Trade Objection.....should I be that guy?

[SmokingMonkey]

this deal just went down in a 12tm PPR league:

Team A gets Daryl Richardson and Kenny Britt
Team B gets Lamar Miller and Hakeem Nicks

Am I the only one that is thinking that team A is getting robbed blind here?

Debating whether or not I should start an objection.
Same league last year, I was stacked at RB and traded Spiller to an owner that was HURTING at RB for Welker, and that deal was vetoed.

I think this is a worse trade since team A is getting the worse RB and worse WR in the deal, imo.

Just hard to start the objections going this early in the year. Can be a slippery slope with this crowd.

btw - both of these teams are in the same division, and I am not in their division

thoughts?

 

[fordman84]

is one of those teams the one who objected to your trade? If so, get em. If not, let people get hosed.

 

[eric5577x]

It sucks...shitty trade. I am not one to veto at all. I am a believer that lets teams do what they want. BUT....to veto your trade last yr was bull shit!!! SO yes, be that guy.....and make sure they know this is pay back for last yr.

 

[depraved]

I would veto that. No benefit for team A. Maybe they are in cahoots?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If the league has history of vetoeing a trade, then i would veto this trade... I hate leagues that vote whether a trade should be accepted and never veto... Either dont have a voting process to protect from bad trades or dont allow bad trades... I prefer leagues that dont vote...

 

[Yellow Fuzzies]

I would veto that. No benefit for team A. Maybe they are in cahoots?

The fact that one team is getting "a better deal" is no reason to veto a trade. The trading partners have determined the worth of the trade to them. As long as there is no one "in cahoots", then every trade should stand imo.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The fact that one team is getting "a better deal" is no reason to veto a trade. The trading partners have determined the worth of the trade to them. As long as there is no one "in cahoots", then every trade should stand imo.

Then dont have a voting process... If you vote then you should vote against bad trades...

 

[David_son]

I dont think its that far off Hicks is probably a better receiver and will get more chances to score points. Miller might finally bust out he is still young overall Team A is giving up more but I dont think its so one sided that I would object.....


On a side note they only vetoed your trade last year as strategy So a strong team doesnt get a position of need

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The whole only veto if "in cahoots" is a joke... How do you prove that they are in cahoots?? by it being an awful trade!!! This even though it is not as glaring, the team gets the best RB and WR... Therefore it is an awful trade... so if you are in a league that votes this trade should be vetoed...

 

[depraved]

I've been screwed in a league before by a trade such as this, it was in baseball but still fantasy none the less, and I ended up playing the guy in the finals. So while it may seem odd to use the phrase "in cahoots" it is rather odd for this trade to be rather one sided from a fantasy perspective. I would veto it on principal alone just because it is a bad trade. It would be hard to prove my conspiracy theory but it does happen and it will continue to happen throughout many leagues. Good luck either way.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

yea, just cause Im not one to stir shit up, Im not even going to mention the words: collusion, cahoots, teamwork, etc.

I will just settle on sending out a weekly reminder of how bad the trade was, and make fun of the Team A owner throughout the season. That will be reward enough. Last year, vetoes sucked all the fun out of the league for me. Won't go down that path unless I feel necessary this year.

Also, this definitely opens the door for all kinds of bad trades. If this goes through without contention, just about ANY trade is legit then. Which is how it should be, unless distinct collusion evidence can be found.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

yea, just cause Im not one to stir shit up, Im not even going to mention the words: collusion, cahoots, teamwork, etc.

I will just settle on sending out a weekly reminder of how bad the trade was, and make fun of the Team A owner throughout the season. That will be reward enough. Last year, vetoes sucked all the fun out of the league for me. Won't go down that path unless I feel necessary this year.

Also, this definitely opens the door for all kinds of bad trades. If this goes through without contention, just about ANY trade is legit then. Which is how it should be, unless distinct collusion evidence can be found.

In most of my leagues we dont even have a voting process... And i like that... we too make fun of people for making bad trades and that is their punishment... but in leagues that do vote and have history of vetoeing against trades then this is one that should be vetoed as well...

 

[SmokingMonkey]

In most of my leagues we dont even have a voting process... And i like that... we too make fun of people for making bad trades and that is their punishment... but in leagues that do vote and have history of vetoeing against trades then this is one that should be vetoed as well...

agree completely. I think there was a rule instituted this year that no vetoes/voting was even allowed. They just say that if you see a trade that looks uneven, state your case and if it has support, then a vote takes place, or something like that.

doesn't seem to be worth the hassle on my end, hopefully they all lay eggs when I play against them anyway!

 

[TKOSpikes]

Who's to say D-Rich doesn't out score Miller? Maybe the Nicks owner wants out before potential injury? Who's to say Nicks scores more than Britt anyway? I do, but that's beside the point. Maybe Britt busts out after this benching?

On the surface, I would also say Team A is getting hosed... but that's ONLY due to Nicks' potential in a full season and nothing to do with Lamar freaking Miller.

 

[TKOSpikes]

so if I wasn't clear... I would not veto.

 

[TREFF]

Who's to say D-Rich doesn't out score Miller? Maybe the Nicks owner wants out before potential injury? Who's to say Nicks scores more than Britt anyway? I do, but that's beside the point. Maybe Britt busts out after this benching?

On the surface, I would also say Team A is getting hosed... but that's ONLY due to Nicks' potential in a full season and nothing to do with Lamar freaking Miller.

Agreed % 100. Very low chance of collusion happening in week 2. Let the league owners play. He'll maybe one guy just has a hard on fire player x and is willing to do whatever to get him on the team. Let him run his team the way he wants. The players involved in this deal are not ones that would cause any seismic shift in the league.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

this deal just went down in a 12tm PPR league:

Team A gets Daryl Richardson and Kenny Britt
Team B gets Lamar Miller and Hakeem Nicks

Am I the only one that is thinking that team A is getting robbed blind here?

Debating whether or not I should start an objection.
Same league last year, I was stacked at RB and traded Spiller to an owner that was HURTING at RB for Welker, and that deal was vetoed.

I think this is a worse trade since team A is getting the worse RB and worse WR in the deal, imo.

Just hard to start the objections going this early in the year. Can be a slippery slope with this crowd.

btw - both of these teams are in the same division, and I am not in their division

thoughts?

Yeah, I'd say team B is getting the better end of that deal.....................like you said, just make fun of them, that's I what I do to my fellow money league owners..............off topic but when we do our draft a few of us like to go golfing and talk shit early; one of the other owners decided to change his team name to "Golf is for Sissies" so I just renamed him The Sissies............he wasn't happy. The other owner this year changed his team name to "Chicken Sticks" so I renamed him "Tummy Sticks" and posted that scene from "wedding Crashers" He's pissed too.

 

[tlance]

This deal looks 1 sided, but who are we to say? It isn't like one team is trading AP for Jermaine Gresham.

Team A probably views Richardson as an upgrade over Miller (I disagree, but I can see why one might think that).

If the reason to veto is because some vetoed your deal last year, then I think maybe you should find a new league. No good league would veto a deal like that. If 1 owner has a history of making bad deals, then that owner should get the boot.

Having trades vetoed sucks. Once, in a basketball league years ago, I had a trade vetoed because the majority of the league thought I was getting ripped off. I gave up an average center for a no-name guard. Thing was, I had a good idea that the guard was going to break out and I had no need for the center. Fast forward to the end of the year and that guard was a top 30 player while the center was waiver fodder. I was pissed.

What if Miller never gets past the timeshare with Thomas? What if Nicks gets hurt again? What if Britt breaks out again?

Unless you can predict the future, you should let this trade go. What if you are wrong?

 

[averagejoe]

Nice points and counterpoints all the way around.

I'd like more background information - on the owners. You mentioned that you've been in this league before...

Do these owners know what they're doing? From your experience if it seems like they are fantasy veterans, I would tend to let it go. I'd personally have a problem with a "seasoned" owner taking advantage of a green owner. (In many leagues that I'm involved in, the commish blocks or vetoes the lopsided trades unless the "weaker" owner in the deal really wants it to go through and appeals.)

From an objective owner perspective, if the "soon-to-acquire Miller and Nicks" team looks like it will vastly improve, you may want to exercise your veto just to keep parity in the league that you're also trying to win. Not sure if $$$ is involved, but that would sway me (which is why I don't do this for cash).

 

[MilkSpiller22]

This deal looks 1 sided, but who are we to say? It isn't like one team is trading AP for Jermaine Gresham.

Team A probably views Richardson as an upgrade over Miller (I disagree, but I can see why one might think that).

If the reason to veto is because some vetoed your deal last year, then I think maybe you should find a new league. No good league would veto a deal like that. If 1 owner has a history of making bad deals, then that owner should get the boot.

Having trades vetoed sucks. Once, in a basketball league years ago, I had a trade vetoed because the majority of the league thought I was getting ripped off. I gave up an average center for a no-name guard. Thing was, I had a good idea that the guard was going to break out and I had no need for the center. Fast forward to the end of the year and that guard was a top 30 player while the center was waiver fodder. I was pissed.

What if Miller never gets past the timeshare with Thomas? What if Nicks gets hurt again? What if Britt breaks out again?

Unless you can predict the future, you should let this trade go. What if you are wrong?

What bothers me is when leagues have voting process and never vote against... whats the point of going through the whole process... if you have a process that stops awful trades then stop the trades... hopefully this will teach the leagues to abolish the voting rule... The whole i only vote against when i think owners are colluding is absolute bull, because how do u prove it?? the only way is if it is an awful trade, so why does it matter if the trade is significant or not??