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

[MilkSpiller22]

Milk. .we've explained this time after time. . to protect against collusion. We've given you the "I'd you don't want it, vote it down in YOUR league", and we'll give it to you all day long. If you can't see the purpose behind the voting rule. . please stop asking why. . we've told you why, you're refusing to either understand, or to accept it. . either way, this conversation is getting old

treff, didnt realize that "we've explained it" means we are correct... and i did not realize that this was becoming a touchy subject... i apologize if offending you...

 

[wilwhite]

All i am saying is if there is a system to protect the league from bad trades why not use it?

The real solution (if you can't trust everyone) is a chit system. Being either party in a proposed trade costs you a chit and vetoing costs you a chit, and you have a limited number of chits. That way people only veto when it really bothers them.

 

[TREFF]

treff, didnt realize that "we've explained it" means we are correct... and i did not realize that this was becoming a touchy subject... i apologize if offending you...

Never said anyone was right or wrong. . different leagues, different owners, different rules, to each tier own. Just seemed like a round and round pointless, never ending conversation.

 

[Bandit]

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?

This trade looks to be about 65/35 for team B to me. Personally I don't think that's enough to veto it. Richardson and Miller are a push to me in a PPR, but Nicks is a lot better than Britt. Britt got benched and now he's complaining about the offense. I can see somebody wanting Richardson over Miller enough to make the trade though. I think it has to be at least 80/20 for me to veto it, but that's just my rule. Most of the time when one of these trades go down I'm really more upset that I couldn't come up with a deal for owner A before owner B did, but that never seems to happen for me. On a side note, for any of you guys that watch the League, all I hear when I see these trades now is the term "trade r*pe", as in team A is getting trade raped by team B.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

It's a democratic vote. Make your opinion heard whether you find this trade fair or not. If enough people feel that this trade is unfair, it won't pass. Simple as that.

Personally, I like Miller more than I like Richardson. But a 1 for 1 trade wouldn't seem lopsided. The stupid part is Nicks for Britt. Doesn't make any sense. This is very veto-able.

 

[tlance]

I feel sorry for those who would veto this deal. What that tells me is that you have never been in a really great league where you are able to trust the other owners in the league whether you agree or not.

Here is a deal that was agreed upon today in one of my leagues:

Team A sends: David Wilson, Antonio Brown, and Jermichael Finley
Team B sends: Rashard Mendenhall, Reggie Wayne, and Brent Celek

Now, this deal is just as bad as the headliner of this thread IMO, but there is no way I am vetoing. Team A is trying to make his team better, he is just way underselling on Wilson and Brown. Finley's inclusion helps team B a lot, but does not hurt a since he has Graham already. It isn't my job to protect him from making a bad deal, and yes, I am kicking myself for not making a play for Wilson. His owner is notorious for being impatient.

I am done commenting on this because it seems both sides are beating a dead horse.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I feel sorry for those who would veto this deal. What that tells me is that you have never been in a really great league where you are able to trust the other owners in the league whether you agree or not.

Here is a deal that was agreed upon today in one of my leagues:

Team A sends: David Wilson, Antonio Brown, and Jermichael Finley
Team B sends: Rashard Mendenhall, Reggie Wayne, and Brent Celek

Now, this deal is just as bad as the headliner of this thread IMO, but there is no way I am vetoing. Team A is trying to make his team better, he is just way underselling on Wilson and Brown. Finley's inclusion helps team B a lot, but does not hurt a since he has Graham already. It isn't my job to protect him from making a bad deal, and yes, I am kicking myself for not making a play for Wilson. His owner is notorious for being impatient.

I am done commenting on this because it seems both sides are beating a dead horse.

Tiance, this trade is nowhere near as bad as the headliner... and when i say i would vote against a trade, i am actually attempting to end the voting system because i think the voting system is the worst thing... I just dont understand if you are always going to vote a trade in why vote at all??

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I have never voted in any of my leagues and i am proud of that!!!

 

[Sam Sportboy]

I feel sorry for those who would veto this deal. What that tells me is that you have never been in a really great league where you are able to trust the other owners in the league whether you agree or not.

Here is a deal that was agreed upon today in one of my leagues:

Team A sends: David Wilson, Antonio Brown, and Jermichael Finley
Team B sends: Rashard Mendenhall, Reggie Wayne, and Brent Celek

Now, this deal is just as bad as the headliner of this thread IMO, but there is no way I am vetoing. Team A is trying to make his team better, he is just way underselling on Wilson and Brown. Finley's inclusion helps team B a lot, but does not hurt a since he has Graham already. It isn't my job to protect him from making a bad deal, and yes, I am kicking myself for not making a play for Wilson. His owner is notorious for being impatient.

I am done commenting on this because it seems both sides are beating a dead horse.

So basically team A wanted Wayne and to get him he took a downgrade at RB and threw in Finley to sweeten the deal. Since he already has Graham my guess is his team is strong at RB and weak at WR. If that's the case I can understand the deal. Finley would be nothing more than a bye week/injury replacement for him. Maybe he feels Celek will have a good year in that offense and be able to package him in another trade. Me, I wouldn't do that deal but I can see why he did it.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

I have never voted in any of my leagues and i am proud of that!!!

Never voted one down either but have bitched/made fun of plenty of them.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

I feel sorry for those who would veto this deal. What that tells me is that you have never been in a really great league where you are able to trust the other owners in the league whether you agree or not.

Here is a deal that was agreed upon today in one of my leagues:

Team A sends: David Wilson, Antonio Brown, and Jermichael Finley
Team B sends: Rashard Mendenhall, Reggie Wayne, and Brent Celek

Now, this deal is just as bad as the headliner of this thread IMO, but there is no way I am vetoing. Team A is trying to make his team better, he is just way underselling on Wilson and Brown. Finley's inclusion helps team B a lot, but does not hurt a since he has Graham already. It isn't my job to protect him from making a bad deal, and yes, I am kicking myself for not making a play for Wilson. His owner is notorious for being impatient.

I am done commenting on this because it seems both sides are beating a dead horse.

I'm not seeing how that trade is just as bad. That's something I definitely wouldn't veto.

One owner is unloading David Wilson and the other one is buying low. I can understand that. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see how it would make sense to someone. The original trade, to me, makes no sense. That's the difference. Miller and Richardson are of similar value so that's a wash. Nicks and Britt is completely lopsided. One guy is a WR1 and the other guy should be on the waiver wire.

Why would you even be in a league that has a veto voting system if you are so opposed to using it? As for me, I'm going to let my voice be heard through my vote in an attempt to keep the playing field level in the face of collusion and stupidity.

 

[Yellow Fuzzies]

collusion and stupidity.

Vote down collusion...stupidity is an owners prerogative.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

Vote down collusion...stupidity is an owners prerogative.

Stupidity can obviously have the same effect on the rest of the league as collusion.

 

[wilwhite]

I heard the Texans are vetoing the Richardson trade.

 

[Yellow Fuzzies]

Stupidity can obviously have the same effect on the rest of the league as collusion.

In my opinion dishonesty is way different than bad judgement. But I understand some would prefer to vote on trades based on their opinion of the trade and that is their prerogative. Either way, I would probably be looking to get out of the leagues that contain dishonesty or vetoes due to perceived inequities.

 

[TREFF]

I heard the Texans are vetoing the Richardson trade.

Ooohhh... Lol

 

[Xponentialchaos]

In my opinion dishonesty is way different than bad judgement. But I understand some would prefer to vote on trades based on their opinion of the trade and that is their prerogative. Either way, I would probably be looking to get out of the leagues that contain dishonesty or vetoes due to perceived inequities.

I mostly agree with that.

I'm in a few leagues. In one league, we've been playing together for several years and I know them all well. I don't mind seeing dumb deals go through because I know them well enough to trust the integrity. If a dumb deal goes through, it's probably just Steve making another boneheaded deal as he has been known to to. We don't even have a veto rule because we don't need one. But in other leagues, where I don't know everyone or don't quite trust everyone, and I have the power to veto, then I'm using it if I see something this dumb go through.

I agree that it's better to be in a league where you trust everyone. But they aren't all going to be structured that way. The veto system is a good way to ensure that collusion isn't happening in one of these leagues. Personally, I just enjoy playing fantasy so I'd rather be in a league like that than not.

 

[averagejoe]

Wil, that was funny.

I have an ironic story on stupidity. Was part of a league with a few guys that had never did fantasy before. (circa 2010?) One of the new guys started drafting as many Bears as he could. He drafted Forte, Knox, and Hester... We all thought he was stupid for drafting that way.

He won his first 3 games in the league. I know he didn't win the league, but he did respectably. Moral of the story: it's only stupid if it doesn't work.

 

[Bandit]

I heard the Texans are vetoing the Richardson trade.

Yeah and I'm pretty sure all of Ahmad Bradshaw's owners are vetoing it also