Shpuld this Trade Be Vetoed

[ullloveit 0]

We recently have had some shady trade activity in our league with one owner receiving the benefit from his out of contention friends.

 

1st Trade

 

Pittman and Wade for Winslow and L McClain

 

 

Then followed by

 

E Manning for V Jackson (His starter is not B Thigpen) His team is also 2 and 7

 

Then followed by:

 

Jennings for D Jackson and D Garard (His record is 1 and 8)

 

This is a 12 team league piont per reception and Jennings is the 5th highest scorer.

 

The comish asked me if I thought he should veto this trade. I am not a proponet of the vetoed trade but this looks like 3 guys loading up one team.

 

Thoughts and I will answer your's.

 

Thasnk

[surfnturf3g01 0]

The first and third trades both look f*cked up. The second one could pass as being legit...but, Pittman (I'm assuming Antonio, since Michael's on the IR?) and Bobby Wade...for a top 3 TE (and a decent Flex player)??? No way. The Jennings trade is absolutely preposterous. Veto that one hands down and punch those guys in the face if you ever see them

[ullloveit 0]

No we were talking about Michael Pittman the guy on IR.....

 

 

Funny huh

[mrgymrat 0]

Was the Pittman trade prior to him being placed on IR, because that makes a BIG difference. Pittman & Wade should not have happened if he was already on the IR (owners should have been forced to rework the deal to include some viable players going both ways).

 

Don't have a problem w/ trade 2.

 

Trade 3 is a 2 for 1 deal but I would be more suspect on what motives a 1-8 team has trading. I would assume they have no chance at the league playoffs yet this trade may influence who wins. Tough call.

[justagrl 0]

IMO (and this is just how my league works).... the commish doesn't veto anything. If someone wants to make stupid trades then it's on them. I suppose it just depends on how your league works. If your commish feels that he needs to veto the trade because the league believes it's unfair.... then there yah go.

[ping 0]

In our league, those owners NOT directly involved in the trade vote (the thought being that the 2 that made the trade have already voted "for" it). If more than 5 owners vote against the trade, it goes to the commissioners to decide. With that being said, I believe that the Pittman trade (if after the IR move) was a joke.

 

The Eli Manning trade for Vincent Jackson...to me...depends on the rosters of the two teams involved. It could go either way. The last trade, the one involving Greg Jennings, doesn't seem so "off the wall" to me. I'm not sure how many players you would expect someone to move for Jennings. If the team offering Jennings needs a QB (due to injury...whatever) then, a starting QB (although marginal) and a starting WR Jackson (although his value is likely dropping with Curtis and Brown back) might not be so farfetched. I do think the owner receiving Jennings is getting the better end of the deal, but...I don't think the trade is SOOOOOO obviously one-sided, but, again, that all depends on the rest of the rosters involved.

 

So, all that being said, if you feel strongly that this last deal was shady...and other owners feel the same way, let the commish know your thoughts. If nothing else, maybe you should request that your league institutes owner votes in future seasons. This might allow the existing "owners" to police themselves.

 

Good luck and thanks for mine!

[rsekine 0]

Veto the first trade is crazy!

[We Tigers 71]

I have a problem with the first trade only because it involves dealing someone who's on IR, which makes it shady or completely ignorant. Either way, you don't want that joker in your league next season. The others are fine.