FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Tue 11.25.2014, 20:28

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 03:00 
Offline
Tiger Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09.06.2007, 10:32
Posts: 248
Sand$: 703
Donate
Location: Look into my eyes......
min.gif
thesmata wrote:
I guess I'm in the extreme minority here, but that trade stinks to high heaven. I would veto the crap out of that trade in my league - unless of course I was the one getting Miles.

That trade is the definition of unbalanced IMO. You fleece this dude in the third week and take all the money. Good for you bad for everyone else. It shouldn't matter what place people are in at this point of he season as it's still W I D E open - except for the dummy who falls for a TERRIBLE 2 for 1 and loses the only true number one guy he has on his whole roster. How is that guy 2-0 even with Miles Austin?

But then again what the heck do I know...



lol while I have no problem with a disparaging opinion vetoing trades is about collusion and rigging teams...this guy is an intelligent adult, he paid his money to be a manager and clicked "accept" on the trade of his own volition, and now the powers that be have decided it's NOT a good trade for him and have vetoed the trade, without even going into the conflict of interest it presents when competing managers can veto the trades of their peers in the same league, it just seems like a form of Fantasy Fascism: You can't manage your team so let US manage it for you...what's next? The commish resets his lineup because "so and so player is a waaay better start at Flex"??? Where does it end?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 03:03 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.09.2007, 22:35
Posts: 7790
Sand$: 562
Donate
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
pit.gif
thesmata wrote:
I guess I'm in the extreme minority here, but that trade stinks to high heaven. I would veto the crap out of that trade in my league - unless of course I was the one getting Miles.

That trade is the definition of unbalanced IMO. You fleece this dude in the third week and take all the money. Good for you bad for everyone else. It shouldn't matter what place people are in at this point of he season as it's still W I D E open - except for the dummy who falls for a TERRIBLE 2 for 1 and loses the only true number one guy he has on his whole roster. How is that guy 2-0 even with Miles Austin?

But then again what the heck do I know...

Vick is the #2 QB in many leagues, only behind Peyton. Williams is a top 16 WR in nonPPR and has a TD in each of his two games. Call it selling high if you like but it isn't nearly as lopsided as you make it seem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 04:34 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.30.2007, 01:18
Posts: 2167
Sand$: 179
Donate
chi.gif
While the trade is TECHNICALLY fair based on who each of you are getting it is lopsided as hell since you obviously have no need to keep Vick on your roster. You have two solid QBs and are not giving anyone up that you need in order to get the #1 WR in the game. While it is not collusion that guy is an idiot for making that trade with you...collusion by stupidity. A good owner will always look at the effect of a trade. I bet he is new to ff. When someone makes a trade they should not only see how it improves themself but also make sure they are not creating some kind of super team. That is unless he does not care about winning. I am also in a money league and to be honest if a team is already stacked I will not make a trade with them. Then again I want to win. If he knew what he was doing he would have traded someone else for a lesser QB and kept Austin. He needs a QB but lacks a decent replacement for Austin. Overall they had no right to veto but I can clearly see why they did. I would be mad if I were you. You were robbing him blind and you know it. Who would not want a steal like that in a trade? If all owners had a vote on every trade that went out no trades would go through due to a lack of equality...owners dont want other teams to improve. I agree that every other owner takes a hit if that trade goes through. I think in a money league owners should be allowed to veto very lopsided trades like this one.

_________________
''Dancing is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport.''


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 05:47 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 39531
Sand$: 37884
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
pablo615 wrote:
While the trade is TECHNICALLY fair based on who each of you are getting it is lopsided as hell since you obviously have no need to keep Vick on your roster. You have two solid QBs and are not giving anyone up that you need in order to get the #1 WR in the game. While it is not collusion that guy is an idiot for making that trade with you...collusion by stupidity. A good owner will always look at the effect of a trade. I bet he is new to ff. When someone makes a trade they should not only see how it improves themself but also make sure they are not creating some kind of super team. That is unless he does not care about winning. I am also in a money league and to be honest if a team is already stacked I will not make a trade with them. Then again I want to win. If he knew what he was doing he would have traded someone else for a lesser QB and kept Austin. He needs a QB but lacks a decent replacement for Austin. Overall they had no right to veto but I can clearly see why they did. I would be mad if I were you. You were robbing him blind and you know it. Who would not want a steal like that in a trade? If all owners had a vote on every trade that went out no trades would go through due to a lack of equality...owners dont want other teams to improve. I agree that every other owner takes a hit if that trade goes through. I think in a money league owners should be allowed to veto very lopsided trades like this one.


Seriously? No.

It's not his job to worry about the other team. His job is to manage his team as best he can.

I didn't realize that Austin was Rice Jr or something. Vick's a potential top 5 QB and Williams is doing well in Tampa. If current play is remotely close to production for the rest of the year it's a very fair trade anyway. And who knows, maybe he has future trades lined up.

I suggest you just divy up the players fairly each week and then give out juice boxes and orange slices. Oh, and don't keep score, one team might beat another one too badly.

League veto vote is a joke. If you can't trust a Commish to review trades then you shouldn't be in that league.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 05:51 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 39531
Sand$: 37884
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
thesmata wrote:
I guess I'm in the extreme minority here, but that trade stinks to high heaven. I would veto the crap out of that trade in my league - unless of course I was the one getting Miles.

That trade is the definition of unbalanced IMO. You fleece this dude in the third week and take all the money. Good for you bad for everyone else. It shouldn't matter what place people are in at this point of he season as it's still W I D E open - except for the dummy who falls for a TERRIBLE 2 for 1 and loses the only true number one guy he has on his whole roster. How is that guy 2-0 even with Miles Austin?

But then again what the heck do I know...


"Fairness" is completely irrelevant because it's complete horsecrap. The problem here is that you are assuming that YOU know how these 3 players will perform. I doubt your projections are any more valid than either owner. Putting your rankings over someone else is BS.

Besides the fact that Vick probably will start the rest of the year and be borderline Top 5 QB in some formats?

Since you're legislating "fair", would you undo the trade if Austin got hurt next week?

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 05:57 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.12.2007, 17:03
Posts: 26797
Sand$: 55814
Donate
Location: IN
chi.gif
Anyone who would veto that should quit playing fantasy football.

I mean it. It's not worth it, you don't get it, just let it go.

_________________
Bitter god of Monday morning


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 06:06 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 31369
Sand$: 37318
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
vonbearsalot wrote:
Anyone who would veto that should quit playing fantasy football.

I mean it. It's not worth it, you don't get it, just let it go.


X2.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 06:08 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Mon 05.31.2004, 04:01
Posts: 14560
Sand$: 15641
Donate
ghey. too many squares in that league.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 06:22 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08.14.2007, 19:07
Posts: 3452
Sand$: 8123
Donate
Location: Salt Lake City
ind.gif
I don't agree that the trade is unfair. It is irrelevant if it is lopsided and helps one team more than another. As long as both participants are not colluding, and are honestly trying to improve their teams, it is good. I can see how both teams get better with this.

Vick is currently the #4 QB in my league. Romo was the Yahoo ranked #4, 26 overall.
Mike Williams is currently ranked #15 WR. Ochocinco was the #15 WR in preseason Yahoo ranking.
Miles Austin is the #1 WR in my league. Andre Johnson was the preseason #1.

If the deal was preseason, it would be Romo and Ocho for Andre. Not robbery. In my league, Austin went 3rd round #3 (19th), and Romo went 3rd round #4 (20th). Andre was round 2, #1 (9th although same team as 8th overall). Brady was actuall the 4th QB, at round 3, pick #1, 8 picks behind Andre.

I think Vick has a good chance to be a very good fantasy starter. I don't care for Williams at all (he was just dropped for Mario Manningham in my 8-team league). Basically this is Vick, a high-level QB, and Williams, a mid-level WR, for Austin, a high-level WR. Preseason ranks don't matter anymore. Colston, Bowe, Brandon Marshall, Steve Smith (NYG) ... all ranked in the top 16 WR's preseason ... all low-scoring question marks now. Wes Welker? What were we all thinking.

The things that would make me uncomfortable with the trade would be if the Austin team is overly thin at WR, and has decent QB potential, or the WW is thick there. Or if the Vick team is thin at QB and has good WR's. Then the trade doesn't help both teams and should not have been accepted. If the team gaining Vick, loses 5 ppg at WR, but gains 7 ppg at QB, then let it go.

In short, I think the trade might be brilliant or might be stupid, based on incomplete information, but it doesn't seem one-sided, and unless collusion is suspected, then I would let it go. The fact that preseason this would have been a one-sided trade, should stop mattering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 06:48 
Offline
Chum

Joined: Mon 07.03.2006, 08:48
Posts: 25
Sand$: 87
Donate
kc.gif
I think we are all missing the point. I think congratulations should go out for finding, what appears to be, 3 brain dead owners in a high dollar league. I mean who needs Austin when you can have a guy that was not starting on Monday of this week and a rookie on a team that is about to go 0-14. Happy Fleecing!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 06:59 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.09.2007, 22:35
Posts: 7790
Sand$: 562
Donate
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
pit.gif
andy_zim wrote:
I think we are all missing the point. I think congratulations should go out for finding, what appears to be, 3 brain dead owners in a high dollar league. I mean who needs Austin when you can have a guy that was not starting on Monday of this week and a rookie on a team that is about to go 0-14. Happy Fleecing!!

Completely meaningless post.

1. 2008, Calvin Johnson's second season and first without back injury. Team goes winless. Check his stats for me real quick.
2. Miles Austin, the very guy discussed in this thread didn't start last year until what, week 5? Yeah, being a starter week 1 means a lot. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 07:00 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 31369
Sand$: 37318
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
andy_zim wrote:
I think we are all missing the point. I think congratulations should go out for finding, what appears to be, 3 brain dead owners in a high dollar league. I mean who needs Austin when you can have a guy that was not starting on Monday of this week and a rookie on a team that is about to go 0-14. Happy Fleecing!!


When Vick got the starting job is irrelevant, as is the record of the Bucs. In fact, because the Bucs will spend so much time losing, and because they have few options beyond Mike Williams, it makes him a better fantasy prospect. I wouldn't have made the trade if I were the Austin owner, but it's not nearly as bad a trade as a few of you are making it out to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 08:08 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Tue 10.09.2007, 22:07
Posts: 2025
Sand$: 9769
Donate
hou2.gif
I think some people here are pretty casual about what a veto really means. When you veto a trade, it is because you think there is cheating involved, not incompetence. If a league I was in ever needed to have a serious discuss over a trade veto, the very next question would be whether to eject the cheating owners.

Anybody worried about incompetent trades either needs to screen their new managers more carefully or help educate them as the season progresses. What you shouldn't do is try to manage their team using the veto system. Managers shouldn't be penalized or impaired for making a good faith effort to run their teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 08:18 
Offline
Blue Shark
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.12.2004, 10:25
Posts: 302
Sand$: 886
Donate
Location: Durham, NC
cle.gif
Madden Curse wrote:
I think some people here are pretty casual about what a veto really means. When you veto a trade, it is because you think there is cheating involved, not incompetence.


I think that many if not most on here will agree that vetoes should only be used to prevent cheating. The owners who cast the veto specifically said they were using different criteria. Whether it is "right" or not, this is the unfortunate result of allowing other owners to decide the acceptability of a trade rather than leaving it to the discretion of the commissioner or at least outlining the "acceptable" reasons for the use of a veto.

In other words, this wouldn't happen in many other leagues that are organized "correctly", but it sucks to be you because of the way your league is set up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: unfair trade veto?
PostPosted: Thu 09.23.2010, 08:39 
Offline
Whale Shark
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08.04.2009, 10:10
Posts: 1434
Sand$: 3440
Donate
As i think the trade is a complete ripoff I will side with the majority here... there is no law in my league agaisnt getting ripped off.. Only cheating.

If you look at the team he is filling his need at QB due to Young being out... That said... why the heck is he taking your 3rd WR when he could easily get your #2 with Austin in the deal.... Not my team, but it just shows that he doens't think long term

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group