Should this trade be vetoed?

[balla123 0]

The trade is Chris Chambers and Willie Parker for Roy Williams, Deshaun Foster, and Donte' Stallworth. Our league has a pretty open policy about vetos and likes to keep things as fair as possible. Four out of the 6 teams not involved in this trade voted for a veto. What do you guys think? Thanks for your help, and I would appreciate if you guys don't leave responses like, "No league should veto unless there is collusion" because our league tries to be different and more fair because we have had bad experiences with allowing all trades except those where collusion is involved.

 

Our league is an 8 team redraft with standard scoring.

 

Here are the teams:

 

Team 1:

QB: Brees

QB: Brady

WR: Boldin

WR: RoyWill

WR: Galloway

RB: Edge

RB: Rudi

TE: LJ smith

W/R: DFoster

W/TE: Reggie Brown

K: Vanderjagt

Def: Chicago

Bench: LEvans

Bench: Stallworth

Bench: McCardell

Bench: Rivers

Bench: PHolmes

Bench: Roddy White

Bench: VYoung

 

Team 2:

QB: TGreen

QB: BLeftwich

WR: Harrison

WR: Chambers

WR: AJohnson

RB: Portis

RB: Parker

TE: Gates

W/R: JWalker

W/T: TGonzalez

K: Vinatieri

Def: Chicago

Bench: Mark Clayton

Bench: Deangelo Williams

Bench: Chris Brown

Bench: Troy Williamson

Bench: McNair

Bench: Mike Anderson

Bench: Lendale White

[ohiostfb 0]

This is a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" trade. In other words, both sides can see value, it's not clearly lopsided, so therefore shouldn't be vetoed.

 

 

My guess is that most people who want a veto think the team giving up Chambers and Parker is getting too much in return (maybe I'm wrong with that guess), but I personally think that team 2 is getting the shorter end of the stick when you look at their rosters.

[sjanson 0]

Why veto? Just because its a bad trade that doesnt mean its an unfair trade.

[ellisonb11 0]

that trades not too bad at all. its based on team needs. keep it, its not unfair.

[enjoi525 0]

ya, i dont see collusion or anything. roy williams is expected to put up big numbers and foster is good when healthy.

[skyyaa 0]

At first I thought it was unbalanced, but then I looked at the teams and it really is pretty balanced when you compare the value of the players to their teams. No veto!

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=218720

[FFLRedStorm 0]

Very anti-veto person. I'd say no veto, especially since this is still pre-season.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=218721

[harken34 0]

I only had to read the trade part. This is fair. Two good WR's with two RB's that are almost the same. Nethier will see goaline carries and then Stallworth who is a bust from the day he was drafted. This trade should go through.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I am wondering why you even consider vetoing this trade.

[Traveler 2 0]

As far as I'm concerned a trade should NEVER be vetoed unless collusion can be proven. NEVER! FFleagues who allow veto power to owners stink. Other teams veto based on how the trade affects them. NFL teams do not have this kind of power and neither should FFL teams. I'm in 3 leagues and I would never join a league where owners veto trades. In my opinion it's unethical.

[akaoni 0]

I'm with the above posters, I think that this trade is not unbalanced to the degree needed to veto it. We have teams each swapping decent upside RBs and WRs with one WR who's stock is low right now thrown in to sweeten the pot. I'm not saying it's a good trade, but it doesn't reach the veto threshhold...

[THRILLHO 0]

As far as I'm concerned a trade should NEVER be vetoed unless collusion can be proven. NEVER! FFleagues who allow veto power to owners stink. Other teams veto based on how the trade affects them. NFL teams do not have this kind of power and neither should FFL teams. I'm in 3 leagues and I would never join a league where owners veto trades. In my opinion it's unethical.

 

Ditto. I was in a league 2 or 3 years ago where I drafted second and offered the first guy LT and Chad Johnson for Horn and Holmes. He accepted, but about 5/12 voted to veto it because they "couldn't see why anyone would want to trade away Holmes." LT and CJ went on to have great years while Holmes got hurt in week 6 or 7 and Horn was just OK.Then they had to nerve to ###### at me when I stopped updating my team. Pisses me off thinking about it.

[ffdomino 0]

Without looking at the teams, that trade seems dead even. No way should this be vetoed.

 

It bothers me when people take the full team into consideration to veto a trade. Just because you have a good team does not mean you do not have a right to trade. and trades should make your team better.

[puntjack 0]

I was in the same scenario in a keeper league last year. I had a trade offer of Chad Johnson for Larry Johnson before Priest got hurt. I could have kept Larry Johnson as a 5th rounder this year, 3rd rounder in 2007 and a 1st rounder in 2008. Chad Johnson can't even be kept this upcoming year because he was a 2nd round pick. Note: In my league, you give up a draft pick 2 rounds ahead of where a player was drafted the previous year to keep him. 5 owners vetoed the trade because they said Larry Johnson was a backup running back and Chad Johnson was a top-tier wide receiver. They completely ignored future value and not it's cost me winning the championship for the next 3 years.

 

Trades should not be voted on by league members. League members have an incentive to vote down a trade that would help someone in their division or who they might face in the playoffs. To go along with Bill Simmons' idea, you should have a committee of 3 impartial people outside the league who look for obvious signs of collusion. If all 3 don't agree that collusion is taking place, the trade goes through.

[Sopranos 0]

Vetoed? That would be ridiculous! It doesn't get anymore even than this.....the two teams are simply trying to solve their problems.

 

This league may be ruined if you are that anal anal about it....relax and just have fun!