Vetoable? Trade involving Ronnie Brown

[yellowbelly]

Hello all you commisioners out there! There is a pending trade in our league right now, details below:

Team A gets Rudi Johnson & Eddie Royal
Team B gets Ronnie Brown

Team A: 0-3, drated Tom Brady 1st rd.

QB Trent Edwards
WR Wes Welker, Joey Galloway, Brandon Lloyd, Roscoe Parrish, Ike Hilliard, Donte' Stallworth, Jabar Gaffney
RB Ronnie Brown, Earnest Graham, Jamal Lewis, Le'Ron McClain, T.J. Duckett, Mewelde Moore
TE Tony Gonzalez

Team B: 2-1, Commisioner of the league

QB Cutler, Quinn
RB Westbrook, Bush, Forte, Ricky Williams, Hightower, M. Bush, Rudi Johnson
WR Colston, Megatron, Bruce, Royal, Matt Jones, A. Bryant, D. Mason
TE Miller

Team B's reasons are:

a) rudi has potential to be Detroit's starting RB (some potential!!)
b) Royal has the potential to be the next Welker in a high octane offense
c) Ronnie's potential to get injured again is great (as is Rudi, I think)
b) Team A needs depth to turn his team around and Ronnie's not going to get 5 tds a game and is in a committee with Williams

The way I see it, this is a trade involving an RB1 (possibly the best back in fantasy football if healthy) in return for a WR3 (with the potential to be a WR2) and a waiver wire RB.

Did I mention this is a PPR keeper league?

What are your thoughts, gents and ladies? What do y'all think of the reasons above? Is the trade vetoable? I'm not a fan of vetoing trades unless there is collusion involved, but an RB1 for 2 waiver wire pickups is almost scandolous IMO.

[bungle613]

Not vetoable.

Understand the rationale behind it and to me as an outsider can see value on both sides.

[spodog]

not vetoable. Fine yourself $25 for thinking about vetoing it, and quit asking your owners to provide their justification for why they want to trade. Tyrant.

[padrino990_200]

couldnt have said it any better myself

[JasonSeahorn]

Although we don't have to agree with Team B's reasoning, he did give points to defend the trade, definitely can't veto.

[Script-Ohio]

Not even close to vetoable. You likely just don't want the commish's already strong team to potentially get even better.

[LS2throwed]

Not even close to vetoable. You likely just don't want the commish's already strong team to potentially get even better.

Agreed, no collusion here, these problems always come about when one team makes a fair trade but gets stronger, its close enough you have to let this pass, I wouldn't of even asked for reasoning so its certainly fine.

[raised]

...but an RB1 for 2 waiver wire pickups is almost scandolous IMO.

I think you`re being a bit dishonest here. I`d love to find a league that Ronnie Brown was drafted as a number 1 rb. Before his big week he was almost on the waiver wire.

The question is if there is collusion. Not are you worried that it hurts your chances of winning. BTW, your commish is so stacked I don`t think it`ll help him much anyways.

[Goody]

I just can't help but laugh at all of the people that come in this forum asking if a trade should be vetoed because it makes another team stronger. Funny stuff!