- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Commissioner decision regarding veto votes (Need your vote)
Posted on 10/8/13 at 10:55 pm to Humble opponent
Posted on 10/8/13 at 10:55 pm to Humble opponent
quote:
My teams record was 2-2
Team: QB-Stafford,Luck
Rb's-Jamal Charles,Doug Martin,D Sproles,Joique Bell,Lamar Miller
WRs-Vincent Jackson,Larry Fitz,T.Y. Hilton,Cecil Shorts,Chris Givens
Te-Jared Cook/ Defense-Chiefs,Patriots
quote:
1-3
QB-Tony Romo, Alex Smith,Russel Wilson
Rb's-Frank Gore, Bernard Pierce, Ray Rice, DeAngelo Williams
Wr's-Dez Bryant,Rueben Randle,Randall Cobb,Steve Smith,Miles Austin
Te-Tony Gonzalez,Greg Olsen
Defense-Bears.
quote:
My trade offer was Darren Sproles for Ray Rice
This is literally all anyone needs to know in that long arse post. The rest is basically discussing what is or isn't collusion.
To be as brief as possible: That in no way is collusion and should not be vetoed.
0
Posted on 10/8/13 at 10:56 pm to Humble opponent
according to past history this is a terrible deal. looks like you was trying to rip a newbie off. rice has finished top 5 for the last 3 years and sproles has never finished top 10. rice was hurt one game? you're trying to justify suckering a newbie with rice only sitting out one game?
Posted on 10/8/13 at 10:58 pm to Humble opponent
Ok I briefly skimmed the novel, and from what I've gathered you offered sproles for rice before rice had a good game, it got vetoed, fighting ensued.
I'll just say that we had issues regarding trades being vetoed in our league for no good reason. People basically didn't want to see two teams improving because they knew it hurt their chances of winning.
We've solved that this season by having everyone vote on a trade, and if you vote to veto, you have to give a fair reason for it. So far it's worked well.
You're basically screwed this season though unless everyone agrees to a change in the rules midway through.
For what it's worth, that trade shouldn't have been vetoed.
I'll just say that we had issues regarding trades being vetoed in our league for no good reason. People basically didn't want to see two teams improving because they knew it hurt their chances of winning.
We've solved that this season by having everyone vote on a trade, and if you vote to veto, you have to give a fair reason for it. So far it's worked well.
You're basically screwed this season though unless everyone agrees to a change in the rules midway through.
For what it's worth, that trade shouldn't have been vetoed.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:03 pm to Humble opponent
Ok so my honest answer.
I agree that the trade is legit. Ray Rices name alone is carrying too much clout this year. I can understand the trade completely because like you said Darren is a consistent amount of points with a pretty high ceiling (based on a big play break)
Rice may get stopped for 4 points any given week.
But my issue is if the league vetoes well IMO you are SOL. AGAIN I DO NOT at all think it is veto worthy. But if you force the trade through you will most likely have owners quit (because that's what I would do if the commish took executive power and said frick a veto"
I agree that the trade is legit. Ray Rices name alone is carrying too much clout this year. I can understand the trade completely because like you said Darren is a consistent amount of points with a pretty high ceiling (based on a big play break)
Rice may get stopped for 4 points any given week.
But my issue is if the league vetoes well IMO you are SOL. AGAIN I DO NOT at all think it is veto worthy. But if you force the trade through you will most likely have owners quit (because that's what I would do if the commish took executive power and said frick a veto"
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:07 pm to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:well played sir
Good Drew almighty.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:09 pm to GatorReb
quote:
But my issue is if the league vetoes well IMO you are SOL. AGAIN I DO NOT at all think it is veto worthy. But if you force the trade through you will most likely have owners quit (because that's what I would do if the commish took executive power and said frick a veto"
Completely agree with this. Change the rule for next season if you don't like it, but if you overrule a veto in your favor then you will have a lot of guys quit the league. I know i probably would.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:10 pm to GatorReb
Well, I'm not changing any settings. It's just that the veto is going to be utilized in the proper way. From what I'm seeing it looks like the majority agree that the trade should have gone through.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:13 pm to Humble opponent
Next year I'm pretty sure I'm starting another league. I joined this league and some how was given commissioner responsibilities.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:18 pm to Humble opponent
Again I don't think they used veto properly. But since they did it there isn't much you can do.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:23 pm to Humble opponent
I think I need a little more info before giving an opinion on this subject. 
Some people veto trades for various reasons, don't want to make a .500 team better... The guys that veto are fricking with you... Or some just veto because they fell empowered.
What caught my eye is you said you were given commish power?
Let me guess this is a free league?
Some people veto trades for various reasons, don't want to make a .500 team better... The guys that veto are fricking with you... Or some just veto because they fell empowered.
What caught my eye is you said you were given commish power?
Let me guess this is a free league?
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:25 pm to UnoMe
No, I started in the league in 2010. It's a $100.00 dollar league. I can't even recall how I ended up becoming commissioner.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:35 pm to Humble opponent
Wow... Commish regulated trades or GTFO
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:35 pm to Humble opponent
didn't read lol
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:48 pm to Humble opponent
I've been a commissioner for 9 years and we've never had a trade vetoed, and some shitty trades have been made.
At this point I might rather Sproles over Rice in PPR anyway.
Sounds like a bunch of pussies.
At this point I might rather Sproles over Rice in PPR anyway.
Sounds like a bunch of pussies.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:49 pm to Humble opponent
Do you know the other 9 owners?
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:50 pm to donRANDOMnumbers
quote:
I've been a commissioner for 9 years and we've never had a trade vetoed, and some shitty trades have been made.
Same here. I have been commish for many years and have never had a trade vetoed. Just don't play fantasy football with douche bags and you will get rid of all those stupid problems.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:52 pm to UnoMe
Yeah, I know everyone. None of owners analyzed the trade for the teams involved. It was analyzed from the perspective of how it will affect my chances of winning.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 11:56 pm to Humble opponent
I was explaining what the purpose of a veto vote was for to one league owner. when I said that votes should only be cast in blatantly obvious moments of collusion. His response was "How do we know yall aren't colluding?"
Posted on 10/9/13 at 2:34 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
Good Drew almighty
To the OP, while I think the trade is a bit one-sided it should have never been "vetoed". That's not what veto is for. FWIW, I own Ray Rice and I would have considered that trade a couple weeks ago. Now, not so much.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News