I firmly am against vetoes but league is pushing for this.

[tanatastic 2,062]

Team A gives up Ingram, Fleener, Rob Kelley and Brady.

 

Team B Gives up Leveon Bell, J Reed, Bortles and K Dixon

 

I am always against vetoes unless its collusion or tanking, in this case its neither but what would you do?

[Oriole8159 86]

Team A gives up Ingram, Fleener, Rob Kelley and Brady.

 

Team B Gives up Leveon Bell, J Reed, Bortles and K Dixon

 

I am always against vetoes unless its collusion or tanking, in this case its neither but what would you do?

Not vetoable; bad, but not vetoable.

 

Obviously the guy wants Brady, and if the only QB he's had all year has been Bortles, he's probably having a hard time making the playoffs as is. Not the way I'd go about doing shaking things up, but not as bad as it looks either.

Fleener and Reed are a wash with Reed's concussion issue hanging over head

Kelley and Dixon are a wash

And the drop off from Bell to Ingram isn't as steep as the dropoff from Brady to Bortles, so Team A has that in his favor.

 

Bad, but not vetoable.

[tanatastic 2,062]

Not vetoable; bad, but not vetoable.

 

Obviously the guy wants Brady, and if the only QB he's had all year has been Bortles, he's probably having a hard time making the playoffs as is. Not the way I'd go about doing shaking things up, but not as bad as it looks either.

Fleener and Reed are a wash with Reed's concussion issue hanging over head

Kelley and Dixon are a wash

And the drop off from Bell to Ingram isn't as steep as the dropoff from Brady to Bortles, so Team A has that in his favor.

 

Bad, but not vetoable.

Let me add the following wrinkle. Team B has to win this week or is eliminated, hence needing guys now. Also he has buyers remorse and wants me to reverse it. What say with those addendums?

[Oriole8159 86]

Let me add the following wrinkle. Team B has to win this week or is eliminated, hence needing guys now. Also he has buyers remorse and wants me to reverse it. What say with those addendums?

 

I think the fact that he needs to win now validates the deal even more. Obviously he can't afford to wait for Reed to get healthy, so Fleener is a big step up at least in the short term over what he'd get on waivers.

 

The "buyers remorse" thing is a judgment call for you guys I'd say. Maybe open that question up to the league and see what the consensus is on setting that type of precedent while deals are still pending. Tell them you're not vetoing it, so the question is only related to whether you want to introduce a "buyer's remorse" clause into the league, because if you honor it here you almost have to honor it for new instances going forward as well.

 

Hope that helps.

[ptantam47 4]

Never veto unless collusion or obvious tanking. This does not fit the bill of either. We cannot predict the future on how these players will perform. I lost a league this year b/c a very fair trade was vetoed (checked out on all trade value charts as being dead even) and the commissioner upheld the veto. It has left a very bad taste and now no trades have been performed in this league b/c it has had a chilling effect (since players involved in trades are locked from other trades or dropping until the whole process goes through once there is a veto).

 

Do not veto unless there is collusion or tanking. It's a move.

[jrokh 615]

Not even close to vetoable