ian Potter 9 Posted August 25, 2014 12 team full pt PPR Trades Charles and shorts For Gronk and welker Team trading for Gronk owns Cameron and Morris. Other rbs are Mjd, Davis, Stewart. And Bradshaw. Just looks fishy. I'm one of 2 that have instantly questioned it. Both Gronk and welker are batting injuries with major red flags for one of best RBs in fantasy. Not to mention he has the handcuff still. Thoughts? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 496 Posted August 25, 2014 First and 11th for 3rd and 4th. I'd let it go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaBeerz 88 Posted August 25, 2014 12 team full pt PPR Trades Charles and shorts For Gronk and welker Team trading for Gronk owns Cameron and Morris. Other rbs are Mjd, Davis, Stewart. And Bradshaw. Just looks fishy. I'm one of 2 that have instantly questioned it. Both Gronk and welker are batting injuries with major red flags for one of best RBs in fantasy. Not to mention he has the handcuff still. Thoughts? Is the player getting Gronks and Welker also using Brady or Manning QB, that would make sense. I think it's a bad trade for the Charles owner, but I don't see why it should be rejected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigeru 65 Posted August 25, 2014 I hate bad trades because you usually need more than a couple people to shoot it down and within a few days. A husband and wife colluded I saw it and nobody else caught it until after the guy won the championship and obviously they got the money. So get a few more people to vote it down and quick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ian Potter 9 Posted August 25, 2014 No Brady or manning. Guess I'm more or less looking at the timing if it. Gronk and welker both hurt. Not to mention Charles owner was auto drafted Bc he didn't show. Felt like he was cashing it in on first glance. Don't understand reasoning of giving one of if not best back in fantasy for players who are questionable at this pt in time. Agreed it's a bad trade but was on fence if whether or not it's veto worthy. I think I've vetoed one trade in 15 years of fantasy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weepaws 2,516 Posted August 25, 2014 I would let it go . Never know how things are going to go . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skoal2k4 15 Posted August 25, 2014 If you have to ask if a trade shows obvious signs of collusion, then it probably doesn't. Let people manage their own teams. Let the trade go Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bfros 53 Posted August 26, 2014 I agree. Let the trade go. Most trades should be allowed, even if they seem dumb. People are allowed to be risky and dumb. I'd only veto a trade if there was obvious collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tanatastic 2,061 Posted August 26, 2014 Let it go, it cripples the Charles owner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,226 Posted August 26, 2014 just because someone makes a bad trade doesnt mean its collusion. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tanatastic 2,061 Posted August 26, 2014 Half the time preseason trades end up lopsided the opposite way. I'm sure some shady guy traded CJ spiller for knowshow Moreno last year cuz the knowshow owner threw in his favorite Dst to sweeten the deal and the CJ owner didn't know any better. OOPS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$epphori$ 118 Posted August 26, 2014 just because someone makes a bad trade doesnt mean its collusion. This I hate leagues that micro manage teams Unless you have proof of collusion you have no right judging a trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Masterminds 5 Posted August 26, 2014 If you are going to let managers draft kickers and defenses in the 8th round, you have to let all trades go through unless there is collusion. It's not up to you to decide what players are worth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fantasy Fiend 38 Posted August 26, 2014 Agree with the majority here....let it go. I had a commish flat out decline a trade a few years back bc it appeeared heavily lopsided and the assumed "loser" of the trade would have benefitted significantly better had the trade been allowed. Let folks take risks unless its completely ridiculous and screams collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bobbyn2022 53 Posted August 26, 2014 I hate that everyone thinks any trade should go through that's such BS and I thank god I'm not in a league where u allow someone to get screwed. Not everyone in a bad relationships sees their in a bad relationship sometimes only the people from the outside see it. At the end of the day this trade isn't that bad but sometime I see Peterson for West and geno smith and people are Like yup it's fair let it go. No that's BS it ruins the league and just because one person think West may be a stud doesn't mean it's fair for the league. Sometimes people fall in love with a player or think a player has to be on their team and they don't care what they give but that's not cool. This trade isn't bad but if there is a bad trade that needs to be VeToed asap regardless if it's collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skoal2k4 15 Posted August 26, 2014 I hate that everyone thinks any trade should go through that's such BS and I thank god I'm not in a league where u allow someone to get screwed. Not everyone in a bad relationships sees their in a bad relationship sometimes only the people from the outside see it. At the end of the day this trade isn't that bad but sometime I see Peterson for West and geno smith and people are Like yup it's fair let it go. No that's BS it ruins the league and just because one person think West may be a stud doesn't mean it's fair for the league. Sometimes people fall in love with a player or think a player has to be on their team and they don't care what they give but that's not cool. This trade isn't bad but if there is a bad trade that needs to be VeToed asap regardless if it's collusion. and who's to say what a bad trade is? "Bad" trades don't ruin leagues. Over-bearing commissioners ruin leagues. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 496 Posted August 26, 2014 This trade isn't bad but if there is a bad trade that needs to be VeToed asap regardless if it's collusion. There's bad trades, and then there's godawful trades that threaten the integrity of the league. This is a bad trade (IMHO). Someone falling in love with Travis Kelce and offering Jimmy Graham for him would be a godawful trade that would threaten the integrity of the league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$epphori$ 118 Posted August 26, 2014 and who's to say what a bad trade is? "Bad" trades don't ruin leagues. Over-bearing commissioners ruin leagues. This X's 1000 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$epphori$ 118 Posted August 26, 2014 There's bad trades, and then there's godawful trades that threaten the integrity of the league. This is a bad trade (IMHO). Someone falling in love with Travis Kelce and offering Jimmy Graham for him would be a godawful trade that would threaten the integrity of the league. Still it is not up to a commish to police a trade..only if its collusion. If the owner is not competent and the trades he makes keep on hurting his team you simply remove him from the league the following year. You should not interfere in the midst of the season. Your opinion on whats right for his team is not warranted. After the season you re-evaluate his performance and then make a decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$epphori$ 118 Posted August 26, 2014 3 years ago , after Demarious Thomas's rookie season I traded a then Healthy Gronk, Forte, Dez, for McCoy on a horrible Andy Reid team, Demarious and Tony Gonzales. people in the league thought I was crazy..sum wanted the trade put to vote,,,I would have quit right then and there if my trade was overturned. It turns out it helped me to 2 second place finishes in last two years. Now I have two keepers in the top 7 ADP You can NOT judge a trade unless its collusion...but if the owner continues to make bad trades that do NOT pan out in their favor or close to even you remove them from league at end of season... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killersquids 3 Posted August 26, 2014 and who's to say what a bad trade is? "Bad" trades don't ruin leagues. Over-bearing commissioners ruin leagues. Jamal Charles for Matt Cassel is a bad trade. I would rather be in a league where this trade gets denied as opposed to allowed through. I'm all for letting owners be in control of their own teams, but you cannot just allow all non-collusion trades through without looking at the players involved. For the record, I believe 99% of trades should be allowed to go through (taking the collusion ones out of the equation). The trade outlined by the OP should be allowed to go through, however I would talk with the Charles owner and hear his reasoning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$epphori$ 118 Posted August 26, 2014 Jamal Charles for Matt Cassel is a bad trade. I would rather be in a league where this trade gets denied as opposed to allowed through. I'm all for letting owners be in control of their own teams, but you cannot just allow all non-collusion trades through without looking at the players involved. For the record, I believe 99% of trades should be allowed to go through (taking the collusion ones out of the equation). The trade outlined by the OP should be allowed to go through, however I would talk with the Charles owner and hear his reasoning. well wouldnt be the job of the commish to screen an owner b4 they let them in league? I mean if someone is that stupid to do a charles for cassel them its the commish's fault for letting morons in the league Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AnaheimRams 28 Posted August 26, 2014 I need to know how much money is at stake before deciding how much I care about this trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
