Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Trade was just vetoed


Recommended Posts

I'm generally one that hates vetoes. The only reason a trade should be vetoed is if it lacks sound logic. However, in this case, I think the logic behind the trade might be a bit of a stretch.

The argument is essentially that Fournette could be damaged goods, Adams is a WR1, and Henry has tremendous value if Murray goes down. But I don't really see enough support too say that Fournette is a risky player to have. He missed one game due to injury and one game for a suspension. He did get hurt last week and played through it and is questionable now, but that's football. Guys get hurt, they heal, and they come back. I'm no doctor, but from what I've heard this injury isn't expected to be a lingering injury that haunts him for the rest of the season / his career. As far as Adams goes, last week he was a WR1 in GB, but who knows if that will continue. GB still has guys like Jordy and Cobb, so I doubt Adams will be a one man show. Plus, he's got a backup QB feeding him the ball. Last week I benched Adams in my own league, and I'm debating on whether to start his or Corey Davis this week. So I don't really see the WR1 argument as of now. As for Henry, he's a backup RB. Yes, he has value if Murray goes down, but I think this would need to happen to justify this trade a little bit more. And that's a huge assumption to make. You could have said before Garoppollo was traded that he has huge value if Brady gets hurt, but would moving Garoppollo for let's say Prescott would be fair? I guess that's kind of how I see it when assessing Henry's value.

Whether I'd veto the trade or not though I'm really not sure. More than likely I'd just go with the flow an do whatever everyone else wants to do. I probably wouldn't be happy about one of the top players getting a top player with little offered in return, but that's also part of playing fantasy football. Guys make their teams better. You just got to make your team better than your opponents. Plus, the trade isn't going to completely ruin a team / the league. That being said, if I were offered this trade I would view it as a WR3/Flex + Flex/Bench player for a RB1. Things can change, but that's where I see them today. I probably wouldn't even do this deal if Aaron Rodgers was still healthy and Murray got hurt. So to go from where I view it where the trade isn't really even close to trying to view it in someone else's perspective to where it is... I'm just not sure if I can get there.

Anyway, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about this trade being vetoed. I've been involved in similar type vetoes where I disagreed with the decision, but at least I could understand why it was vetoed. This one is close enough to have the conversation of whether it should be vetoed or not, and it just didn't turn out in your favour this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think you are over-justifying the balance of this trade, I definitely don't think it should have been vetoed. I believe people should be able to manage and make decisions for their own teams and if there's no collusion, there should be no veto. What bothers me the most about this situation...

 

1. That the commish sent a message out to everyone encouraging a veto.

2. That at least one of the owners admitted he vetoed because it would make your RB's too good.

3. That this league has 12 owners and only 4 vetoes are needed to block the trade. I hate vetoes to begin with, but every league I've been in requires 50% or higher of the non-trade owners to veto, in order to block a trade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you get to keep your wr1 and your soon-to-be rb1. You dodged a bullet by it getting veto by your logic. 

 

Of course if you disagree with this then you are downplaying the trade and how lopsided it is. 

 

Lose-lose for you whichever you decide. 

Edited by zzphish02
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Idoolittle said:

 I probably wouldn't even do this deal if Aaron Rodgers was still healthy and Murray got hurt. 

 

Then you don't know much about Henry and /or are not very smart.

 

Either way, probably shouldn't be giving advice on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Idoolittle said:

I'm generally one that hates vetoes. The only reason a trade should be vetoed is if it lacks sound logic. However, in this case, I think the logic behind the trade might be a bit of a stretch.

The argument is essentially that Fournette could be damaged goods, Adams is a WR1, and Henry has tremendous value if Murray goes down. But I don't really see enough support too say that Fournette is a risky player to have. He missed one game due to injury and one game for a suspension. He did get hurt last week and played through it and is questionable now, but that's football. Guys get hurt, they heal, and they come back. I'm no doctor, but from what I've heard this injury isn't expected to be a lingering injury that haunts him for the rest of the season / his career. As far as Adams goes, last week he was a WR1 in GB, but who knows if that will continue. GB still has guys like Jordy and Cobb, so I doubt Adams will be a one man show. Plus, he's got a backup QB feeding him the ball. Last week I benched Adams in my own league, and I'm debating on whether to start his or Corey Davis this week. So I don't really see the WR1 argument as of now. As for Henry, he's a backup RB. Yes, he has value if Murray goes down, but I think this would need to happen to justify this trade a little bit more. And that's a huge assumption to make. You could have said before Garoppollo was traded that he has huge value if Brady gets hurt, but would moving Garoppollo for let's say Prescott would be fair? I guess that's kind of how I see it when assessing Henry's value.

Whether I'd veto the trade or not though I'm really not sure. More than likely I'd just go with the flow an do whatever everyone else wants to do. I probably wouldn't be happy about one of the top players getting a top player with little offered in return, but that's also part of playing fantasy football. Guys make their teams better. You just got to make your team better than your opponents. Plus, the trade isn't going to completely ruin a team / the league. That being said, if I were offered this trade I would view it as a WR3/Flex + Flex/Bench player for a RB1. Things can change, but that's where I see them today. I probably wouldn't even do this deal if Aaron Rodgers was still healthy and Murray got hurt. So to go from where I view it where the trade isn't really even close to trying to view it in someone else's perspective to where it is... I'm just not sure if I can get there.

Anyway, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about this trade being vetoed. I've been involved in similar type vetoes where I disagreed with the decision, but at least I could understand why it was vetoed. This one is close enough to have the conversation of whether it should be vetoed or not, and it just didn't turn out in your favour this time.

 

Good analysis but to evaluate a trade based off of logic can't happen in a scenario where everyone's "logic" is different.  Every owner is going to value every player differently so there is no base to start a logical conversation from.  Every owner has an opinion on this trade based on what has happened so far this season, no one knows what the 2nd half of the season holds so a logical argument can be made for either side.  Ill try below:

 

Fornette has never played a 16 game NFL season and he is already showing signs of wear and tear...

 

Adams has had a much better rapport with Huntley than any other WR on the team and now that they are a worse team they would be trailing more so they are going to be throwing more.  Since Huntley took over he has had 2 good games, 1 great game and 1 bad game. 

 

Henry is basically a coin flip  for a flex spot every week but if Murray goes down he could potentially outscore Fornette by himself and his schedule moving forward is better.  Combined over the last 5 weeks touches and yards would have went as followed with one back instead of 2: 

18 - 67

31 for 171 (2TDS)

31-71

17- 45(1TD)

25 - 94 (2TDS)

 

I'm sure they would mix in another back but either way 20+ touches would make him an RB1 for ROS.

 

Bottom line is If both teams feel as the trade puts them in a better position for whatever reason it should be allowed.  This constant analysis of "is this trade fair or unfair" is pointless, run your own teams and let others do the same!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks fine to me.

 

League sucks if that is vetoed.

 

2 hours ago, dmb3684 said:

All of you who would veto, what happens if Murray misses time and Henry beast through the FF playoffs? 

 

You just say 'my bad?

 

2 hours ago, dmb3684 said:

You didn't answer the question. 

 

1 hour ago, dmb3684 said:

No. I'm just not 12 years old.

 

16 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

Then you don't know much about Henry and /or are not very smart.

 

Either way, probably shouldn't be giving advice on the matter.


My bad. You've obviously proven you're more level headed than I am. Sorry for commenting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flynfiesta6 said:

 

Good analysis but to evaluate a trade based off of logic can't happen in a scenario where everyone's "logic" is different.  Every owner is going to value every player differently so there is no base to start a logical conversation from.  Every owner has an opinion on this trade based on what has happened so far this season, no one knows what the 2nd half of the season holds so a logical argument can be made for either side.  Ill try below:

 

Fornette has never played a 16 game NFL season and he is already showing signs of wear and tear...

 

Adams has had a much better rapport with Huntley than any other WR on the team and now that they are a worse team they would be trailing more so they are going to be throwing more.  Since Huntley took over he has had 2 good games, 1 great game and 1 bad game. 

 

Henry is basically a coin flip  for a flex spot every week but if Murray goes down he could potentially outscore Fornette by himself and his schedule moving forward is better.  Combined over the last 5 weeks touches and yards would have went as followed with one back instead of 2: 

18 - 67

31 for 171 (2TDS)

31-71

17- 45(1TD)

25 - 94 (2TDS)

 

I'm sure they would mix in another back but either way 20+ touches would make him an RB1 for ROS.

 

Bottom line is If both teams feel as the trade puts them in a better position for whatever reason it should be allowed.  This constant analysis of "is this trade fair or unfair" is pointless, run your own teams and let others do the same!

 

 


I think this is a perfect reason why to consider not using a veto system at all. There are many great leagues that work fine without the use of vetoes. But this league does use a veto system. So if a veto system is being used, there has to be something that's considered "veto worthy". Everyone has their own "veto worthy" threshold, but for me I like to look at the logic behind the trade. Not necessarily my own thoughts or opinions, but what I think the other person is using as logic for making the trade. As mentioned, there is a logical path that can be followed in this trade. But to me there are a lot of assumptions that are being made which has me questioning whether the logic is sound enough or not. Based on the comments I've read, I've been convinced enough not to use a veto. But I still think it's close enough to at least have the conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is totally Veteoable. I'm not a fan of veteos, but it has to at least be remotely fair.

 

Two reasons for why this trade trade went through:

 

1) rookie noob who knows nothing about football and is playing his first year will accept anything 

 

or 

 

2) Collusion because fantasy football causes personal rifts and two bitter losers (or one who wants to tip the balance of powers) decide to gain the edge on the rest of the league. 

 

Clearly your situation falls into the first camp. In that case, that guy is a complete and total noob, and for competitive purposes, that trade is egregiously unfair, especially to the rest of the league. Davonte Adams is at best a WR3 btw, no way you can claim he's anything better than that at this point. I've had Derrick henry for the past two years in essentially all my leagues and he is nothing more than a handcuff at this point. And to the guy speculating on "what if" values, get that nonsensical rhetorician bullcrap out of here. When assessing fairness you incorporate realistic elements with discernible value, not some far-fetched nonsensical lines of reasoning. With your fallacious logic, I can justify pretty much anything and deconstruct the concept of fairness in its entirety. Theoretically Perine can be an RB1 with Kelly out, while Leveon Bell is showing signs of breaking down (as evidenced by poor yards per carry) due to his unsustainable workload, therefore a Perine for Bell trade is rational and acceptable. To avoid breaking down this vastly moronic proposition logically, see the aforementioned points, and acknowledge the hollowness of your argument.

Edited by J Boogie
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, Tenner said:

Since this "incredibly lopsided vetoable" trade happened. 

 

Adams has scored 65 pts and Henry 40

 

Fournette has scored 48. And he is OUT for this game.

So what be happy it didn't go through:D I agree it should  of since there was obviously no collusion.   But sometimes its the trades you don't or can't make that save you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, youngrice said:

So what be happy it didn't go through:D I agree it should  of since there was obviously no collusion.   But sometimes its the trades you don't or can't make that save you.

 

Almost did a trade earlier in the season that would have cost me a playoff spot potentially. Zeke for Mike Evans. Pulled the trigger but Mike Evans owner backed out. 

Edited by Jon21
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...