Unethical? Need all veterans to rule on this.

[mystykoekaki]

I can see this going either way.

[steelerfan513]

it depends: was Brunell the starter at the time the trade was accepted? if brunell was still the starter, then this guy has a legitimate argument. although Hasselbeck would still be a better option than Brunell at the time, that trade wasn't bad enough to be vetoed as long as Brunell was still the starter.

however, the work factor is something that needed to be investigated. you should have asked the rookie why he believed that brunell was a better option besides the injury and ask if work played at all into the trade.

[BGbootha]

Assuming that its a redraft league.....you did the right thing.

As much as I hate the veto, we have a rule in my league where a team who is mathematically out of the playoffs, cannot trade with a team who is still in the hunt.

[deluxe_247]

i think you did the right thing, regardless if brunell was still the starter. hass' timetable for return has always been short....as has been with brunells leash on his starting job. with all the facts of playoffs, and their work relationship on top of it....even more reason.

[skinsfan]

i think you did the right thing, regardless if brunell was still the starter. hass' timetable for return has always been short....as has been with brunells leash on his starting job. with all the facts of playoffs, and their work relationship on top of it....even more reason.

Also, Brunell's health hasn't exactly been superb either. He had been missing practices shortly before formally being benched.

[knapplc]

That's dancing awfully close to collusion. Hasselbeck has been hurt/out, so the guy can make the argument that he's taking a risk that Hass will be fine when he comes back, but that risk is pretty minimal.

I think, much as I hate the veto, this is one I would consider. But, if you want my honest opinion, this event in a vacuum doesn't warrant a veto. It's a lopsided trade, but unless these two guys have a history of questionable practices I think it's not enough to veto the trade.

You're going to lose a league member over this. If this guy has been a decent owner over the years I'd say it's not worth losing him for this one deal. If he's been a pain in the backside for a while and has made other questionable deals, maybe he should just go, but if that's not the case I think vetoing a questionable trade is a bit much.

[Timbathia]

I guess it depends on availability of QBs in the league at the time. If it was before Brunell was replaced as starter (week 11), the guy desparately need a QB, and there was little depth on the WW at that position (i.e. deep benches or a 14 team league), then there is nothing wrong with the trade at all. Remember that Brunell had a monster game against the Colts in week 7. While I do realise he is sh*t, there are FFL players out there that dont spend as much time as we do on this stuff and may think he was due for another big game.

[Timbathia]

Please note that by monster game, I mean monster game for someone that is sh*t.

[Infidel]

Clearly collusion.

Asking that a trade that was vetoed weeks ago should now be allowed after the trade deadline and after the playoffs start is beyond rediculous.

[A Fleshner Fantasy]

If Brunell had not yet been benched, I disagree with what you did- you cannot veto for rookie mistakes, which this easily could have been. Also, if he was way behind he could have been in a position where he needed to win out, and could not afford to be without another starter the remaining time hass was out.

That being said, if Campbell had already been announced the starter, good veto.