Fantasy Controversy

[UKMustangFan]

So in one of my leagues we've got a full blown controversy going on that may destroy the league.

 

Team A had Jay Cutler as his QB, with Sims-Walker, DeSean Jackson, and Calvin Johnson as WRs. He proceeded to work out a trade with Team B that would send Calvin Johnson to Team B in exchange for Michael Vick. After that trade was accepted, he immediately intiated a trade that would send Jay Cutler and Sims-Walker to Team C for Reggie Wayne. Well, the Vick trade got vetoed, and the Cutler trade didn't. So now Team A has no QB, why he didn't have a backup is beyond me. He then worked out a trade that would send DeSean Jackson to Team B for Michael Vick. That trade has also been vetoed. Both Team A and Team B are threatening to quit the league now.

 

Here's the controversy....The reason the Vick/Calvin Johnson trade was vetoed was because Vick's owner decided he didn't want to do the trade after it was accepted and campaigned with enough of the other owners to get the trade vetoed. He then proceeded to call up owner of Team A and tell him how stupid the rest of the league was and convinced him that the only way it would be allowed is if he gave up a better WR, such as Jackson. Team A agreed, and accepted the trade. When the rest of the league saw it, they immediately vetoed it.

 

So, were we wrong in vetoing the Jackson trade? My reasoning is that Team B is loaded as is, as he already has Tom Brady as his starting QB, and adding a WR like Jackson would essentially guarantee him winning every week.

[2 Humped Camel]

So in one of my leagues we've got a full blown controversy going on that may destroy the league.

 

Team A had Jay Cutler as his QB, with Sims-Walker, DeSean Jackson, and Calvin Johnson as WRs. He proceeded to work out a trade with Team B that would send Calvin Johnson to Team B in exchange for Michael Vick. After that trade was accepted, he immediately intiated a trade that would send Jay Cutler and Sims-Walker to Team C for Reggie Wayne. Well, the Vick trade got vetoed, and the Cutler trade didn't. So now Team A has no QB, why he didn't have a backup is beyond me. He then worked out a trade that would send DeSean Jackson to Team B for Michael Vick. That trade has also been vetoed. Both Team A and Team B are threatening to quit the league now.

 

Here's the controversy....The reason the Vick/Calvin Johnson trade was vetoed was because Vick's owner decided he didn't want to do the trade after it was accepted and campaigned with enough of the other owners to get the trade vetoed. He then proceeded to call up owner of Team A and tell him how stupid the rest of the league was and convinced him that the only way it would be allowed is if he gave up a better WR, such as Jackson. Team A agreed, and accepted the trade. When the rest of the league saw it, they immediately vetoed it.

 

So, were we wrong in vetoing the Jackson trade? My reasoning is that Team B is loaded as is, as he already has Tom Brady as his starting QB, and adding a WR like Jackson would essentially guarantee him winning every week.

 

I would quit a league too if the only reason a trade was vetoed was because I was improving my team. To me the only time a trade should be vetoed is if there is cheating/collusion, or a less knowledgeable player is being clearly taken advantage of. Yes I believe you were wrong in vetoing the trade, especially if the only motivation for doing so is that people are upset they didn't draft as well and don't want to lose.

[UKMustangFan]

I would quit a league too if the only reason a trade was vetoed was because I was improving my team. To me the only time a trade should be vetoed is if there is cheating/collusion, or a less knowledgeable player is being clearly taken advantage of. Yes I believe you were wrong in vetoing the trade, especially if the only motivation for doing so is that people are upset they didn't draft as well and don't want to lose.

 

Isn't the point of playing to try and win? My team is the highest scoring team in the league, so I drafted plenty well. I liken it to blocking a team from acquiring a player via the waiver wire in baseball. You have no intention of adding the player, but you know the team you're competing with wants him.

 

The Calvin Johnson trade wouldn't have been vetoed had the owner not campaigned to everyone in the league. (I didn't veto that trade) He was trying to pull one over on everyone, and is mad that his master plan got found out. When you tell people that there's no receiver that should be traded straight up for Vick, then turn around and try to trade him for a different receiver you deserve to be screwed over.

[NamecipS]

I would quit a league too if the only reason a trade was vetoed was because I was improving my team. To me the only time a trade should be vetoed is if there is cheating/collusion, or a less knowledgeable player is being clearly taken advantage of. Yes I believe you were wrong in vetoing the trade, especially if the only motivation for doing so is that people are upset they didn't draft as well and don't want to lose.

 

Yep

[MJAlltheWay24]

I'm with the others UKMF.

[UKMustangFan]

:lol: I guess I'm the only one that plays to win. As a manager in real sports, you try to get or keep any and every advantage you have. Why should this be any different?

[Hangman]

:lol: I guess I'm the only one that plays to win. As a manager in real sports, you try to get or keep any and every advantage you have. Why should this be any different?

 

Why ask the question if your mind is made up?

[UKMustangFan]

Why ask the question if your mind is made up?

 

I just want to get other's opinions on it. I play to win, which means I'll do anything I can to do so that is within the rules. :lol:

[2 Humped Camel]

Isn't the point of playing to try and win? My team is the highest scoring team in the league, so I drafted plenty well. I liken it to blocking a team from acquiring a player via the waiver wire in baseball. You have no intention of adding the player, but you know the team you're competing with wants him.

 

The Calvin Johnson trade wouldn't have been vetoed had the owner not campaigned to everyone in the league. (I didn't veto that trade) He was trying to pull one over on everyone, and is mad that his master plan got found out. When you tell people that there's no receiver that should be traded straight up for Vick, then turn around and try to trade him for a different receiver you deserve to be screwed over.

 

I would assume that you as well as everyone else in your league are not precluded from making trades to further improve and win. It may be just me but I'd rather try and improve my team than prevent someone else from improving their's. Just my opinion.

[HammerTime]

I don't she why you guys would veto the trade just because you don't want him to have said player. I understanding you are trying to win but that is kind of silly IMO but you play to win the game.

[UKMustangFan]

I would assume that you as well as everyone else in your league are not precluded from making trades to further improve and win. It may be just me but I'd rather try and improve my team than prevent someone else from improving their's. Just my opinion.

 

That's the ironic thing about it....Team B's owner stated that he doesn't mind me vetoing it, because he agrees with my logic if he were in the reverse position. He's more upset about the others who are vetoing it because they don't think the trade is fair...

[UKMustangFan]

I don't she why you guys would veto the trade just because you don't want him to have said player. I understanding you are trying to win but that is kind of silly IMO but you play to win the game.

 

Well, if you knew who the person was (and you do know both of them), you'd know there's extra outside motivation....

[HammerTime]

Well, if you knew who the person was (and you do know both of them), you'd know there's extra outside motivation....

 

Well that is a whole different subject then. :lol:

[HammerTime]

That's the ironic thing about it....Team B's owner stated that he doesn't mind me vetoing it, because he agrees with my logic if he were in the reverse position. He's more upset about the others who are vetoing it because they don't think the trade is fair...

How? That is just stupid.

[CatsCatsCats]

UKMF, that's some of the weakest stuff I've ever heard. Everyone plays to win, but I think this move is just being a chicken. I like you man, but this is weak to me :lol:.