vetoable trade?

[Bobbleheadrusty]

You can't assume it is collusion.

Sorry, but if I'm commish, and I see a waiver wire kicker being traded for a WR1 I'm pulling the plug, I don't want to be involved in any leagues shifting the power like that, if you want to trade for one of the best kickers cool so be it, but I don't see anybody going about it by trading a dominant WR, if he really did want that kicker I'd tell him he needs to rethink his methods of what he wants to give up...Now player for player I'm very leniant, but I don't think this is acceptable in any league I am in.

I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that!

Well, short of a confession how would you ever prove collusion? When a deal is this ridiculously uneven you have to 1) Veto it and 2) Assume collusion unless you can be convinced otherwise.

[LS2throwed]

I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that!

I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.

[bungle613]

I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that!

I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.

Fair enough. The point I want to convey is that even though at face value it appears that it should be vetoed and I actually agree that it is highly likely it will be, NONE of the people who said veto this has even seen the rosters of the owners involved. You can't just look at the players involved, a commish is not there to make decisions on behalf of owners.

Just my thoughts dude.

[Bobbleheadrusty]

I'm not saying it is a legit deal or even a deal that should go through. It is highly likely that it is collusion but you CAN NOT assume that it is. AS a commish, you find out the details before vetoing anything. Any commish who blankly hits the veto button shouldn't be a commish.

By the way, Mare is 7 for 7 tied for 3rd. To me a kicker is a kicker, I don't care as it is mostly luck but I can't speak for other owners. I've seen kickers in leagues with fairly knowledgable owners go in the 6th or 7th. You want to veto something, veto that!

I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.

Fair enough. The point I want to convey is that even though at face value it appears that it should be vetoed and I actually agree that it is highly likely it will be, NONE of the people who said veto this has even seen the rosters of the owners involved. You can't just look at the players involved, a commish is not there to make decisions on behalf of owners.

Just my thoughts dude.

So you are saying if a guy has Romo, Cutler and Eli and was weak at RB you would be ok with Romo for Ray Rice?

Because, while rosters may show surplus/need you still need to look at the players involved.

[bungle613]

I disagree, and that may be your opinion but like I said I'm not running a league where WR1's will be traded for kickers straight up...So if you saw Mare being traded for Terrel Owens as long as the guy who traded for Mare explains himself you let it go through? Thats not the way I use my veto power, I trust everyone in my league to make good judgement calls but everything thats happened thus far has went through, and like I said a marginal player for a kicker sure, but this trade whether or not you want to call it collusion should be vetoed.


I wouldn't play in any league that accepted trades like this to be processed, there really is no rationale explanation for the deal.

Fair enough. The point I want to convey is that even though at face value it appears that it should be vetoed and I actually agree that it is highly likely it will be, NONE of the people who said veto this has even seen the rosters of the owners involved. You can't just look at the players involved, a commish is not there to make decisions on behalf of owners.

Just my thoughts dude.

So you are saying if a guy has Romo, Cutler and Eli and was weak at RB you would be ok with Romo for Ray Rice?

Because, while rosters may show surplus/need you still need to look at the players involved.

You need to look at everything and yes, I would allow that deal. I would talk to the 2 owners involved but it is unlikely that the deal is collusion. I am not goign to try and guess how someone values a player. Say I veto Romo for Rice and the guy trading for RIce heard that RIce was going to get the majority of the carries this week Rice goes off for 170 total and 2 tds and continues to put up top 10 fantasy numbers for the rest of the season.

A commish is not there to babysit league owners. I don't play in leagues that need babysitting and would highly suggest for even casual fantasy football players to get out of Yahoo public leagues where really bad trades are done.

I have been the commish of 2 leagues for 7 and 9 years and a co-commish in another league for 4 of its 5 years. In all 3 leagues, 1 deal in all 25 total seasons has been vetoed. It was in 2004

team 1 trades.......SA,westbrook,steve smith and Shockey to

team 2 for Toomer,Suggs,DAvenport,AMos Z., Eddie Kennison, Antionio Bryant

It wasn't even solely vetoed on the players involved but more so on the fact that one of the owners involved was upset and leaving the league and a moron thought he could take advantage. Team 2 left immediately, team 1 left the league shortly after.

It's the way I do things, some guys will disagree and I don't have an issue with that either. If your league is happy with the way it runs, continue that way.

[JasonSeahorn]

Romo for Rice would be better than this. I agree in not vetoing right away but you have to contact the manager getting Mare and see what his reasoning is for doing the trade.

[Script-Ohio]

While I'm firmly in the "don't veto unless it's collusion" camp, a deal THIS clearly lopsided is more likely to be collusion than not. I'd veto it.