No Vote.... Why

[sol diablos]

I don't understand why 2 people voted NO on the RFLers/Pride trade?

Starting QBs are hard to come by in this format. The two teamsbasically swapped a 1 for a 2, andtraded Frye for a future 1. How is that not a fair trade? If you don't mind will you please explain your reason? :D

[FantasyGM]

Those owners that voted no need to explain the reasons why they voted this way. If you can't do that, then I suggest you change your vote.

I'll check-in on the league to see if this matter has been resolved later on today or tomorrow. The rules are very clear on casting "No" votes.

Thank you,
Keith

[MICHIGAN MOUNTAINS]

Decided to vote no, with no regrets,for the best interest of the league.

[RFLers]

Keith,

I just saw this thread so I'll bring you up-to-speed.

The league had a fairly long off-line email exchange over this and both owners that voted no have now explained why. They're concerned that since the team my co-owner and I have (RFL'ers) won the league SB last year, and because we've now accumulated 4 firsts in '07, 3 seconds in '07, 2 firsts in '08, and most of our other picks, it threatens the competitiveness of the league.

I can understand their reasoning and no one has any hard feelings over it. Also, I don't think we have the best team in the league anymore, as several teams are outscoring us. I guess it's time to start using some of those picks to improve this squad :cool:

-Mike (3006 commish)

[alvin57]

MICHIGAN MOUNTAINS wrote: Decided to vote no, with no regrets,for the best interest of the league.And than hide in the shadows for a few days,before revealing no vote!

[MICHIGAN MOUNTAINS]

I didn't think it was anyones business how I voted and the trade passed anyway so whats all the crying about?

[alvin57]

Just that we all agreed,like,a year ago,that if you decided,for whatever reason,to veto a trade,that that team owner should just post why he did so.Wasn't me crying,fact is,as I told rfl'ers and Kinnick,I thought it was a stupid trade for Kinnick,and I didn't buy into the rfl'ers hype about the "revved up Browns offense,with all those weapons"..but,when you get caught without a QB,you gotta expect to drop your drawers.I'm no happier than you about rfl'ers having,like 10 high picks...,but it ain't collusion.

[sol diablos]

Guys thanks for explaining your no votes. Much appreciated.

No crying just asking why owners voted no. As Gordon said we agreed if we ever vote no we will post why. The trade has past and rightfully so in my opinion. It is all about supply and demand. I would ask for a 1st rounder for Gradkowski, before his first start I would have asked for a 2nd rounder.I personally think he will be the starterfor the Bucs next season. Teams that do not need a QB may have laughed in my face. But if you need a QB you will as Gordon put it take a slight a$$ rapin'.

Last year I was without a QB but had a playoff team. Ted was nice enough to trade me Brees for the stretch run. He didn't have trade, but he offered, and we both agreed I would have to pay more for him at that point then if I grabbed him during the prior offseason when he was a free agent.

[bkslast]

MICHIGAN MOUNTAINS wrote: I didn't think it was anyones business how I voted and the trade passed anyway so whats all the crying about?


If you vote no it's everyones business. We allagreed to substantiate our no votes. I don't think it needs to be too detailed just give us something.

[alvin57]

I musta missed something...who was the other no vote besides the Mountain Man?

[MICHIGAN MOUNTAINS]

Wrecking Crew, same reason

[superpion]

For what it's worth, I don't think that trying to prevent a team from becoming "too good" is ever a valid reason for voting no on a trade. We're all big boys here. I say that if our collective competence or lack thereof is not sufficient to maintain the competitive balance of the league, then let the scales tip in favor of those that actually know what they're doing......To the victors go the spoils!!!

A market price was paid based on the perceived value of what they were getting. Only time will bear out who was right or wrong or if it was even-steven. There is absolutely no appearance of collusion. Carry on my wayward friends.

[Kriegz12]

superpion, thanks for that reply. I take the same stand.

but, fwiw, I respect everyone's opinion, so if there are people in this league who use the 'Yes/No' option to bring forth their opinions on player value, I have no issue with it.

MM and WWC, just so I'm clear, you guys voted 'No' because you think I'm an idiot ... correct? I hope this is the case. If your NO vote was because you thought I'm cheating with RFLers, then we have a problem.

If someone votes NO because they don't think I'm 'making a good move' then I could give three shits less. When they pay my mortgage, feed my kids, and screw my woman, ... then they can tell me how to do things :)

[Kriegz12]

and btw, sorry I didn't respond til now (when the issue is dead), but I've been traveling since Thu and I have a case of Bells Palsy, anyone ever hear of that shit? It sucks.

and MM, I caught your jab about our $100 wager. remember, I asked you, so anytime you feel inclined to accept, just say the word :)

[wicked wrecking crew]

Good god, how did I wind up on the same side of a dispute as the Mountain Man??

I'm not going to rehash my reason for voting no, it was all explained in a couple of e-mails that everyone should have received. Essentially it was along the same lines as MM & C.49ers remarks. I find it ridiculous that the league administrator says that he's going to look into the situation to see if the issue has been resolved. WTF?? Why bother putting trades up for a vote if we are all supposed to act like robots and automatically vote yes. The RFLers added two more #1 picks for a mediocre QB on a lousy offensive team and a #2. KP gave up too much IMO so I voted no. Big Deal. The trade passed; let's move on. Jason, nobody called you an idiot, nobody accused you of collusion. You might want to find a different trading partner next time though. We don't need the rich getting any richer.

[MICHIGAN MOUNTAINS]

Jason, you can make me an offer for Joey!

[Kriegz12]

What if I think Charlie Frye is the next Joe Montana? You and everyone else might think I'm crazy, but it's MY opinion. Like I said before, I just don't understand voting 'no' because you think 'player X isn't that good'. What are you, a fantasy messiah?

'You might want to find a different trading partner next time though.' .... lol. Um, I e-mailed multiple teams about QB availability. I was screwed without acquring a starting QB, and I feel that my team is good enough to compete for a playoff spot. If you think this trade was bad, you should've seen what some people were requesting from me for other starting QBs. How would some of you have felt if I would've dealt DQwell Jax, and 2 #1 picks for a middle of the pack QB. Don't believe me? You try and aqcuire a QB ... see what you're asked for. Was I an unprepared owner? Maybe, but I had two starting QBs at the beginning of the season, they are now not starters. I'm not gonna fold the season. You act as if RFLers e-mailed me and said 'hey, you need a QB? we have Frye .... I went to HIM(THEM), and they were the FOURTH team I contacted. What they offered for Frye was the best deal I got offered.

You can defend what you did til the cows come home, but in the end, it's all the same. You and MM are pissed off because you think I loaded up a top team. Big F-ing deal. I don't weed out top teams when it comes to trading.

Kinnick Pride trades since I joined this league:

RFLers (3), Sol Diablos (4), WWC (4), Superpions, WHACK THE BIDS, MoSo (2), Senor Pepe, Fifth Element, Beer Men

You're absolutely right, I need to quit trading with RFLers every time I make a deal. I mean, I can't help but load that guy up, it's what I do. Apologies.

[Kriegz12]

MM

seriously, you could offer me Joey for a 7th rder in 2009 and I'd decline. Next.

[alvin57]

This'll probably seem too conciliatory,but I actually think that both sides of this arguement have valid points,which is why they're being defended so voraciously.Having read the prior messages my guess is that Kinnick probably saw some really disgusting trade offers from those of us who saw a team in desperate need of a qb out there(for the record,I wasn't contacted,among other reasons because I did not have a 2nd starting QB who wasn't on bye this week).I think most or all of us have seen those offers that make you want to crawl thru the wires of your PC,come out on the other end,and wring the neck of the schmuck who offered it to you.I'd also say,to Jason's point,that there would be a lot of animosity hurled his way if any of us felt that he was tanking this year,which he obviously isn't.On the other side of the fence,I see WWC'S point totally.I too thought that RFLers was getting much the better of the trade,much of it due to Kinnicks desperate need for a QB and my own personal dislike for Frye as a QB(which I tried to put aside).I made it to the Champ. game last year and lost to the powerhouse RFLers,so noone wants to beat them more than I do,and I swallow hard when I see them picking up Steve Smith,and lots of #1's.I think the guys that voted no legitimately feel that #1 is just getting stronger and giving up very little.Noone should ever feel intimidated into approving a trade,but I do believe that we should at least explain why when doing so,as WWC did.The RFLers got a few year headstart on most of us and they've shown their smarts thru the 3 years this leagues been goin.I kinda like shooting a that target(yeah,last weeks sidebet was great to win).We're all (at least those of us that correspond and return e-mails..2nd ref.) competitive as hell..thats half the fun.I'd much rather play in a league with guys like WWC,Kinnick,Rfl...Mtns,than a boring afterthought league ...now everybody back to a neutral corner...AND HAVE A GREAT WEEK 7!

[Kriegz12]

great post Alvin. Despite my differences with MM and others (at times), I agree, this league is fun and active. Much better than the alternative.