Jump to content

NFL Fantasy League 2015


Tubby

Recommended Posts

Think of it like this:

Before the trade, I benefit more than SBS as I started Enunwa and he sat Sims.

If we broke rules, then the trade is vetoed and SBS loses out and I actually benefit from breaking the rules (if determined so)

Common sense would be to let this go through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already Vetoed it and dont think i can unveto it.

Irregardless of common sense and the best move to do now, it a pretty sketchy move to be playing. 

How about if im through to the playoffs theres a game left and you need to win your game to get to the playoffs, but i dont want to play you so lend my star players to the player you are playing agianst. is that cool?

 

I mean its Fantasy football and theres no money in it so its not much of a big deal and im not going to get worked out about it. What would you think if someone else did it.

Edited by zak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was for a week 5 game and the trade was mutually beneficial then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You keep listing situations where this wouldn't be fair whereas this was a situation that was mutually beneficial, we both had our own matchups and after all is said and done, it didn't affect anything. You need to take it case by case, not list worse case scenarios as a strength in your argument. 

Vetoing benefits me so I shouldn't be arguing this adamantly but I think this is unfair to SBS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't trade after about week 9, Zak.

I can't say I'm too arsed about it tbh. It's more likely to happen anyway because of reduced roster size and Rbs not being allowed in the flex. Also, as said before they're dealing in very borderline starters, not like he's tossing him Antonio Brown for Tedd Ginn

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Milfner said:

You can't trade after about week 9, Zak.

I can't say I'm too arsed about it tbh. It's more likely to happen anyway because of reduced roster size and Rbs not being allowed in the flex. Also, as said before they're dealing in very borderline starters, not like he's tossing him Antonio Brown for Tedd Ginn

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

In this format, a RB2 (which he was at the time of trade) for a WR3 is a bad trade for me.

Agreed with SBS, way out of proportion.

@zak I'm playing you this week, so vetoing the trade hurts you.

I have already done it, dont think i can change it.

2 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said:

This is being blown well out of proportion IMO.

You all had a chance to veto the original trade but you all deemed the quality of the players being traded to be even so the 'My star player for your shit one' idea falls down.

it seemed a fine trade. Trading Enuwa for a RB on IR is not even though!

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

If it was for a week 5 game and the trade was mutually beneficial then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You keep listing situations where this wouldn't be fair whereas this was a situation that was mutually beneficial, we both had our own matchups and after all is said and done, it didn't affect anything. You need to take it case by case, not list worse case scenarios as a strength in your argument. 

Vetoing benefits me so I shouldn't be arguing this adamantly but I think this is unfair to SBS.

was it mutually beneficial?

whichever week it is is irrelivant, no one should be helping someone else win a game.

 

Anyway, i cant seem to cancel my Veto and iv said my bit. if you have Enuwa when you play me, meh, thats the way it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I proposed it to SBS, I thought Lacy was on bye. So I thought SBS needed a second RB. I offered to cancel it once I realised Lacy wasn't on bye and SBS said that he wanted it still. 

Here's the PM train. You can see I tried to cancel it and was aware of it not being fair for SBS.

qakocJ9.png

C3mRAiP.png

uLCy0hH.png

I even mentioned that it could be interpreted that I'm getting Enunwa for free but then SBS said he has a need for it. Therefore, mutually beneficial. I didn't put it in the thread to discuss based on our PMs.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said:

This is being blown well out of proportion IMO.

You all had a chance to veto the original trade but you all deemed the quality of the players being traded to be even so the 'My star player for your shit one' idea falls down.

heh, I know all about this type of thing, I traded lots of players a few years ago and no one vetoed any of them, but they all moaned when they went through! :)

google "tradegate" :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sexbelowsound said:

This is being blown well out of proportion IMO.

You all had a chance to veto the original trade but you all deemed the quality of the players being traded to be even so the 'My star player for your shit one' idea falls down.

I had no problem with the original trade . I just knew that you pair would attempt to trade back straight after and that's not cool !

You can't "borrow" players . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â