ANyone ever quit because your trade was veto'd? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

ANyone ever quit because your trade was veto'd?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Jockpunk » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:22 pm

If it wasn't a work league, or if you dont think there will be any consequences, I'd quit the league. With losers like that in your league how enjoyable is it really going to be for you? I would ruin it for them.
Jockpunk
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 213
Joined: 21 May 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Jockpunk » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:23 pm

better yet, just tell them you are going to knock their teeth out if they veto it. That should work.
Jockpunk
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 213
Joined: 21 May 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby bagobonez » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:28 pm

I commish a league and I vetoed a trade. This was the trade...

This guy wanted to give RB Priest Holmes and RB Artose Pinner for RB Curtis Martin and RB Steve Jackson. BUt here's the real catch. The team that was going to end up with Holmes already had Culpepper and TOmlinson. Can you imagine a team with Culpepper, Tomlinson and Holmes? Might as well just give him the trophy right then. I vetoed the trade because the other team was getting ripped off and didn't know it, and the rest of us would have been playing for 2nd place.
"90% of the game is half mental" - John Madden
Image
bagobonez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4463
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Atop my league's fantasy throne

Postby Payne Dailey » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:34 pm

bagobonez wrote:I commish a league and I vetoed a trade. This was the trade...

This guy wanted to give RB Priest Holmes and RB Artose Pinner for RB Curtis Martin and RB Steve Jackson. BUt here's the real catch. The team that was going to end up with Holmes already had Culpepper and TOmlinson. Can you imagine a team with Culpepper, Tomlinson and Holmes? Might as well just give him the trophy right then. I vetoed the trade because the other team was getting ripped off and didn't know it, and the rest of us would have been playing for 2nd place.


Wouldn't want you as my commish if your vetoing trades just because a guy already has a good team. I don't think that trade is as far off as you do and I wouldn't have vetoed it just because it made a good team better. Unless there is pure collusion going on you should let the trades people make between each other go through.
Payne Dailey
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2513
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby East Bay Ray » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:40 pm

bagobonez wrote:I commish a league and I vetoed a trade. This was the trade...

This guy wanted to give RB Priest Holmes and RB Artose Pinner for RB Curtis Martin and RB Steve Jackson. BUt here's the real catch. The team that was going to end up with Holmes already had Culpepper and TOmlinson. Can you imagine a team with Culpepper, Tomlinson and Holmes? Might as well just give him the trophy right then. I vetoed the trade because the other team was getting ripped off and didn't know it, and the rest of us would have been playing for 2nd place.


If these are indeed the facts, then a veto is acceptable IMO.

Would anyone here give up Priest Holmes and Artose Pinner for Curtis Martin and Steve Jackson? If you say yes, then I want to be in your league ;-)


Its not about the catch. It about preventing someone from getting ripped off. How is that fair to the rest of the owners if given the opportunity any owner could have gotten Holmes for cheap. The commish is there to prevent that from happening.
Last edited by East Bay Ray on Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
East Bay Ray
Water Boy
Water Boy


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

Postby Payne Dailey » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:44 pm

East Bay Ray wrote:If these are indeed the facts, then a veto is acceptable IMO.

Would anyone here give up Priest Holmes and Artose Pinner for Curtis Martin and Steve Jackson? If you say yes, then I want to be in your league ;-)


I wouldn't unless I had a gun to my head. Vetoing because a team is good and going to get better is just wrong IMO.
Payne Dailey
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2513
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Flockers » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:44 pm

This situation is the reason that all me leagues are commish controlled on trades.
Flockers
General Manager
General Manager

Graphics Expert
Posts: 4257
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Members Only Jackets_ffc » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:44 pm

East Bay Ray wrote:I need to see both rosters. If C Martin is his best RB, how is giving up T Jones and T Owens and getting M Booker and T Henry going to make his team better?


It's K Jones, an unproven rookie ...I have a backup plan if this doesn't go thru...





me and the other team involved will have a heavy finger when it comes to vetoing other trades...we're not happy about this--again, it may still pass.
;-D
One for the thumb...
Members Only Jackets_ffc
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

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

Postby nola_saint » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:08 pm

Flockers wrote:This situation is the reason that all me leagues are commish controlled on trades.

I agree, this is the best way to handle trades, as long as you take feedback from the teams involved in the trade, as well as the rest of the league.

This trade should be allowed. In our 2 keeper league, this trade happened:

TO and 11th pick
for
picks 4 and 6th

which translates to TO and the 13th pick of 14 rounds for picks 6 and 8 after you add the 2 keepers.
It ended up being this:

TO and Jason Witten for Reggie Wayne and Justin McCareins with his 2 4th picks and NE and Vandy with his 2 6th picks. I had offered a combo of 1st and 2nd rounders before the draft and later picks, but it did not get accepted. It left me with a grude, but I let this trade go. They both wanted it, and it wasn't to spite me, the guy just wanted 2 younger WRs instead of TO.
nola_saint
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1152
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Austin via New Orleans

Postby portisfan24 » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:18 pm

East Bay Ray wrote:I need to see both rosters. If C Martin is his best RB, how is giving up T Jones and T Owens and getting M Booker and T Henry going to make his team better?


umm because henry is better than martin? Ya trade vetoes suck. i voted for a trade veto but only because it was portis for for jimmy smith or someone like that. and as far as commish vs vote vetoes, id have to say that: i like votes just because the majority isnt usually wrong.
Image
portisfan24
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 6196
Joined: 4 May 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 17:40 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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