Triplethreat
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 12,897
- Reaction score
- 12,758
- Points
- 123
So, as I posted in another thread, I recently made a deal to acquire DeMarco Murray in my money league. Well. Now it looks as if that deal will never make it through. You see, after the three team trade went down (outlined below) and was agreed upon and sent for review, one of the owners (my commissioner) had second thoughts. Here is the details of the trade:
Me (In): DeMarco Murray
Me (out): Frank Gore, Trent Richardson, Mike Evans
Friend 1 (Commissioner) (in): Frank Gore, Jordan Cameron
Friend 1 (out): Gronk, Knowshon Moreno
Friend 2 (in): Gronk, Richardson, Evans
Friend 2 (out): Murray, Cameron
Now, in no possible way was this deal collusion, and all teams agreed upon the trade. The next day, Friend 1 decides he's getting the raw end of the deal. IMO, he's getting better because he get's to get shitty ass Kelvin Benjamin out of his Flex and get's Gore and a top 5 TE in return for Gronk. Now, friend 1 gets everyone to veto the trade because he now all of a sudden doesn't like it AFTER it was agreed upon the day before and everyone was completely fine with it. This owner is known for fleecing other players in deals and has won the league the last 2 years we played. I'm fed up with this bullshit because once a trade is agreed upon there should be no way you can just "go back" and cancel it. The only reason I see the veto being a viable option is if there is specific evidence of 2 players cheating (collusion).
In no way is this a completely and utterly lopsided trade that should be voted down by peers. Anyone want to throw any thoughts on the topic? My god do I hate the veto option now.
Me (In): DeMarco Murray
Me (out): Frank Gore, Trent Richardson, Mike Evans
Friend 1 (Commissioner) (in): Frank Gore, Jordan Cameron
Friend 1 (out): Gronk, Knowshon Moreno
Friend 2 (in): Gronk, Richardson, Evans
Friend 2 (out): Murray, Cameron
Now, in no possible way was this deal collusion, and all teams agreed upon the trade. The next day, Friend 1 decides he's getting the raw end of the deal. IMO, he's getting better because he get's to get shitty ass Kelvin Benjamin out of his Flex and get's Gore and a top 5 TE in return for Gronk. Now, friend 1 gets everyone to veto the trade because he now all of a sudden doesn't like it AFTER it was agreed upon the day before and everyone was completely fine with it. This owner is known for fleecing other players in deals and has won the league the last 2 years we played. I'm fed up with this bullshit because once a trade is agreed upon there should be no way you can just "go back" and cancel it. The only reason I see the veto being a viable option is if there is specific evidence of 2 players cheating (collusion).
In no way is this a completely and utterly lopsided trade that should be voted down by peers. Anyone want to throw any thoughts on the topic? My god do I hate the veto option now.