Friday, September 28, 2012

just because we can

Is that ever a good reason to do anything?

I mean I could donate all my money to Fred Phelps and the KKK, just because I can.

But anyway, we had a little fantasy football drama over the past week or so, that said, split now if that sounds boring.

Scenario: my team is suffering from a serious lack of decent running backs. Shoulda drafted better, shoulda made some cr00sh waiver pickups, whatever. I didn't. My team is fucked at RB. That's the reality.

A reasonable solution would be a trade.

After 45 minutes of negotiations over the course of a couple hours one afternoon, a fellow owner and I came to an agreement: I send over Drew Brees and Randall Cobb for Ryan Mathews and Cedric Benson. Note that I really wanted Darren McFadden and Benson, but he wouldn't budge. So I got some solid RBs and he got the QB he wanted.

A fair trade - we both both improved our teams. That's the goal of a trade. Note that I get trading Brees isn't awesome. But I am comfortable rolling with a rotating cast of QBs; my RB sitch is literally killing me (to the tune of Ben Tate, Ahmad Bradshaw, and Peyton Hillis-killing me).

Anyway, our twelve team league unfortunately allows owners to veto, and it only takes four to put the hammer down. Full disclosure: I knew full well about the veto rule going into the trade, but never even thought it would seriously get shot down for the "reasons" we will soon read about. I mean, I knew one team, and by marriage, two teams that would auto-veto. We'll get to them shortly.

We can argue sportsmanship and low character and the ramifications outside of fantasy football (rearing children, voting, driving, etc.), because the internet has arguments for both sides of the argument. Though trade vetoing is generally frowned upon when there is no suspected collusion. Personally, I would prefer to err on the side of being a good sport. Though some people just weren't raised with that on their radar I guess.

That said, let's run through a list of the four vetoers that cast sportsmanship aside and threw down the veto:

Vocal Vetoer 1 - this asshole argued that Brees is horrible, giving my trade partner the short end of the stick. While we appreciate your concern, shut the fuck up, we don't need it. Turns out that Brees is NOT horrible, unless you call a top four QB horrible. With his flimsy argument effectively negated, he straight up broken-recorded it up by saying that the trade improves the teams involved. That's why he vetoed it. Because the two willing participants in the trade are benefiting from the trade. I'm serious. Of course he had a few incoherent "arguments", and copied and pasted some NCAA ethics or something not applicable. Kudos to him for speaking up, but unfortunately nonsensical is his favorite flavor of speaking up. While he acted within the rules, you'd think that some internal alarm would be going off screaming "THIS IS A BITCH MOVE!" as he flipped the veto switch. Final Verdict: I don't think this guy is even real.

Vocal Vetoer 1's wife (Vetoer 2) - while generally fielding the worst team in the league on the regular, she and her husband have colluded before - most recently with her laying down when playing him last year, towards the end of the season. Hard to prove, but suspicious nonetheless. However, more worrisome is her addition to the (un)friendly debate already in progress: "While I am generally suspicious of all trades, why in the world would I ever approve a trade designed to help someone I am playing that week?" Let me tell you: I am only playing you this week. If you wanted to trade, I would never veto it for that reason. I mean, I obviously would now haha. Final Verdict: stay in the kiddie pool, kiddo.

Commish Vetoer 3 - the Commish weighed in with a solid veto. He seems to think the trade leans heavily in favor of my trade partner. I think my trade partner would agree. Believing the trade to lean in my favor, I disagree. If the Commish is right, and my trade partner ends up swindling me in the greatest fantasy football trade ever, good for him! If he thinks I am making that dubious of a move, he should be next in line to shoot me a redonk trade offer. I have always supported the Commish because when other conflicts have arisen he has been nothing but fair and reasonable. Until now. Final Verdict: Thanks dad, but worry about your own team. Seriously dad, you're 1-2, you need to start making moves right meow.

Vetoer 4 (Commish's wife) - she waited until a little later to weigh in. The big question, obviously - was her two cents worth the wait? Nah. Her veto seems to fall squarely into the "just because I can" camp. Her repeated insouciance in league matters had me thinking she would neither veto nor approve the trade. Which makes it a possibility that she had less than savory motives - vetoing just because she can, or she was encouraged by her husband. To be fair, while her reason for vetoing is just as childish as the other three, she did do us a favor by calling us out for the ridiculousness of the situation. It's hard to argue with that. Like the Commish, I know her personally, and they are both very nice, pleasant, intelligent, and fun people. Final Verdict: I appreciate her offer to personally reimburse my trade partner and I the $50 entry fee if we dipped out of the league lol.

So the trade got vetoed because it makes the two involved teams better or because it's simply within the rules. I get how the free agent budget kind of regulates the waiver process, but because another owner outbid me for Andre Brown, by $1, that makes his team better at the league's (and my) expense. Where was that veto!? And let's not even get started on the draft. The first ten or so rounds, every owner is making his or her team better! I don't remember being allowed to throw down any vetoes then!

That's ludicrous!

Every draft pick and waiver transaction needs to be subjected to a very rigorous vetting process where nothing gets done until every owner is in unanimous agreement that we can move forward.

Last thing, the four dissenters are two brothers and their two spouses.



No comments: