Fishy trade. Vetoable?

[West Coast Bias]

Most of the times I say you have to see the rosters to tell. In this case, not even close to being fishy.

Guy might be getting scared of Maroneys health.

He might like a bye week matchup better

He might want to pair a certain player with another team mate

He might like to diversify within a division so that come week 16 and 17 he is guaranteed that at least one guy won't be sitting the bench while the players team already clinched the division

He might look at his division now that he knows his competition and think he has clear sailing to the playoffs and downgrades slightly for the season because he loves the week 16, 17 match up.

The point is, unless it is obscene, none of us can pretend to guess how good players will do. We stare at those damn rankings for so long that we think the values are concrete.

I just got vetoed for offering:

J.Jones, T. Bell, and T. Holt for E. James, D.Stallworth

Now you say well yeah that looks unbalanced, but I drafted so heavy at WR/RB that it does not hurt me.I STOLE a ton of #2 RB in the mid rounds while guys were getting kickers and defenses. As for Holt, his injury scares the daylight out of me.

It looks unbalanced but I am really just trading 1 Late Rnd 2 pick and 2 mid 6 rounders for 1 mid 2 rounder and an early 7 rounder. So it could be looked at as one 6 rounder too much. Well if I offer you 2 ten dollar bills for a twenty you will say "why am I wasting my time" I HAVE to give more if I am the one offering.

Here is what I plan on doing. I am going to offer these players on the trading block and say "all right guys, you all said that I was giving up too much. It had to be fishy. Well step up and give me more. If you don't then you have to let it go through".

[West Coast Bias]

Oh, one more thing - In a 12 team re-draft starting qb,rb,rb,wr,wr,wr,te,k,def

Housh goes in round 3
Lynch goes 4

Maroney goes 2
Bulger goes 4


The 4th rounders even out

So you are irritated by a difference of 1 round

The +/- on our ability to predict performance is not anywhere near that limited difference.

nonsense

[ravensjohnny]

I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS THIS A PERFECT EXAMPLE A TRADE THAT NEEDS TO BE VETOED DESPITE BOTH SIDES GIVING UP TALENT. I MEAN BULGER IS EASILY A TOP 5 QB AND MARONEY HAS BEEN TAKEN SOMEWHERE AROUND 6-10 MAYBE SLIPPING INTO VERY EARLY SECOND RD WHILE HOUSH IS RD 3 OR 4, AND LYNCH IS PROBABLY BETWEEN RD 4 AND 6 DEPENDING ON YOUR LEAGUE

IS THIS TRADE EVEN CLOSE, I THINK NOT

[dgan]

I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS THIS A PERFECT EXAMPLE A TRADE THAT NEEDS TO BE VETOED DESPITE BOTH SIDES GIVING UP TALENT. I MEAN BULGER IS EASILY A TOP 5 QB AND MARONEY HAS BEEN TAKEN SOMEWHERE AROUND 6-10 MAYBE SLIPPING INTO VERY EARLY SECOND RD WHILE HOUSH IS RD 3 OR 4, AND LYNCH IS PROBABLY BETWEEN RD 4 AND 6 DEPENDING ON YOUR LEAGUE

IS THIS TRADE EVEN CLOSE, I THINK NOT

Thank you for making my argument for me. The type of people who want veto power to prevent what they consider bad decisions by other owners are the same people who type a post in all caps. Join a different league or you'll have to put up with guys like this...

If it isn't collusion, you can't veto it. Period. Otherwise, you better be paying the entry fees for these teams you are essentially running.

[Peacesells]

I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS THIS A PERFECT EXAMPLE A TRADE THAT NEEDS TO BE VETOED DESPITE BOTH SIDES GIVING UP TALENT. I MEAN BULGER IS EASILY A TOP 5 QB AND MARONEY HAS BEEN TAKEN SOMEWHERE AROUND 6-10 MAYBE SLIPPING INTO VERY EARLY SECOND RD WHILE HOUSH IS RD 3 OR 4, AND LYNCH IS PROBABLY BETWEEN RD 4 AND 6 DEPENDING ON YOUR LEAGUE

IS THIS TRADE EVEN CLOSE, I THINK NOT

Maroney goine between 6-10....not once have I seen him go so high. Your facts are not straight.

[Felix the Cat]

I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS THIS A PERFECT EXAMPLE A TRADE THAT NEEDS TO BE VETOED DESPITE BOTH SIDES GIVING UP TALENT. I MEAN BULGER IS EASILY A TOP 5 QB AND MARONEY HAS BEEN TAKEN SOMEWHERE AROUND 6-10 MAYBE SLIPPING INTO VERY EARLY SECOND RD WHILE HOUSH IS RD 3 OR 4, AND LYNCH IS PROBABLY BETWEEN RD 4 AND 6 DEPENDING ON YOUR LEAGUE

IS THIS TRADE EVEN CLOSE, I THINK NOT

I'm inviting you to my league next year!

[Lofunzo]

I don't understand why Owner ignorance shouldn't be vetoable.
Also, this guy that is getting Maroney already has Addai and now has Bulger. It's pretty ridiculous.

It is good to include ALL information before bashing someone else in a thread. Under normal circumstances, this isn't a terrible trade.

[dream_017]

Vetoes should not be thrown around like candy at a Memorial Day parade......I see no issue with this trade and it should not be vetoed

[Felix the Cat]

I don't understand why Owner ignorance shouldn't be vetoable.
Also, this guy that is getting Maroney already has Addai and now has Bulger. It's pretty ridiculous.

It is good to include ALL information before bashing someone else in a thread. Under normal circumstances, this isn't a terrible trade.

So it's a bad trade because it makes a team too good? That sounds more like vetoing because you don't want to lose than vetoing for any actual valid reason.

[Lofunzo]

I don't understand why Owner ignorance shouldn't be vetoable.
Also, this guy that is getting Maroney already has Addai and now has Bulger. It's pretty ridiculous.

It is good to include ALL information before bashing someone else in a thread. Under normal circumstances, this isn't a terrible trade.

So it's a bad trade because it makes a team too good? That sounds more like vetoing because you don't want to lose than vetoing for any actual valid reason.

Huh?? Where did I say that at all?? I was referring to the fact that the OP needed to include all important information in the 1st post rather than expecting us to be mind readers. For instance, this might have been good to add to the first post:

I don't understand why Owner ignorance shouldn't be vetoable.
Also, this guy that is getting Maroney already has Addai and now has Bulger. It's pretty ridiculous.

Wouldn't it be nice to include that information when expecting us to evaluate a trade?? For the record, I don't think that this is vetoable.