ExtremeFajita 0 Posted August 3, 2006 Team A has little chance of winning this year and wants to strengthen their roster for the future. Team B already has Shaun Alexander, Matt Hasselbeck (Brooks and Green are each team's backups) and strong enough starters to make a title run this year. I know I'm leaving out lineups, rosters, scoring...just want your gut instinct on the fairness here. Team A gives Tiki Barber, Mewelde Moore, Trent Green Team B gives Cedric Benson, Ron Dayne, Aaron Brooks If you would veto this trade please explain your reasoning. Thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted August 3, 2006 Based on your info the trade really boils down to Barber for Benson. (Although I do like Brooks and think he might get some starts for team A unless he has Manning). Not a good trade at all, even in a Dynasty league, but not veto worthy either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Great White Hope 0 Posted August 3, 2006 The trade should not be vetoed. It helps both teams in different ways. It gives team B a shot this year, but team A gets some young talent. Yes, Team B is probably getting the better of this deal, but you cannot veto a trade, especially not in a dynasty league. 3 questions: 1. How long has this league been in existence? 2. How many times have you had to veto a trade in the past in this league? 3. Do you know the people involved well enough to know whether they are colluding? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExtremeFajita 0 Posted August 3, 2006 The trade should not be vetoed. It helps both teams in different ways. It gives team B a shot this year, but team A gets some young talent. Yes, Team B is probably getting the better of this deal, but you cannot veto a trade, especially not in a dynasty league. 3 questions: 1. How long has this league been in existence? 2. How many times have you had to veto a trade in the past in this league? 3. Do you know the people involved well enough to know whether they are colluding? 1.) This is the first year for this league. The draft was finished about a week ago. 2.) Team B had accepted a straight up trade of Benson for Mike Anderson that was vetoed. 3.) I am the owner of Team A. I went with best value for most rounds in the draft and ended up with the strongest WR core in the league, but my RB prospects after Tiki retires are dismal. Here is my team as it stands now. MY TEAM: Cold Canadian Beer QB Plummer, Jake DEN QB - 4 9.09 Green, Trent KCC QB - 3 13.09 Cutler, Jay DEN QB - 4 8.04 Schaub, Matt ATL QB - 5 18.04 Gradkowski, Bruce TBB QB - 4 22.04 RB Barber, Tiki NYG RB - 4 1.09 Parker, Willie PIT RB - 4 3.09 Moore, Mewelde MIN RB - 6 10.04 Calhoun, Brian DET RB - 8 14.04 Toefield, Labrandon JAC RB - 6 21.09 WR Fitzgerald, Larry ARI WR - 9 2.04 Williams, Roy DET WR - 8 4.04 Driver, Donald GBP WR - 6 5.09 Jones, Matt JAC WR - 6 6.04 Johnson, Keyshawn CAR WR - 9 12.04 Williamson, Troy MIN WR - 6 16.04 Randle El, Antwaan WAS WR - 8 19.09 TE Davis, Vernon SFO TE - 7 7.09 Pope, Leonard ARI TE - 9 15.09 Baker, Chris NYJ TE - 9 17.09 Feely, Jay NYG PK - 4 20.04 Panthers, Carolina CAR Def - 9 11.09 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MelKiperJr 0 Posted August 3, 2006 I don't see any reason for a veto. By the way, I am the Commish in my league, and have NEVER vetoed a deal. I think this should only be used if it's CLEAR CUT cheating. And if that's the case, you shouldn't invite them back next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad_Intentions 0 Posted August 3, 2006 I'd allow it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esoitl 0 Posted August 3, 2006 veto should never occur unless there is concrete evidence of collusion whats to say that Team A is out of it? the season hasn't begun and you're already out of the hunt... give me a break i dont understand how that other trade got vetoed either, lopsided sure but if both parties agree in fairness it should always stand Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
