Don't panic or this may happen to you

[CTC]

The real question is: Does your league allow vetos for stupidity, or only collusion?

If the former, then by all mean, veto this trade.

If the later, you're whole league is probably screwed.

[AF]

In my league one guy has LT and Portis. I don't think he has the best team in the league either, outside of that he doesn't have much. The worst part is he cooked up the idea of keeping 2 players off your last years team this summer (after having Faulk, LT and Portis last year) and the rest of the league said oh hey, I like that idea. Retards. Needless to say I wasn't a fan since it wasn't agreed upon when we formed the league.

[Ben_ffc]

this is ridiculous. this happened to me in baseball this season...i found a guy (a reds fan) that was willing to trade manny ramirez for not-yet-injured casey and kearns.

the trade was very one-side in my favor, but the guy wasn't tanking...he said he'd have an easier time following his fantasy team's progress if he had the best reds' players on his team.

well, everybody got all huffy, called me a cheat. that's malarkey. the whole *point* of a trade is to generate a better situation than the one you had...especially if you don't have to give up much.

people get upset because they couldn't pull off a deal of similar caliber. i say feck 'em. move on. good job.

b

[Challie]

the only reason a trade should be vetoed is if one team is tanking to try to help another team. This doesn't sound like that's happening. You can't regulate stupidity and you can't force someone to value a player the same as you

Randy Moss is a legitimate player and Team A can actually possible improve with this trade if the upgrade from his worst starting WR to Moss gets him more than LT down to Gary. How can that be vetoable? What if Moss outperforms LT (look at 2000 and 2001 stats to see if that's possible)? What do you tell the owner of Team A after he misses the playoffs in that scenario? "Sorry"?

Also, as somebody who watched that Charger game on Sunday, I can say that the Bolts' offensive line looks inept. This shouldn't happen, LT should certainly get his with a coach committed to the running game. But another 2-3 games like this last one and Team A will have been lucky to get Moss for LT in any league.

Team B hasn't won the league just yet. How many preseason #1 and #2 RBs end up both in the Top 5? Maybe a lot, but what I'm saying that they are far from guaranteed to win your championship.

All of that being said, TEAM B IS FLEECING TEAM A. This isn't at vetoable level. But we'd all agree that Team B really got himself a sweet trade. If I were you, I'd be jealous, but wouldn't even bring up a veto. First thing I would do would be to try to construct Team A's next trade ... with you.

[Ben_ffc]

"people that protest these trades should shampoo my crotch."

b

[Homeless]

he shouldnt be giving up on LT, but I dont think the trade is veto-able. Moss has huge value.

[brdmaverick]

definitely DO NOT veto.

like you said, you would have offered more for LT, BUT YOU DIDN'T, DID YOU? No. That's right, he beat you to it. The opportunity was there for you and everyone else in your league, but he was the one to capitalize. Don't veto because you lost out.

Only veto when there is definite cheating going on. I hate people that abuse the veto power.

[anth]

A similar trade (probably even worse) went through w/o being vetoed.

C.Garner/E.George for Priest Holmes.

Portis and Holmes are on the same team now.

What if Holmes stiffs the rest of the year and Garner breaks records. (99.9% sure not going to happen but you never know)
The guy paid 50 bucks to get in the league. What do you tell him?
sorry, I screwed you but I had a hard-on for the player you were trading away? oh yeah. and thanks for your 50 dollar contribution.