orotund 0 Posted September 19, 2006 In our league two owners can veto a trade, here is what is proposed: Larry Fitz Maroney for Roy Williams Caddy Would you allow this trade to go through? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jagbag 0 Posted September 19, 2006 In our league two owners can veto a trade, here is what is proposed: Larry Fitz Maroney for Roy Williams Caddy Would you allow this trade to go through? You might as well be the first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremy 0 Posted September 19, 2006 In our league two owners can veto a trade, No veto. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FeelingMN 273 Posted September 19, 2006 you have to allow it. Just because roy and caddy are underperforming now doesn't mean they'll continue to do so....as a caddy owner I sure as hell hope this is the case. All in all, the swap seems pretty even to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parja 0 Posted September 19, 2006 In our league two owners can veto a trade, here is what is proposed: Larry Fitz Maroney for Roy Williams Caddy Would you allow this trade to go through? Looks fairly even. Why would you even consider vetoing it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UPCman 0 Posted September 19, 2006 It's too early in the season to judge this as unfair. Caddy has lots of potential still, as does Williams. And Maroney has been splitting. If you get a chance, help me out with this one: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=234781 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicewolf64 0 Posted September 19, 2006 when are people going to learn that it takes more info than just the players involved? AND that unless its collusion, vetoing trades is for whimps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yodaday 0 Posted September 19, 2006 Fair trade, no veto. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OuttaLuck 0 Posted September 19, 2006 What basis, if any, exists for considering a veto of this trade? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FBH ** 0 Posted September 19, 2006 There is no need to veto this trade. Are you sure that Fitz and Maroney will put up better #s than Williams and Caddy? I highly doubt any collusion is going on this early in the season, even if someone lost the first two games they are still not out of the hunt. Collusion is the ONLY reason to veto a trade, and there is no collusion here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted September 19, 2006 when are people going to learn that it takes more info than just the players involved? AND that unless its collusion, vetoing trades is for whimps. Amen brother! I wish the Nancy's in my league would figure this out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
16 and 33 0 Posted September 19, 2006 In our league two owners can veto a trade, here is what is proposed: Larry Fitz Maroney for Roy Williams Caddy Would you allow this trade to go through? Without knowing anything about either team or the league scoring system, presumably: the guy trading Fitz has 2/3 solid starters at WR besides Fitz, but maybe has to start a rookie splitting carries the guy trading Caddie has a couple solid RB, likes the idea of getting a young player with upside in return, and needs a stud WR If that or something similar is the scenario, then you're looking at two managers who are dealing a strength to shore up a weakness. Yes, veto if you think either team becomes a playoff contender. Seriously though, why phock with how people want to manage their teams? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebooters 1 Posted September 19, 2006 when are people going to learn that it takes more info than just the players involved? AND that unless its collusion, vetoing trades is for whimps. must be a queer to even ask think of vetoing here. id like to punch you in the face. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites