Harrison for Stallworth

[mbrittb00]

Isn't this a loopsided trade. I really don't like to get into vetoing/voting against most trades (unless I believe collusion is involved), but to me this trade is so loopsided I have to consider it.

The guy giving up Harrison has Owens, Steve Smith, Andre Johnson, and Keyshawn as his other WR (we start 3), but only has Dillon, Buckhalter and Betts as his RBs.

Seems to me like if you are going to give up a star WR and you really need a RB, you would try to get a RB.

Also consider the guy giving up Harrison is in last place and the guy giving up Stallworth is in 2nd.

Also, this is a limited keeper league, where we keep 4 players based on their draft position from the previous year.

Thoughs.

[Thursday]

Hmm... it's a bad trade-down, for sure... wonder what this dude is thinking? I'd click the veto button for sure.

[Kellys Heroes]

Thats an Awful trade.... I could see if Stallworth was announced "Healthy and ready to go"... I would have to veto that

[Kilroy]

With Stallworth's injury (H**l, without it) this trade seems awfully hinky. I'm all for letting owners run their teams, but in this instance I smell a...

[Crippler]

Agreed. This reeks of collusion. Veto veto veto!

[moonhead]

it's a bad trade. but you're not the trade police. it's not your responsibility to make sure no one in the league is dumb. i don't think it's collusive. i think the harrison owner was fed up with marvin underperforming and has high expectations of stallworth when he returns. is he getting good value? no. but that's not your concern. this trade is fair enough and should be left alone. i will reiterate that it is a stupid trade. but does not warrant vetoing.

[The_Dude]

it's a bad trade. but you're not the trade police. it's not your responsibility to make sure no one in the league is dumb. i don't think it's collusive. i think the harrison owner was fed up with marvin underperforming and has high expectations of stallworth when he returns. is he getting good value? no. but that's not your concern. this trade is fair enough and should be left alone. i will reiterate that it is a stupid trade. but does not warrant vetoing.

That's where you need more info... what is the relationship between the two traders.

Stupid trades are not vetoable unless you have some proof of collusion.

This is kind of fishy, but its not clearly collusion.

[Matthias]

Also, this is a limited keeper league, where we keep 4 players based on their draft position from the previous year.

Question: what were the draft positions of Harrison and Stallworth? I could see someone in last place punting on this year, saying that Harrison is on the decline, Stallworth is on the upswing, and that in the games that he played Stallworth was the better producer.

[eaglesrule]

one for one trades in the same position are kind of tough to argue this is anything but collusion, and I hate vetoed trades.

Harrison is a) better by virtue of being on the field and b) better by virtue of history (I know that this is something that is greay, as we are trading for future performance, but based on history, harrison's ceiling is obviously higher) and c) draft position.

[Daddymike59]

It's a stupid trade but to me in no means vetoeable. A trade has to be either extremely 1 sided or really fishy,ie. the teams involved are related by some means. It's your game however but to me I wouldn't stop it.