Commish Question: Allow SJax/Forte for KWarner/LJohnson?

[JasonSeahorn]

spodog and seahorn....awesome how you two answer every one of these, and seem to come up w some new way to express the same answer every time. im going through every one just to see what you'll say next

and to anybody else who has been answering a lot of them...no offense that i didnt name you...those two just have pics that i recognize in each one

Wouldn't want to bore you with the same response each time

[flotsamnjetsam]

That is a horrible trade IMO, but like the others have said, unless you suspect collusion/cheating you must allow the trade. No matter how bad it looks on paper.

[skinny d]

That is a horrible trade IMO, but like the others have said, unless you suspect collusion/cheating you must allow the trade. No matter how bad it looks on paper.

thanks for the response, mainly because it confirms the notion that this is a horrible trade that confirms my fears that a knowledgeable FF'er is taking advantage of a much less knowledgeable FF"er. But I fully realize that it's not my job to police the quality of a trade. The trade has already been approved. Oh well. Sorry for wasting everyone's time with this, but I appreciate the time everyone put into responses>

[flotsamnjetsam]

That is a horrible trade IMO, but like the others have said, unless you suspect collusion/cheating you must allow the trade. No matter how bad it looks on paper.

thanks for the response, mainly because it confirms the notion that this is a horrible trade that confirms my fears that a knowledgeable FF'er is taking advantage of a much less knowledgeable FF"er. But I fully realize that it's not my job to police the quality of a trade. The trade has already been approved. Oh well. Sorry for wasting everyone's time with this, but I appreciate the time everyone put into responses>

It's never a waste of time. The only stupid question is the question not asked.

[Script-Ohio]

Not a trade I'd make but not a trade I would (or anyone should) veto either.

[spodog]

spodog and seahorn....awesome how you two answer every one of these, and seem to come up w some new way to express the same answer every time. im going through every one just to see what you'll say next

and to anybody else who has been answering a lot of them...no offense that i didnt name you...those two just have pics that i recognize in each one

That may be because the correct answer to 99.9% of the dumb "is this trade vetoable" questions on the commish board is NO

Most leagues seem to suffer from a commish with Napolean syndrome or something where the commish feels he must stick his nose into every trade offer and pass judgement on the merits of the trade, acting as some type of an auditor to determine if the trade is equitable or not.

That isn't the commish's job. Unless a trade just reeks of collusion, which very few do, there is no reason to veto a trade and no reason to poll the entire Cafe to ask if a trade should be veto'd.

Maybe Seahorn and I recognize this truth. Hope the commish of your league does as well.