I wanted to make this thread it's own entity because it deals with a problem.
So essentially I got a trade vetoed this morning. The initial offer was Wilson, Sims and Blount for Miller and Booker(who he would've dropped anyways to make the deal work). He said he didn't want Wilson but he would do the deal if I bid on Siemien and gave Siemien to him instead. It didn't make sense to me, but fine, I bid $10 (out of $100) on Siemien to ensure I got him because he said he'd call the deal off temporarily if I didn't land Siemien. Fine.
So everyone wakes up, and it gets vetoed by like 8:30 am.
So the gist of my argument goes like this:
The rest of the league values Lamar higher than my friend does. They also value Blount and Sims much much lower than he does. I honestly don't think he's illogical either. He spent time looking into the offer. Even with Brady coming back and Sims being primarily in a time share, Blount finished 20th last year and Sims finished 22nd. Wilson finished as the #3 QB. So going off last year this doesn't seem egregious. The #3 QB, #20 RB and #22nd RB for the #5 RB. Going off this year makes even less sense. Lamar clearly doesn't look as he's gonna be as efficient as last year behind Houston's offensive line. Sims has scored as many point as Lamar so far. Blount is the #4 RB in my league right now. So it's the #4 RB, #22 RB and Wilson for the #20 RB.
I offered either Carr and Wilson. HE asked me to throw in Siemien INSTEAD of those 2. Am I in the wrong thinking that this veto is unfair?
Among one of the reasons the commissioner said it's unfair:
"This trade makes your team too strong"
Are you fucking me? So I can make a trade only if it makes my team worse??
I might actually find someone else to take my team in this league. I'm just about done. Or am I 100% out of my damn mind?
But you are trading that trio and then making another trade with him for Siemien? Is he then dropping Wilson? Why wouldn't he just pick up Siemien himself?
But I dont see it as collusion.
Collusion is- "Heres a suspended Josh Gordon for a 1 week injured Antonio brown- and when I win, Ill give your buy-in back"....in a keeper league where AB has a priceless value lol
But I dont see it as collusion.
Collusion is- "Heres a suspended Josh Gordon for a 1 week injured Antonio brown- and when I win, Ill give your buy-in back"....in a keeper league where AB has a priceless value lol
I think he's saying if we did the trade again with Wilson instead of Siemien, that's colliding because we are telling the guy who wants Siemien that it's only fair if we do it with Wilson instead.
Post a picture of the newspaper kid on the BMX from "Better Off Dead" with the caption:
Gimme my $10!
That should intimidate them.
The only time I can see a trade getting denied is in this scenario...
Right before the trade deadline, one team that has no chance to make the playoffs trades top players to another team for virtually nothing. Then, there is obviously some monkey business going on there.
Who the fuck are these other owners in the league to decide what is good for you?
This is the right answer.
You need to find a group of guys or weed out the existing guys who don't understand that a veto is not warranted when they personally feel that one side is getting more value than the other.
YoungElijah is wise and understands that you can easily structure a league so that nobody ever gives up or wants to even think of combining teams. One easy way is to either set up a losers bracket or "toilet bowl" as we call it, where the non-playoff teams still compete for a prize, whether it be half league fee, choice of draft slot next year, etc.
If you or anyone else truly believes that people are colluding to combine teams then your first order of business is to start looking for new friends/ people to gamble with.
Quote:
but my general sentiment on trades is simple. If youre in a league with what you deem to be competent fantasy players - why is there a veto option? If there is money on the line and its structured a way that games/players always matter, who cares who trades what? Unless its deemed pure collusion and somehow identifiable, there should not be a veto option. If you need one, you probably need a new league.
This is the right answer.
You need to find a group of guys or weed out the existing guys who don't understand that a veto is not warranted when they personally feel that one side is getting more value than the other.
YoungElijah is wise and understands that you can easily structure a league so that nobody ever gives up or wants to even think of combining teams. One easy way is to either set up a losers bracket or "toilet bowl" as we call it, where the non-playoff teams still compete for a prize, whether it be half league fee, choice of draft slot next year, etc.
If you or anyone else truly believes that people are colluding to combine teams then your first order of business is to start looking for new friends/ people to gamble with.
Agreed. I have a league where if you finish in last place during the regular season you pay half the league entry fee back to the pot. Stops teams from becoming all out sellers.
Quote:
but my general sentiment on trades is simple. If youre in a league with what you deem to be competent fantasy players - why is there a veto option? If there is money on the line and its structured a way that games/players always matter, who cares who trades what? Unless its deemed pure collusion and somehow identifiable, there should not be a veto option. If you need one, you probably need a new league.
This is the right answer.
You need to find a group of guys or weed out the existing guys who don't understand that a veto is not warranted when they personally feel that one side is getting more value than the other.
YoungElijah is wise and understands that you can easily structure a league so that nobody ever gives up or wants to even think of combining teams. One easy way is to either set up a losers bracket or "toilet bowl" as we call it, where the non-playoff teams still compete for a prize, whether it be half league fee, choice of draft slot next year, etc.
If you or anyone else truly believes that people are colluding to combine teams then your first order of business is to start looking for new friends/ people to gamble with.
Haha these guys are my friends and while I was slighted by them this morning I showed them this thread and stated my case and I think all of them are in agreement with me and apologized.
Thanks for the help guys. I thought I was crazy for second there.
We are all a few months removed from undergrad (idk if that counts as adults haha).
So the trade vetoed earlier and my friend now says he didn't fully consider the ramifications of Brady's return on Blount's value so the deal might not happen.
I could care less though, I just went 1 against 8 people in an argument and got every single one of them to recant. Who says moral victories don't count?
If I have Edelman as my flex WR/RB this week, which I currently do, and he plays quarterback, will he rack up all the points for passing yards and touchdowns if he gets any?
If I have Edelman as my flex WR/RB this week, which I currently do, and he plays quarterback, will he rack up all the points for passing yards and touchdowns if he gets any?
I think it depends on the setup/rules of your league. If you use ESPN I believe the answer is yes, you will get all of the points (unless your commissioner adjusted the rules otherwise, which may not even be possible)
We may have the issue later in the year since there is a husband and wife with teams. She is 1-2, he is 3-0, but I don't think they would try it.
In comment 13146812 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
But I hate starting fantasy football threads and just have one quick question if anyone can help (I'm new to this stuff).
If I have Edelman as my flex WR/RB this week, which I currently do, and he plays quarterback, will he rack up all the points for passing yards and touchdowns if he gets any?
I think it depends on the setup/rules of your league. If you use ESPN I believe the answer is yes, you will get all of the points (unless your commissioner adjusted the rules otherwise, which may not even be possible)
We had the same question in my league with ESPN and decided yes, they get all of the points. Not just Edelman, Pryor gets some snaps too.
On the surface it looks like the guy trading away Gordon is getting hosed but now his lineup is better because he already has two starting RBs but now has a much better TE than he had before.
Why don't you read your league rules? Or see how Pryor was scored last week?
I would never be a part of a league that allows a league vote to disapprove a trade on their whim. It's wrong, particularly when there is money involved.