Fantasy thread

[azcatz11]

I'm good with this. I usually never veto any trades anyways. I assume we are all grown men making the best decisions for our team. As long as no blatant collusion i'm good with it lol

I’m not accusing anyone of collusion…but sometimes managers truly don’t have their best interest at heart (sometimes they don’t realize it)

Alright.

Have many votes would you suggest (Veto)? 2, 3? Or more?

I would say 4 but again, I don't want to be the only one suggesting this if no one else is on board

[azcatz11]

I'm good with this. I usually never veto any trades anyways. I assume we are all grown men making the best decisions for our team. As long as no blatant collusion i'm good with it lol

I’m not accusing anyone of collusion…but sometimes managers truly don’t have their best interest at heart (sometimes they don’t realize it)

That may be the case. But if there's something I learned long ago with fantasy football, its that 2 people can have HUGE variances in player evaluations. For instance you and I hold Swifts value miles apart. You were full sell mode, I was saying he was criminally underrated in the 4th round. There's no exact science this early in the season.

So as long as the trades are close enough to reasonably assume there is no collusion (Example, Kelce for Ty'son Williams) i'm okay with it.

Yeah that's true. Honestly I'm done with Fantasy Pro's podcast.

[LightTheBeam]

I'm good with this. I usually never veto any trades anyways. I assume we are all grown men making the best decisions for our team. As long as no blatant collusion i'm good with it lol

I’m not accusing anyone of collusion…but sometimes managers truly don’t have their best interest at heart (sometimes they don’t realize it)

Alright.

Have many votes would you recommend (Veto)? 2, 3? Or more?

If we do move to a vote based system. I vote at least 4 people have to veto.

10 teams - 2 involved in the trade.

Should be at least minimum of 50% of the teams not included in the deal. (but I generally hate allowing teams to veto)

Not pinpointing AZ but in his mind he would have vetod the deal because he felt that he offered you a better deal. That to me is not even close to grounds for veto. Its not even disagreeing with the trade, more so just that his deal wasn't accepted. Again, not picking on him, just in my 10 years of fantasy experience, I tend to see this is what happens. People won't allow the top dogs to trade because they don't want them to improve. Not because the trade was bad or unfair, just to spite them. Thats not cool.

[azcatz11]

I’m not accusing anyone of collusion…but sometimes managers truly don’t have their best interest at heart (sometimes they don’t realize it)

Alright.

Have many votes would you recommend (Veto)? 2, 3? Or more?

If we do move to a vote based system. I vote at least 4 people have to veto.

10 teams - 2 involved in the trade.

Should be at least minimum of 50% of the teams not included in the deal. (but I generally hate allowing teams to veto)

Not pinpointing AZ but in his mind he would have vetod the deal because he felt that he offered you a better deal. That to me is not even close to grounds for veto. Its not even disagreeing with the trade, more so just that his deal wasn't accepted. Again, not picking on him, just in my 10 years of fantasy experience, I tend to see this is what happens. People won't allow the top dogs to trade because they don't want them to improve. Not because the trade was bad or unfair, just to spite them. Thats not cool.

All good man - I'm not going to lie - I would have vetoed that trade

Not because of Cactus or Duke but I truly felt like my deal was way better value. Hopefully no hard feelings fellas. This is a competitive league

[Cactus Jack]

If we do move to a vote based system. I vote at least 4 people have to veto.

10 teams - 2 involved in the trade.

Should be at least minimum of 50% of the teams not included in the deal. (but I generally hate allowing teams to veto)

Not pinpointing AZ but in his mind he would have vetod the deal because he felt that he offered you a better deal. That to me is not even close to grounds for veto. Its not even disagreeing with the trade, more so just that his deal wasn't accepted. Again, not picking on him, just in my 10 years of fantasy experience, I tend to see this is what happens. People won't allow the top dogs to trade because they don't want them to improve. Not because the trade was bad or unfair, just to spite them. Thats not cool.

I'm completely on board with this thinking. That's why I haven't set it to a league vote (yet).

Unless a deal seems completely one sided, then I won't have an issue with most trades.

But like you say, if someone is voting against something because they themselves wanted that player, then that's an issue in itself.

[LightTheBeam]

Alright.

Have many votes would you recommend (Veto)? 2, 3? Or more?

If we do move to a vote based system. I vote at least 4 people have to veto.

10 teams - 2 involved in the trade.

Should be at least minimum of 50% of the teams not included in the deal. (but I generally hate allowing teams to veto)

Not pinpointing AZ but in his mind he would have vetod the deal because he felt that he offered you a better deal. That to me is not even close to grounds for veto. Its not even disagreeing with the trade, more so just that his deal wasn't accepted. Again, not picking on him, just in my 10 years of fantasy experience, I tend to see this is what happens. People won't allow the top dogs to trade because they don't want them to improve. Not because the trade was bad or unfair, just to spite them. Thats not cool.

All good man - I'm not going to lie - I would have vetoed that trade

Not because of Cactus or Duke but I truly felt like my deal was way better value. Hopefully no hard feelings fellas. This is a competitive league

Ya I'm not trying to pick on you or anything. I feel where you are coming from.

But it goes back to the fact that a week ago if Cactus and I both offered you a deal, Cactus sending you Gaskin and me sending you Swift, you would have taken his deal.

So we don't know what Cactus valuations are.

Duke told me he valued 5+ guys on the waiver over Hyde. I know people in other leagues i'm in that have JRob and have offered nice WR's for Hyde. Its all personal preference when dealing with these fringe guys.

[Cactus Jack]

All good man - I'm not going to lie - I would have vetoed that trade

Not because of Cactus or Duke but I truly felt like my deal was way better value. Hopefully no hard feelings fellas. This is a competitive league

I get it lol.

I was willing to do that deal with you. Maybe it comes back to bite me later. We'll see...

[Duke4life831]

A day later and reading this thread I feel better about the trade now haha. Just a heads up to everyone, be prepared for trade offers from me on Sunday and Monday nights. I get a good amount of drinks in and start over thinking my roster and start shooting out the trade offers haha. I hate being complacent with my fantasy teams.

[bluejerseyjinx]

I would have veto'd the trade for what it's worth. I had a better trade offered to Cactus and he rebuffed me. I will not be trading with Cactus nor Duke in the future!

[azcatz11]

I have Chase & Waddle avail on the trade block if anyone needs a WR

[LightTheBeam]

I have Chase & Waddle avail on the trade block if anyone needs a WR

I could use a WR with Samuel and Jeudy down, and Aiyuk also hurt. Any interest in Latavius?

[azcatz11]

I have Chase & Waddle avail on the trade block if anyone needs a WR

I could use a WR with Samuel and Jeudy down, and Aiyuk also hurt. Any interest in Latavius?

Not for Chase but possibly for Waddle...let me think about that one.

[Cactus Jack]

I could use a WR with Samuel and Jeudy down, and Aiyuk also hurt.

You want a WR? PM me!

[azcatz11]

I could use a WR with Samuel and Jeudy down, and Aiyuk also hurt.

You want a WR? PM me!

Update with you two?

[LightTheBeam]

I could use a WR with Samuel and Jeudy down, and Aiyuk also hurt.

You want a WR? PM me!

Update with you two?

Im down to discuss waddle!

[bwgood77]

I played Mostert is every one of my fantasy leagues. Lucky for me I drafted like a boss and overcame his injury. Still super bummed that I lost him so early in the season though I had high expectations.

I added an extra IR slot (3). Injuries are starting to pile up already.

Oh, did you have 3 and not want to drop someone?

[bwgood77]

I'm good with this. I usually never veto any trades anyways. I assume we are all grown men making the best decisions for our team. As long as no blatant collusion i'm good with it lol

I’m not accusing anyone of collusion…but sometimes managers truly don’t have their best interest at heart (sometimes they don’t realize it)

That may be the case. But if there's something I learned long ago with fantasy football, its that 2 people can have HUGE variances in player evaluations. For instance you and I hold Swifts value miles apart. You were full sell mode, I was saying he was criminally underrated in the 4th round. There's no exact science this early in the season.

So as long as the trades are close enough to reasonably assume there is no collusion (Example, Kelce for Ty'son Williams) i'm okay with it.

I remember years ago I had a pretty stacked team and I had a very fair trade for Peyton Manning. Everyone agreed it was a good trade...this was a $200 per person money league. Anyway, one guy emailed everyone and told them that if I got Manning I would have by far the best team and that people should veto it. I responded with "veto's are supposed to be lopsided unfair trades, but usually collusion..."

Anyway, despite being the commissioner and telling people what the veto was for, they voted my trade down. Still pisses me off.

[Cactus Jack]

I added an extra IR slot (3). Injuries are starting to pile up already.

Oh, did you have 3 and not want to drop someone?

I had two guys go on IR. But I also realized that other managers had two or more. I think most leagues now have three (IR slots) anyway.

[bwgood77]

I added an extra IR slot (3). Injuries are starting to pile up already.

Oh, did you have 3 and not want to drop someone?

I had two guys go on IR. But I also realized that other managers had two or more. I think most leagues now have three (IR slots) anyway.

I usually put 3.

Have you ever used the TQB option? That way you get a team's QB? It doesn't change much...obviously you still are drafting the starting QB for that team, but if he goes down mid game, you get the backup's stats too.

I think I tried it once. Just gives you a little security..and it's really kind of an unfair/unfortunate thing when someone gets injured in the beginning of a game and obviously you wouldn't have played him had you known that. Also helps if you have a great QB on IR for a few weeks...and one of your other two TQBs had a bye.

[Cactus Jack]

Oh, did you have 3 and not want to drop someone?

I had two guys go on IR. But I also realized that other managers had two or more. I think most leagues now have three (IR slots) anyway.

I usually put 3.

Have you ever used the TQB option? That way you get a team's QB? It doesn't change much...obviously you still are drafting the starting QB for that team, but if he goes down mid game, you get the backup's stats too.

I think I tried it once. Just gives you a little security..and it's really kind of an unfair/unfortunate thing when someone gets injured in the beginning of a game and obviously you wouldn't have played him had you known that. Also helps if you have a great QB on IR for a few weeks...and one of your other two TQBs had a bye.

I didn't even know that was a thing lol.