:thumb:

 

The waiver thing isn't an accurate comparison. Its a weak attempt to justify the veto. Personally, I'd just stick with saying I'll do whatever is possible within my power to keep him from improving his team.

 

I think everyone understands that the veto option is in place to prevent two players from working together to boost one guy's team. That isn't the case here...both teams stand to benefit from this trade. This is an ideal fantasy football trade where it's fair and both guys can be happy about what they're getting.

 

So if the veto was in place in your league and a player who'd made the claim they were vetoing every single trade that came across, and kept good on that claim, tried to make a trade, you wouldn't veto it?

 

Like I said, I play to win, you guys obviously don't. If him adding DeSean Jackson lowers my chances at winning, I'm doing everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen.

^lame

So if the veto was in place in your league and a player who'd made the claim they were vetoing every single trade that came across, and kept good on that claim, tried to make a trade, you wouldn't veto it?

 

Like I said, I play to win, you guys obviously don't. If him adding DeSean Jackson lowers my chances at winning, I'm doing everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen.

 

Then you and the other player have proven why the players in your league don't deserve to have that power. Give it to the commissioner, and be done with it.

So if the veto was in place in your league and a player who'd made the claim they were vetoing every single trade that came across, and kept good on that claim, tried to make a trade, you wouldn't veto it?

 

Like I said, I play to win, you guys obviously don't. If him adding DeSean Jackson lowers my chances at winning, I'm doing everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen.

 

Then someone wanting to quit your league because of stuff like this shouldn't be a contraversy, it will be the norm. :lol:

My thoughts as well. Vetoing a trade because you're afraid it will make someone's team too good is no different than a bogus trade that tries to accomplish that same thing. I'd be apt to quit the league as well.

 

That's also the reason I never liked allowing the rest of the league to veto trades. I prefer to have a trustworthy and fair commisioner have that authority.

 

I have been commisioner of my league since 1998 and I vetoed one trade during that time. It was a bogus trade and I sent out an e-mail to every coach why it was shot down. That was my first year, after that we have not had a problem with bogus trades. We have had some controversy here and there, but I just handle it by trying to be a rational as posible.

I will go with lame also. Trades are made to improve teams. After a draft a team that is weak at QB, and strong at RB should be able to improve their situation through a trade with a team that say is strong at QB and weak at RB. To veto a legit trade because a team is going to improve itself is a joke. I've played fantasy football for quite some time, and I am with the others in that I would not be returning to this league. Seems like ethics are at a low here.

I will go with lame also. Trades are made to improve teams. After a draft a team that is weak at QB, and strong at RB should be able to improve their situation through a trade with a team that say is strong at QB and weak at RB. To veto a legit trade because a team is going to improve itself is a joke. I've played fantasy football for quite some time, and I am with the others in that I would not be returning to this league. Seems like ethics are at a low here.

 

Or you could just know what you're doing while drafting and not need to trade....

 

I didn't know ethics were needed to play fantasy football...:lol:

 

Either way the issue has been resolved, and all parties are happy, including myself...

No trade should be vetoed unless there is collusion going on.

I didn't know ethics were needed to play fantasy football...:lol:

Either way the issue has been resolved, and all parties are happy, including myself...

Really? That statement pretty much sums it up. No way I play in a league where hundreds of dollars, and I've been in leagues where more than that is at stake, with people that have an ethics issue. Really I don't do anything with anybody that I feel has character issues. Thats just me though. Good luck.

:thumb:

 

The waiver thing isn't an accurate comparison. Its a weak attempt to justify the veto. Personally, I'd just stick with saying I'll do whatever is possible within my power to keep him from improving his team.

 

I think everyone understands that the veto option is in place to prevent two players from working together to boost one guy's team. That isn't the case here...both teams stand to benefit from this trade. This is an ideal fantasy football trade where it's fair and both guys can be happy about what they're getting.

 

:thumb: The veto there is to prevent collusion, as others have said, not to prevent trading outright. Having been the victim of a crooked commissioner who negated bad trades and allowed his own, I have an appreciation for the majority veto rule. When my league descends into a "veto every trade" mentality because a team is getting better, which is the point of a trade, I'll be playing in another league.

Then you and the other player have proven why the players in your league don't deserve to have that power. Give it to the commissioner, and be done with it.

:thumb: :thumb:

:thumb:

 

The waiver thing isn't an accurate comparison. Its a weak attempt to justify the veto. Personally, I'd just stick with saying I'll do whatever is possible within my power to keep him from improving his team.

 

I think everyone understands that the veto option is in place to prevent two players from working together to boost one guy's team. That isn't the case here...both teams stand to benefit from this trade. This is an ideal fantasy football trade where it's fair and both guys can be happy about what they're getting.

You are 100% correct. Waivers and trades are two totally different things.

, UKMF is a.....

If I was in that league, it would be my last year, unless it was for big money and I always dominated it!

 

Did you . seems like you are the only one who thought you dominated .:laugh::laugh:

I have been commisioner of my league since 1998 and I vetoed one trade during that time. It was a bogus trade and I sent out an e-mail to every coach why it was shot down. That was my first year, after that we have not had a problem with bogus trades. We have had some controversy here and there, but I just handle it by trying to be a rational as posible.

 

I was commish for a few years with a league and had pretty much the same experience. Of course, I learned that lesson by trial and error by not giving myself that power the first year. If you can be fair, and everyone knows you will be, they don't even attempt that stuff. It runs much smoother and is a more enjoyable experience.