[caladanbrood]

I would neg-rep this entire exchange if I could. Grow up and calm down, the lot of you. If a trade is agreed, it is agreed, that should be the end of it. Others might not like it, but that's just bad luck.

[teholbeddict]

Actually no it's not, that is why the block trade rule exists, and it's not just in our league it's in all fantasy leagues. This has nothing to do with liking or not liking something, but about a trade being lopsided. There are many trades I don't like, however it would take more than that for me to block one. Daser I'm sorry your trade was vetoed, again it wasn't personal it was all about the players. That's all I have to say on the matter and I will not add anymore.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 19 November 2009 - 01:59 AM

[KalamMekhar]

its all good in the neighborhood Brood, a trade is not just a trade if it is lopsided like so!

I was just being honest saying if favre was on the table i would have offered more than a second rate RB, whether the other person was desperate or not. i voted to veto the trade because of how lopsided it was. Ive been thinking about possible trade, but in my own eyes, none of my players have much value if you look at how they have performed, so being able to get favre in a trade opened up avenues to trades that i didnt have before. Jacobs and evans look to on the way back up, and eddie needed some help with bowe being out and westbrook out. i have 2 solid QB's that i could trade either one to another team if i need to before the deadline, or just sit on him so someone else doesnt get him that i might face later on.

the parker/cassel trade is irrelevant as when i drafted both QB's i didnt look at there bye weeks which feel during the same weeks, i needed to trade him and my RB situation was craptastic, so i got parker thinking once he came back he would be back to fast willy, but mendenhall decided to take off and take over the lead duties, and then cassel just sucked butt all year long on KC, so neither of us got anything out of that trade and we both dont have the players anymore.

[Daser]

KalamMekhar, on 19 November 2009 - 02:28 AM, said:

its all good in the neighborhood Brood, a trade is not just a trade if it is lopsided like so!

I was just being honest saying if favre was on the table i would have offered more than a second rate RB, whether the other person was desperate or not. i voted to veto the trade because of how lopsided it was. Ive been thinking about possible trade, but in my own eyes, none of my players have much value if you look at how they have performed, so being able to get favre in a trade opened up avenues to trades that i didnt have before. Jacobs and evans look to on the way back up, and eddie needed some help with bowe being out and westbrook out. i have 2 solid QB's that i could trade either one to another team if i need to before the deadline, or just sit on him so someone else doesnt get him that i might face later on.

the parker/cassel trade is irrelevant as when i drafted both QB's i didnt look at there bye weeks which feel during the same weeks, i needed to trade him and my RB situation was craptastic, so i got parker thinking once he came back he would be back to fast willy, but mendenhall decided to take off and take over the lead duties, and then cassel just sucked butt all year long on KC, so neither of us got anything out of that trade and we both dont have the players anymore.

Ok thanks for the answer KM.

After hearing your side of the story, the NFL decides you are guilty of "unsportsmanlike conduct" and fine you. You have NO number 1 draftpick for the next 2 years. TB just lose 1 for following his lead.

Both are offering trades to get a ongoing trade Vetoed and instead getting him for themsleves.

If any of you still dont understand why i think this is wildly unfair, then read page 65. All the evidence is there.

This post has been edited by Daser: 21 November 2009 - 08:42 AM

[Daser]

caladanbrood, on 19 November 2009 - 12:50 AM, said:

I would neg-rep this entire exchange if I could. Grow up and calm down, the lot of you. If a trade is agreed, it is agreed, that should be the end of it. Others might not like it, but that's just bad luck.

I am sorry Brood.

If this had been Vetoed i would still be upset, but not make a big deal out of it.

Instead 2 people decide to start offering more to get the player i was offered and get it Vetoed.

On your tradeoffer: Brood i dont need any RBs, so made you an counteroffer and a suggestion.

This post has been edited by Daser: 19 November 2009 - 12:57 PM

[teholbeddict]

I'm glad to see you've calmed down a bit Daser, and again I'm sorry your trade was blocked. I just want to point out that I never made a specific trade offer naming players. I said that Eddie could contact me if he didn't like what KM was offering, he may not have liked what I had to offer or wanted my players. Honestly my reason behind voting against the trade was that it was lopsided and my reason for making the offer to Eddie is that I don't want to see someone be taken advantage of or lose out like that. I stated that at the time, I really was only trying to be fair and I did promise at the time that I would not play Favre if I got him. The same sort of situation arose a week or two ago when HD told Sixty to cancel his Mendenhall trade and he'd give him a pick of his WR's. No one got angry at that, I was just doing the same thing. I really wasn't trying to undercut you and I'm sorry if you thought I was.

[Daser]

KM said.

"I was just being honest saying if favre was on the table i would have offered more than a second rate RB, whether the other person was desperate or not."


Please say after me. Eddie offered me the trade.
Favre was on the trading block from week 3 or 4, so why the surprise that Eddie wanted to trade him?

TB said.

"Honestly my reason behind voting against the trade was that it was lopsided and my reason for making the offer to Eddie is that I don't want to see someone be taken advantage of or lose out like that."

Please say after me. Eddie offered me the trade.


So stop making it look like i am the 1 doing something wrong here.

This is about KMs and TBs behaviour in this not mine.

[teholbeddict]

Daser I know you did not make the offer, what I'm talking about is the trade itself, the players involved. It is about McCoy not being an appropriate straight up trade for Favre whoever made the offer. That is what I keep trying to tell you, it's not about you or Eddie, it's the trade itself. Trades are supposed to be close at least close to even, those are not my rules, those are the rules of the league and fantasy football. If I were to accept an offer of McCoy for PM tomorrow, I would expect that to be blocked as well, because in a straight up trade it doesn't work. When I have commented on the trade it has been in regards to the players involved in the trade, it is nothing to do with you personally. As for my behaviour, I have tried to be very specific as to why the trade did not work, and I have been very specific about addressing your claims. I am not the only person who voted against this, I am not to blame and I have said all I'm going to say. I've apologized several times now for the fact your trade was blocked and I've also apologized if you think this was something personal, but it wasn't. I've said all I have to say on it and am not going to comment anymore. I think you should look at the way you've acted before calling other people out on their behaviour or making anymore wild accusations. You've changed your reason for not liking this several times now, and it's just getting silly. Again the trade is done, I'm sorry if you think people were attacking you, but there was no conspiracy. It was purely about the trade itself.

[KalamMekhar]

because i dont pay attention the trading block.

wanna look at behaviour? look at you accepting a lopsided trade, you should have counter offered a better deal instead of accepting the lopsided trade as it was, instead thinking the league was gonna let that trade fly? gimme a break.

[KalamMekhar]

if your going to call in my behaviour then you better bring some bitching to the front about what HD said about the trade between venge and sixty, did the same thing i did, or wait, you seemed perfectly content to say nothing about it when it wasnt against your trade. if your gonna criticize and point fingers, make sure to point at them all.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

OOOOH, HANDBAGS AT DAWN ALERT!!!

This is what you guys have reminded me of.

[caladanbrood]

I maded a trade. It was purdy, does I get a gold star?




Daser - cheers for your suggestion mate, that looks about right, hopefully it will pay off

[Daser]

caladanbrood, on 19 November 2009 - 09:57 PM, said:

I maded a trade. It was purdy, does I get a gold star?




Daser - cheers for your suggestion mate, that looks about right, hopefully it will pay off

You are welcome..... ohh and you are welcome.

[Obdigore]

This is somewhat silly.

1) The value of players is in the eye of the beholder. If I have Matt Schaub, a backup QB like Cutler for a RB would be a great trade, especially if I need help at RB position, although that trade might look 'unfair' if I traded Cutler for McCoy.
2) The Veto is in place to prevent someone from giving up on the season and trading all their good players to another team for all their bad players, at least that is how I see it. It is not there to say 'I will give you more for that guy, so lets cancel the trade.'

Both my starting RB's got injured last week. You better believe I traded my backup QB (who starts every week) for a backup RB that will see 5 carries per week after the starter comes back.

If Eddie has a better QB than Favre (there are what, 5 around?), and wants to upgrade or needs to find a player for another position, Favre is nothing but trade-bait to him. If he was exploring his options, and you guys ignored him or didn't offer to trade for Favre, then veto'ing this trade, was in my mind, a mean spirited move which screwed someone (Daser it looks like) and benefited someone who vetoed (KM).

Vetoing a trade because you think you have a better offer for one of the players is increadibly low.

And to be fair, McCoy is the starting RB in Philly while Westbrook is down, right? Westbrook's CAREER might be over. He might never start another game. That makes McCoy a STARTING WITH NO RBBC running back for a .500 or winning team. That is a very good thing. Indy is a pass-first team, and their starting RB is worth starting every week. Just because YOU think the trade is unfair dosen't mean the two people doing the trade do.

In other news, who dropped the Denver Defense and picked up Larry "I-beat-women" Johnson this week? I did!

[KalamMekhar]

eh i veto'd because it was a crap trade imo and felt it was lopsided. I didnt veto because i could have offered a better trade, that came to after i already veto'd against it, say whatever you want. the veto is there to prevent unfair trades, which in my mind this trade was. all there is to it.

I said i would have given him more for favre, he said lets talk if it gets veto'd.

[Obdigore]

Now read a couple pages earlier, when you refused to veto what you thought was an unfair trade, because the person offering the trade was the one getting screwed.

The situation is the exact same thing, and this one you vetoed because you felt you could get something out of it.

Not trying to be an ass, but that is what it looks like.

[Eddie Dean]

If everyone will kiss and make up, next year I promise I won't try to trade anyone.

[teholbeddict]

Excuse me Obdi but that was not the same situation. Sixty wanted to block a trade he made because he had changed him mind, not because it was an unfair trade. The point of KM voting on the Daser trade is that it ws lopsided. Please do not accuse people of something if you don't have all the facts

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 19 November 2009 - 10:27 PM

[KalamMekhar]

quotes please, i dont see where i said it was a unfair trade and wasnt going to vote for it.

[Daser]

Obdigore, on 19 November 2009 - 10:10 PM, said:

This is somewhat silly.

1) The value of players is in the eye of the beholder. If I have Matt Schaub, a backup QB like Cutler for a RB would be a great trade, especially if I need help at RB position, although that trade might look 'unfair' if I traded Cutler for McCoy.
2) The Veto is in place to prevent someone from giving up on the season and trading all their good players to another team for all their bad players, at least that is how I see it. It is not there to say 'I will give you more for that guy, so lets cancel the trade.'

Both my starting RB's got injured last week. You better believe I traded my backup QB (who starts every week) for a backup RB that will see 5 carries per week after the starter comes back.

If Eddie has a better QB than Favre (there are what, 5 around?), and wants to upgrade or needs to find a player for another position, Favre is nothing but trade-bait to him. If he was exploring his options, and you guys ignored him or didn't offer to trade for Favre, then veto'ing this trade, was in my mind, a mean spirited move which screwed someone (Daser it looks like) and benefited someone who vetoed (KM).

Vetoing a trade because you think you have a better offer for one of the players is increadibly low.

And to be fair, McCoy is the starting RB in Philly while Westbrook is down, right? Westbrook's CAREER might be over. He might never start another game. That makes McCoy a STARTING WITH NO RBBC running back for a .500 or winning team. That is a very good thing. Indy is a pass-first team, and their starting RB is worth starting every week. Just because YOU think the trade is unfair dosen't mean the two people doing the trade do.

In other news, who dropped the Denver Defense and picked up Larry "I-beat-women" Johnson this week? I did!

Thank you Obdigore,I was beginning to feel like a redhaired stepchild.
Ohh and yes Eddie has D. Brees.

Grrrr dont get me started on Larry Johnson. I was sure he would return to his old self under new management, so i owned him for the first 5 or 6 weeks.