Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Drummond for Ibaka and Hill...

Recommended Posts

So...this trade was accepted in my causal friends league in 9 cat H2H. Everyone immediately vetoed but the person who did the trade is not happy about it. He thinks it’s a fair trade because apparently George Hill is a highly efficient guard making 1.7 treys and Ibaka has 80% ownership on ESPN.


Can people here post some comments to talk some sense to him? I’ll forward the link to him.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol this is one of those times when someone actually believes the ludicrous things you say to get a trade done lol. 

I would veto it myself even if I got Drummond like this cause I would feel so bad lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, as silly as this trade is and as .. well ... simple-minded as your friend (or whoever this guy) is, this trade isn't vetoable.

I've said this ... I dunno how many times but ... Vetoes should only ONLY ONLY ONLY be used in cases of collusion.

I'll say it again for emphasis, if that wasn't enough: Vetoes should only be used in cases of collusion.

It's a very common mistake (and you can see from the posts here) that you veto simply because a trade is lopsided or an owner is an idiot.  However, you gotta take vetoes seriously, otherwise they devolve into a popularity game, or merely to ensure that you don't lose potential for winning your league (basically, you'd try to veto any trade that benefits a player who would threaten your chances of winning).  And it's frustrating when players veto because for the simple reason that they don't LIKE the trade. Trades are between you and another person, not between your entire league and you; it's not a judge/jury system, with your commish acting as the judge and your co-owners as jury.  Instead, think of vetoing like an incredibly precious emergency defense against two owners who are collaborating together to win by joining forces, and for that reason only.

For example, playing in some random 9-cat standard leagues in recent memory, I've let these trades through (and some made it through):

(2016) Lebron James -> Chandler Parsons

(2017) PG, Lowry, Ibaka, Booker -> D12, Kuzma, DDR, Tyreke

(2017) Jokic -> Wiggins, Clarkson

(2017) Curry, Carroll -> Lowry, Taj Gibson

(2017) Porzingis, Embiid -> BroLo, RoLo, Brandon Knight

(2018) KAT -> CJM

Was I salty?  Sure.  Did I win my championship?  Heck no.  But none of these trades, in their particular contexts, were vetoable to me.  From what I could gather, in most cases, none of these players knew each other.  None of them had any incentive to win.  I asked the players trading their top guys away why the hell they'd do that.  A few of them said it was their first year playing and they needed guards or different stats.  Some of them used ownership or used Yahoo rankings to influence their choices.  The guy who traded away KAT for CJM admitted that he was just a huge fan of CJM.  And the dumbest one, in 2016 (I almost wanted to quit fantasy for this one), was because the Lebron owner was a girl who autodrafted Lebron but hated him (because "he's mean") and she thought Parsons was cute.  In all of those cases, not only did I have no evidence of cheating or collusion between the players, but I DID have claims that these owners were just making some dumb decisions, or making them out of non-fantasy reasons.  Therefore, I had to just accept that I was in a garbage league and shouldn't play with those owners again.


Just because another owner is dumb or ignorant doesn't mean you immediately hit veto.  Sure, it's tempting, but if you were in the opposite situation, I'm sure you'd hate it too, especially because enough vetoing causes NOBODY to want to trade. If anything, seeing a bad trades allow you to target that stupid owner for more trades and rob them yourself.  Seek to understand and obtain information contextually, rather than acting out of spite or frustration.

Anyway, that's my yearly rant on collusion.  I should actually try to create a Veto thread or something, since I think I write on this every year (seems people either just don't know or don't agree about vetoing).  Oh, and there's nothing wrong with pointing the owner to this thread either.  Unless he's deliberately cheating, it's probably helpful for him to understand that he's making an egregious mistake.


Vetoes should only be used in cases of collusion.

Edited by MWon
Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, vyun said:

This is wrong. A trade that is horrendously lopsided because one party does not know what they're doing is definite cause for veto.


As I already stated, that does happen, and it sucks.  However, by you actually saying that statement, you're prejudging the party and determining whether or not they have the ability to do what's best for themselves.  In effect, you're playing fantasy for them.

If you think they're clueless about fantasy, you can educate or persuade them, and if they reconsider, they (and the other party, if willing) should bring it to the commish, who can use his/her power to cancel the trade.  What you CAN'T do, however, is control them.

Also, here's some reading material so you (and lots of others) can enlighten yourselves.  Most actual vets in here would probably agree about the reason(s) you should veto.





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.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...