PDA

View Full Version : Vetoed trade


The Bad Guy
09-10-2008, 07:41 PM
I'm in this league where I'm pretty much public enemy #1.

I was offered this deal today:

Larry Johnson and Santonio Holmes

for Matt Forte and Eddie Royal.

I accepted, however, the league is being a pain because of bitter managers, and people are vetoing.

Some asshole said today, basically he'll veto any deal I make because his deal got discussed for veto last year ( even though it went through).

I needed Holmes because I lost Colston today.

Thoughts?

Mr. Arrowhead
09-10-2008, 08:12 PM
i would have vetoed that trade as well. Its not even close to being a even trade.

Bill Lundberg
09-10-2008, 08:19 PM
I'll never veto a trade unless there is obvious collusion. That's obviously not the case here.

OnTheWarpath58
09-10-2008, 08:30 PM
I'll never veto a trade unless there is obvious collusion. That's obviously not the case here.

Me either.

We're all adults. If someone wants to make a stupid trade, go right ahead.

cabletech94
09-10-2008, 08:37 PM
Are these guys friends of yours?
If not, they're probably a bunch of D-bags.
Screw 'em. Beat 'em at their own game.

KCwolf
09-10-2008, 09:58 PM
Not sure what league Mr. Arrowhead plays in ..... wish he was in mine....
But that trade would be allowed in all 3 leagues I play in .... no question

The Bad Guy
09-11-2008, 07:32 AM
Are these guys friends of yours?
If not, they're probably a bunch of D-bags.
Screw 'em. Beat 'em at their own game.

Most are my friends, some are friends of friends who hate me because I draft better teams than they do.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled with getting LJ. But Holmes is the one I wanted and to get him I had to give Forte. I even think Forte will end up better than LJ.

There have been 4 vetoes so far. 1 more and it's done.

Mr. Arrowhead
09-11-2008, 07:51 AM
the only way this deal would make half way sense is if this is a keepers league

Old Dog
09-11-2008, 07:53 AM
The only reason to veto a trade is collusion. That's why I hate leagues where there's a league vote.

The Bad Guy
09-11-2008, 08:10 AM
the only way this deal would make half way sense is if this is a keepers league

It is a one player keeper league.

I don't understand why this is such a lopsided deal. You saw LJ last week. You saw him last year. He's not the great back he was.

Mr. Arrowhead
09-11-2008, 10:34 AM
It is a one player keeper league.

I don't understand why this is such a lopsided deal. You saw LJ last week. You saw him last year. He's not the great back he was.

IMO you never trade 2 decent veteran players for 2 rookies. I just think when Marshall comes back that Royal wont have the success that he had last week. At best he is a 3rd wr option and Holmes is a number 2 option. Now LJ for Forte at this point is pretty even

The Bad Guy
09-11-2008, 10:45 AM
IMO you never trade 2 decent veteran players for 2 rookies. I just think when Marshall comes back that Royal wont have the success that he had last week. At best he is a 3rd wr option and Holmes is a number 2 option. Now LJ for Forte at this point is pretty even

Holmes was his #3 in a league we start 2 WRs. He has Braylon and Andre Johnson.

He wanted Forte bad over LJ.

I'd rather Forte over LJ too, I just needed Holmes since I lost Colston.

Valiant
09-11-2008, 10:09 PM
I'm in this league where I'm pretty much public enemy #1.

I was offered this deal today:

Larry Johnson and Santonio Holmes

for Matt Forte and Eddie Royal.

I accepted, however, the league is being a pain because of bitter managers, and people are vetoing.

Some asshole said today, basically he'll veto any deal I make because his deal got discussed for veto last year ( even though it went through).

I needed Holmes because I lost Colston today.

Thoughts?

Seems to me the league did you a favor..

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 10:11 PM
You'd have to be a dipshit not to veto that trade. You get the better player at each position.

The Bad Guy
09-12-2008, 10:39 AM
You'd have to be a dipshit not to veto that trade. You get the better player at each position.

Not if you really think Forte is going to outscore LJ.

The trade ended up going through because only 4 vetos came in.

However, now I wish I didn't do it.Besides one run, LJ looked horrid last week. I think Forte will continue to perform well which would mean I could have gotten someone better later on.

Brock
09-12-2008, 10:49 AM
It looks like an acceptable trade to me.

Hoover
09-12-2008, 11:15 AM
I would have vetoed as well, but I understand your point.

The problem is LJ is a 2nd round pick at a min and Holmes is probably a 6th rounder or so. Forte was probably an 8th rounder and Royal was likely undrafted.

Now if this was after 3 or 4 games and LJ and Holmes continued to struggle thats one thing. But after one week you are trading a 2nd and 6th round pick for a 8th rounder and a waiver wire guy.

Thats a bad deal.

rad
09-12-2008, 12:44 PM
Forte went 23 for 123. Take the 50 yd TD run and you have 22 for 73

LJ went 22 for 76

The Bad Guy
09-12-2008, 12:52 PM
Forte went 23 for 123. Take the 50 yd TD run and you have 22 for 73

LJ went 22 for 76

If that's the case, take LJ's long run and he's 21 for around 48.

The Bad Guy
09-12-2008, 12:57 PM
I would have vetoed as well, but I understand your point.

The problem is LJ is a 2nd round pick at a min and Holmes is probably a 6th rounder or so. Forte was probably an 8th rounder and Royal was likely undrafted.

Now if this was after 3 or 4 games and LJ and Holmes continued to struggle thats one thing. But after one week you are trading a 2nd and 6th round pick for a 8th rounder and a waiver wire guy.

Thats a bad deal.

When you make a trade like this, you are making it because you think Forte is going to be a stud.

Rookie RBs typically perform very well. He had a pretty good game on the road.

I did draft Royal so he wasn't just an add.

Time will tell.

It wouldn't surprise me if in 6 weeks we look at this and I was a big loser in the deal.

The Bad Guy
09-12-2008, 12:58 PM
IMO you never trade 2 decent veteran players for 2 rookies. I just think when Marshall comes back that Royal wont have the success that he had last week. At best he is a 3rd wr option and Holmes is a number 2 option. Now LJ for Forte at this point is pretty even

Since he had Braylon and AJ, Holmes was a luxury.

He thought he could do it since he really wanted Forte.

rad
09-12-2008, 01:26 PM
If that's the case, take LJ's long run and he's 21 for around 48.

Nah, 22 yd runs are far and away more commonplace than 50 yarders. Forte got lucky on a bad angle taken by Sanders.

Peyton looked like shit BTW. He may be buy low candidate, provided an impatient owner in your league has him.

The Bad Guy
09-12-2008, 02:06 PM
Nah, 22 yd runs are far and away more commonplace than 50 yarders. Forte got lucky on a bad angle taken by Sanders.

Peyton looked like shit BTW. He may be buy low candidate, provided an impatient owner in your league has him.

So you want to discredit one long run to skew stats, but not another?

Makes a lot of sense.

Most long TD runs are because of defender screwups.

rad
09-12-2008, 02:29 PM
So you want to discredit one long run to skew stats, but not another?

Makes a lot of sense.

Most long TD runs are because of defender screwups.

Do you agree than 22 yard runs are more common than 50 yard runs?

I don't consider a 22 yard run "long"

The Bad Guy
09-12-2008, 02:32 PM
Do you agree than 22 yard runs are more common than 50 yard runs?

I don't consider a 22 yard run "long"

I do when the most yardage he could get otherwise was a 7 yard run.

You can skew stats anyway you want to to prove an argument.

rad
09-12-2008, 04:23 PM
I do when the most yardage he could get otherwise was a 7 yard run.

You can skew stats anyway you want to to prove an argument.

Yeah, everybody does it. I see FF "gurus" do this all the time to differentiate between a guy that pounded out tough yards all afternoon, and guys that averaged 2.9 YPC before ripping off a 45 yd. fluke run........it lets you know who the workhorses are.

The Bad Guy
09-12-2008, 04:48 PM
Yeah, everybody does it. I see FF "gurus" do this all the time to differentiate between a guy that pounded out tough yards all afternoon, and guys that averaged 2.9 YPC before ripping off a 45 yd. fluke run........it lets you know who the workhorses are.

This is hilarious. I don't even see the need to continue this after this post.

Here's the thing. That 50 yard "fluke" run counts toward his total. You don't get deducted for "fluke" runs.

The Chiefs had so much confidence in LJ's tough running that they gave him the ball once near the goalline to tie the game to get those tough yards.

I guess nothing that Forte did before that "fluke" could be considered a tough run.

I get it. You think LJ is still a stud back. I don't. Is he good? Yes, is he what he once was? Not even close.

rad
09-12-2008, 06:22 PM
This is hilarious. I don't even see the need to continue this after this post.

Here's the thing. That 50 yard "fluke" run counts toward his total. You don't get deducted for "fluke" runs.

The Chiefs had so much confidence in LJ's tough running that they gave him the ball once near the goalline to tie the game to get those tough yards.

I guess nothing that Forte did before that "fluke" could be considered a tough run.

I get it. You think LJ is still a stud back. I don't. Is he good? Yes, is he what he once was? Not even close.

Dude relax, LJ is no stud. I passed him over in my drafts. He didn't go until pick #37 in one of my drafts.

There was no time to try to punch it in from 5 yds. out.

If you feel like arguing about the trade, find someone else. I agree with you.

It's just something I threw out there because I watched the game, and I've heard it mentioned before.

Valiant
09-16-2008, 05:15 PM
Do you agree than 22 yard runs are more common than 50 yard runs?

I don't consider a 22 yard run "long"

Not by too much.. Most RB's are lucky to get 6-8 20 yard runs a year..