Fishy trade...

[ffsmack 0]

Owners in my league are upset about a trade that was accepted... can we veto this? I should note that the LT owner proposed the trade... Seems way unbalanced to all of us.

 

LT, Wayne, Rivers for Westbrook, S. Moss, Campbell

[slamminsam56 0]

I'd let it fly

[idiotec 31]

I wouldn’t veto, but you could punch him in the face. He took a potential upgrade at RB for a downgrade at WR and QB. I guess it depends on the rest of his lineup.

[MarcM85 0]

Owners in my league are upset about a trade that was accepted... can we veto this? I should note that the LT owner proposed the trade... Seems way unbalanced to all of us.

 

LT, Wayne, Rivers for Westbrook, S. Moss, Campbell

 

Generally, my policy is to look at the trade most favorably to the person you think is being had, and see if it is then possibly reasonable. If not, veto.

 

So lets do that - Westbrook could arguably be better than LT (Personally, Id rather have Westy), especially given the turf toe injury.

Slight edge - Westbrook

 

I think Wayne is generally better than moss, but they have put up similar numbers through the first few weeks, and there are major questions about the IND offense thus far (not that there arent questions about WAS offense).

Slight edge - Wayne

 

Rivers has looked fantastic recently, but part of the reason he has looked so good is that LT hasnt been effective. Its almost like Rivers' effectiveness is dependent on LT's ineffectiveness, and vice versa - it limits their value when on the same team. Also, you have with Campbell and Moss a QB-WR combo, which some people value heavily.

Still, edge - Rivers

 

IMHO, there is an edge to the team recieving LT and Co., but not enough of an edge to veto the trade. Make your own decision, but be sure to conclude that the trade could not possibly be reasonable under any circumstances.

 

Any questions/responses, feel free to email me at marc.mondry@gmail.com

[MikieV101 0]

no vetos ever.

 

This trade is in no way even questionable.

 

Everyone gauges talents differently, and nothing wrong with taking a chance.

 

Moss could have a huge year, and I assume he has a better QB on his team than Rivers.

 

LT could be on his way to colossal BUST. Westbrook is a stud.

[MikieV101 0]

Generally, my policy is to look at the trade most favorably to the person you think is being had, and see if it is then possibly reasonable. If not, veto.

 

So lets do that - Westbrook could arguably be better than LT (Personally, Id rather have Westy), especially given the turf toe injury.

Slight edge - Westbrook

 

I think Wayne is generally better than moss, but they have put up similar numbers through the first few weeks, and there are major questions about the IND offense thus far (not that there arent questions about WAS offense).

Slight edge - Wayne

 

Rivers has looked fantastic recently, but part of the reason he has looked so good is that LT hasnt been effective. Its almost like Rivers' effectiveness is dependent on LT's ineffectiveness, and vice versa - it limits their value when on the same team. Also, you have with Campbell and Moss a QB-WR combo, which some people value heavily.

Still, edge - Rivers

 

IMHO, there is an edge to the team recieving LT and Co., but not enough of an edge to veto the trade. Make your own decision, but be sure to conclude that the trade could not possibly be reasonable under any circumstances.

 

Any questions/responses, feel free to email me at marc.mondry@gmail.com

 

 

Why should your opinion on who has the edge come into play?

 

That's ridiculous.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

I wouldnt do this trade, i would of looked for something besides campbell. But i think this trade benefits the guy getting westy. Turf toe is a terrible thing.

[edjr 5,749]

 

Been a couple days since a good veto thread.

[MarcM85 0]

Why should your opinion on who has the edge come into play?

 

That's ridiculous.

 

It matters because it is the most objective way to determine whether or not a trade is unreasonable (we already know its subjectively reasonable to both parties). Its not perfect, but if a trade is objectively unreasonable (TO for Shaun McDonald, e.g.), then you would tend to veto it based on concerns of fairness. Yeah, its a slippery slope to try to determine what is objectively reasonable, but its the best protection we have against unfair trades.

 

That being said, I think it really has to be blatantly obvious that its unreasonable for it to be vetoed, which is why in this case, it shouldnt be vetoed.

[mobb_deep 919]

Generally, my policy is to look at the trade most favorably to the person you think is being had, and see if it is then possibly reasonable. If not, veto.

 

So lets do that - Westbrook could arguably be better than LT (Personally, Id rather have Westy), especially given the turf toe injury.

Slight edge - Westbrook

 

I think Wayne is generally better than moss, but they have put up similar numbers through the first few weeks, and there are major questions about the IND offense thus far (not that there arent questions about WAS offense).

Slight edge - Wayne

 

Rivers has looked fantastic recently, but part of the reason he has looked so good is that LT hasnt been effective. Its almost like Rivers' effectiveness is dependent on LT's ineffectiveness, and vice versa - it limits their value when on the same team. Also, you have with Campbell and Moss a QB-WR combo, which some people value heavily.

Still, edge - Rivers

 

IMHO, there is an edge to the team recieving LT and Co., but not enough of an edge to veto the trade. Make your own decision, but be sure to conclude that the trade could not possibly be reasonable under any circumstances.

 

Any questions/responses, feel free to email me at marc.mondry@gmail.com

 

This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.

 

Here's how you decide whether or not to veto a trade.

 

Is it obvious that the two teams are cheating? For example, dumping studs in return for WW material (LT and Wayne for Norwood and Justin Gage would be an example). If not, you worry about your team and let other people manage their own!

 

It matters because it is the most objective way to determine whether or not a trade is unreasonable (we already know its subjectively reasonable to both parties). Its not perfect, but if a trade is objectively unreasonable (TO for Shaun McDonald, e.g.), then you would tend to veto it based on concerns of fairness. Yeah, its a slippery slope to try to determine what is objectively reasonable, but its the best protection we have against unfair trades.

 

That being said, I think it really has to be blatantly obvious that its unreasonable for it to be vetoed, which is why in this case, it shouldnt be vetoed.

 

TO for Shaun McDonald would be an act of collusion. It has nothing to do with what is fair or not. That is the only thing you need to consider when deciding to veto. Is it obvious that the teams are cheating? It has nothing to do with concerns of fairness or being objective about anything.

[$epphori$ 118]

Why should your opinion on who has the edge come into play?

 

That's ridiculous.

 

agree..u should only VETO if there is collusion

[ffsmack 0]

Hmm, ok, thanks guys. I actually figured it would be a general no veto. Its just good to hear from outside perspectives on matters like this since we all obviously have our own bias. We generally don't veto anything at all, but I don't think I've seen a trade quite like this one.

[stosher1 0]

 

Been a couple days since a good veto thread.

These threads always crack me up! Why leagues allow the owners to veto trades is beyond me. Clear cut collusion, as determined by the commish, should be the only veto-able trade. EOD

[unclemercy 51]

you might should not be commissioner if...

[ffsmack 0]

These threads always crack me up! Why leagues allow the owners to veto trades is beyond me. Clear cut collusion, as determined by the commish, should be the only veto-able trade. EOD

And what if the commish is involved in the trade?

[enis_44 0]

It's bash the OP day at FFtoday!

 

No Veto.

 

You're a retart.

 

Join a real league.

[ffsmack 0]

It's bash the OP day at FFtoday!

 

No Veto.

 

You're a retart.

 

Join a real league.

Thanks, learn how to spell retard.

 

To some of us this is a hobby that we share with friends. If that's not a "real league" then I don't care to be in one.

[edjr 5,749]

And what if the commish is involved in the trade?

 

as commish, if I make a trade which is deemed questionable by someone in the league, I get together or talk on the phone with 2 of the elder statesman of the league. I explain the trade and if they are satisfied it goes through. has only happened once in 14 years and i ended up being vindicated by the performances of the players traded

[utambol 2]

no vetos ever.

 

This trade is in no way even questionable.

 

Everyone gauges talents differently, and nothing wrong with taking a chance.

 

Moss could have a huge year, and I assume he has a better QB on his team than Rivers.

 

LT could be on his way to colossal BUST. Westbrook is a stud.

 

 

Everything this man said is true. End thread.

[bigdatty817 0]

the trade is fine.

 

LT ---- injured and unproductive westbrook ----- looks to have a monster year

wayne ---- solid option every week, moss ----- prolly gonna have up and down weeks with campbell at QB

rivers ---- looks like he ll have a great year campbell ---- i still think he sucks ( take away his 67 yd TD pass then look at his stats)

[SNZ11 5]

Sounds like most agree, which I would suspect this early in the season. Most people might not make that move, but you know sometimes you just have to take a chance and go with your gut. I don't see anything wrong with this trade at all. No one can predict what any player is going to do, especially not this early in the season.

[murf74 461]

That trade is fine. If you vetoed it, I'd say you were a big baby wishing you had made the effort to swing a deal.

[Mephisto 15]

Your league is full of whining, crybaby ass-holes who need to shut the fock up and play the game. That's a great trade with potential upside for the LT receiver and ASSLOADS of upside for the LT giver.

 

Tell your league to put the binky back in their mouths and shut up.

[Sgt_Russia 0]

TO for Shaun McDonald would be an act of collusion. It has nothing to do with what is fair or not. That is the only thing you need to consider when deciding to veto. Is it obvious that the teams are cheating? It has nothing to do with concerns of fairness or being objective about anything.

 

 

TO for McDonald, with no other info, is not neccesarily collusion. With no other info, it is nothing more than a bad trade. Period.

 

To prove collusion you would need to know that, for example, they are brothers/friends/what have you and one of them is at the top of your league rankings and the other is out of the running. That would scream collusion.

 

Just because it's not a trade you'd make, doesn't make it collusion.

[kwyjibo 0]

It is impossible to tell who benefits from the trade without knowing the rest of the rosters. That fact alone makes it not vetoable.

[urban1 0]

ITS FOCKIN WEEK TWO.

 

If youre in a league with d-bags who would throw their season and collude in week 2, then its time to find a new league.

[mj2008 0]

No cheating = No veto

[49ers_suck 0]

seriously, how did you think people would respond to this? it aint collusion, so the trade goes through.

[G3-175SE 0]

seriously, how did you think people would respond to this? it aint collusion, so the trade goes through.

 

Exactly.

 

I have read so much bs in this thread that I want to puke. Every time one of these threads come up the so called experts think they can decide whether or not to veto a trade. What makes their opinion so much better than the ones doing the trade? It isn't. No matter how you look at it the only opinion on how fair the trade is comes from the two making the trade. If the commissioner thinks there is collusion going on then they should "be commissioner" and veto the trade, otherwise "leave it alone".

[Mephisto 15]

And what if the commish is involved in the trade?

 

I have an Assistant Commissioner who approves any trades which involve me. If the trade is between the two of us, the next most senior member of the league approves it.