If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I think it was a good deal for you, but I don't think it was veto-able
That's what I thought. It's an nfl.com league where nfl.com controls veto, the owners have no say. The whole season has been crazy.
An owner traded middlings for Peterson, then AJ Green. So, I complained when he traded Romo for Rogers.
I said something like, hey you might want to see if there's some collusion between these 3 teams, they seem to be funneling all the best players to one roster. nfl.com response, " no collusion they are from different teams."
Not sure what the problem is, but I think my veto was in response to my complaint. Seems like the site is run by kids. Sorta think the greedmeister works for said website.
That's what I thought. It's an nfl.com league where nfl.com controls veto, the owners have no say. The whole season has been crazy.
An owner traded middlings for Peterson, then AJ Green. So, I complained when he traded Romo for Rogers.
I said something like, hey you might want to see if there's some collusion between these 3 teams, they seem to be funneling all the best players to one roster. nfl.com response, " no collusion they are from different teams."
Not sure what the problem is, but I think my veto was in response to my complaint. Seems like the site is run by kids. Sorta think the greedmeister works for said website.
Trade:
I give- Leshoure, Gates, Akers
I get- Spiller, Daniels, Tynes
edit: this trade was vetoed,
good veto, bad veto????
Well if you asked me why it was vetoed, I would say you are getting the better RB, the better TE and the better K in the deal. I guess Leshoure and Spiller are close, but this looks questionable to me.
Comment