony Galento, when asked what he thought of William Shakespeare
bolkonsky_ffc
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 58
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Chicago

Postby Plindsey88 » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:55 am

Members Only Jackets wrote:
goleafsgo96 wrote:
tman570 wrote:who did the trade involve exactly?


ya i wanna hear it



The trade went thru!!! Thank GOD!

I gave:
-T Henry
-M Booker

I got:
-T Owens
-K Jones


a few people were out of town and didn't have a chance to veto. ;-D


That sounds reasonable... You won the deal, but it's not anything near collusion....
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby BrutallyHuge » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:55 am

bolkonsky wrote:The only reason to ever veto a trade is collusion or the strong suspicion of collusion.

2) The veto power is a powerful tool...respect it. This is related to point 1.

Example: Prior to 2003 but aftet the draft/auction, Team A trades Gannon, W. Green and Burress to Team B for S. Moss, S. Smith and some rookie named D. Davis... League cries out in protest...trade vetoed...8 weeks into the year, Team A is furious b/c his trade was vetoed based on idle speculation and now his team is in last instead of first ...integrity of league severely damaged, perhaps beyond repair (and almost definitely so if it is a keeper or dynasty league).


Instead of using your example, why don't you comment on the Rice for LT2 one? In your example, you used young players with a ton of upside. In the LT2 example, the player was trading away an obvious washed-up Jerry Rice with little upside for a monster young stud.

If I trade Jam Lewis for Chris Brown, I'm getting an unproven young kid. You can't veto that. But if you trade Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith for someone like Randy Moss or LT2, that really upsets the competitive balance of the league.


Here's what I think. Fantasy football is fun. It's enjoyable. It makes games like Cardinals vs. Bengals interesting. If someone is trading LT2 for Rice, that upsets the competitive balance of the league. People get outraged, people lose interest, fun dissapates. Even if it's not collusion, trades should be vetoed for the greater good of the league.

Like someone said earlier, if Vick is drafted first overall, everyone benefits. But if someone trades LT2 for Scobey or Antowain Smith, only one team benefits and EVERY OTHER TEAM is hurt, because that one team is now ridiculously stronger.

For me, fantasy football is about entertainment first, money second. For you cutthroats, maybe it's the other way around. But I won't let one trade ruin the league and diminish the fun factor for the rest of the participants.
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 18:47 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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