Pissed off about this being Vetoed

[bobbing_headz]

In my league I had just made a trade with the guy with SA. I would get Alexander and he'd get Tatum and M. Barber. I wouldn't say it was completely unfair. This guy didn't have any RBs whatsoever. But, my league vetoed it. I hate league votes!

[sportsaddict]

That's a pretty lopsided trade. But I don't know if it should be vetoed or not, that's up for debate.

[bobbing_headz]

That's a pretty lopsided trade. But I don't know if it should be vetoed or not, that's up for debate.

Ya, I guess pretty lopsided but I personally don't think vetoable. It really depends on how you think Alexander will do when he comes back.

[TheRawDAWG]

In my league I had just made a trade with the guy with SA. I would get Alexander and he'd get Tatum and M. Barber. I wouldn't say it was completely unfair. This guy didn't have any RBs whatsoever. But, my league vetoed it. I hate league votes!

Absolutely crazy trade. GARBAGE. I would have vetoed this one too. Tatum isn't even gauranteed to play and MB3 is the 3rd down RB. He has held on to SA this long and now he's going to trade him for nothing the week before he comes back? GARBAGE!!

[flotsamnjetsam]

On paper it looks like an extremely lopsided trade IF SA comes back healthy. I think we really need to know the records of both teams though before saying that the trade is vetoable. It's only vetoable if collusion is suspected. Otherwise the lopsided trade should be approved. And just because it looks lopsided one way on paper doesn't mean it will turn out that way. In every league you have some owners who don't understand how to or when to use their power of veto. That's why it's always better to leave the power of veto to 1 or 2 people. In most of my leagues the commish and co-commish have the power of veto and it's basically never used because the owners aren't cheaters. "Lopsided" trades should not be vetoed and that's a huge problem throughout fantasy football.

[TheRawDAWG]

On paper it looks like an extremely lopsided trade IF SA comes back healthy. I think we really need to know the records of both teams though before saying that the trade is vetoable. It's only vetoable if collusion is suspected. Otherwise the lopsided trade should be approved. And just because it looks lopsided one way on paper doesn't mean it will turn out that way. In every league you have some owners who don't understand how to or when to use their power of veto. That's why it's always better to leave the power of veto to 1 or 2 people. In most of my leagues the commish and co-commish have the power of veto and it's basically never used because the owners aren't cheaters. "Lopsided" trades should not be vetoed and that's a huge problem throughout fantasy football.

I play in a league where I'm the commish and I have veto power. I haven't vetoed a trade in years because the managers are pretty much free to manage their own teams. And since everyone is pretty knowledgable it's worked out well.

I can see the owner of the SA team needing to get RBs if he doesn't have any. It makes sense to save his season. But thats not what he's doing here. He's getting in return a 3rd down back and an injured back who has probably lost his job when he comes back. There is no upside to the trade. It makes no sense. And I don't even have confidence in Alexander coming back like he played last year EVER. But he should be able to net you more than 2 BU RBs and 1 that will miss the game Alexander is going to miss. Trade is garbage on the surface and the deeper you dig the more it stinks.

[biju]

I would need to know:

- the rest of the teams players
- the size of the league
- redraft/keeper/dynasty
- current standings

to make an accurate decision. Most of this is moot if this is a redraft anyway, but if the guy only had one viable RB and you started two I could possibly see a reason.

Most likely though you're trying to pull one off and mad they caught you.

[mrblitz]

Personally, I think the advantage was yours in the deal. However, I don't find it vetoable at all.

[gtgrad95]

I don't think this trade is vetoable at all. Nobody has any idea how SA will do for the rest of the year, and when and if he even comes back. The same for the matter of T. Bell. If it makes sense to the teams involved and it's a win-win for both, then it should be allowed. The veto is way overused and needs to be reserved for extreme circumstances like trading Larry Johnson for TJ Duckett or something like that.

[bobbing_headz]

Come to think of it, it may have had something to do with the fact that I was trading with the last place team. Oh well...