Brees for Andersen + Meacham. reject?

[knighttrain1]

14 team redraft. We're all friends but it is a money league. My usual stance is that one man's garbage is another man's treasure. You can't really make a habit of making sure trades are "fair." But this one sets a dangerous precedent if it goes through. I don't want collusion to creep in to a league this large where it could easily happen.

The owner offering Brees has Rivers and they share a bye week (week 9). So he is trying to get value for him. Of course Andersen has performed poorly this season and Meacham is a 3rd stringer at best and likely drops to 4th string when Colston returns (though he doesn't seem to need many plays to score).

Another caveat is that the same two owners swapped defenses last week with the current Brees owner giving up the Titans in return for the Seahawks.

It's not that I don't trust that this trade is on the up and up. It's just that it sets a precedent that looks bad and that anything goes in the league. There is no vote in the league because I beleive votes present a mob-style rule and everyone is cool with my leadership as I am an honest person with good judgement. I have approved several trades through the 3 years I have commished this league and never had a problem. But I am truly on the fence on this one.

I called the owner and told him that I and my co-comish were reviewing it but that it didn't look good. He might sweeten the deal to keep it on the table. A starting wideout or even a strong backup RB/weak starter might be enough for me.

[JasonSeahorn]

Talk to the guy giving Brees and see why he couldn't get a better offer than that.

[knighttrain1]

Talk to the guy giving Brees and see why he couldn't get a better offer than that.

just had a textversation with him. I told him I thought this trade was terrible. He asked if it could be vetoed and I responded that he might want to sweeten it with somebody other than Meach. I asked him if he really like him or something. He replied "that's a good point. Maybe I should research that."

I told him he can work on another deal but since he agreed to this one he might have to live with it.

I'm leaning on putting the trade through just to punish him now. Please help.

[bungle613]

Talk to the guy giving Brees and see why he couldn't get a better offer than that.

just had a textversation with him. I told him I thought this trade was terrible. He asked if it could be vetoed and I responded that he might want to sweeten it with somebody other than Meach. I asked him if he really like him or something. He replied "that's a good point. Maybe I should research that."

I told him he can work on another deal but since he agreed to this one he might have to live with it.

I'm leaning on putting the trade through just to punish him now. Please help.

From that conversation it comes down to his tough luck. Let it go. For better or worse, it is not the job of the commish to protect owners.

[knighttrain1]

I'm still afraid of setting a bad precident for future trades. I don't want the less scrupulous individuals who may lurk in my league to use this against me later in the year when they clearly collude near playoff time. Am I overthinking this?

[bungle613]

I'm still afraid of setting a bad precident for future trades. I don't want the less scrupulous individuals who may lurk in my league to use this against me later in the year when they clearly collude near playoff time. Am I overthinking this?

Yeah, maybe a little. If 2 owners agree to a deal that is legit, you can't hold the possibilities againt the league. To me, it has always been fairly obvious to see a deal that is not legit. I have seen soem horribl edeals posted here but most of them have been a legit deal where you can see the reasoning behind the deal.

This one, as you mentioned is a guy dealing a QB that is essentially useless to him barring injury. He shopped him and took an offer albeit a bad one. Too bad.

Someone deals LT2 for Indy Def in week 10... some bells should go off.

[Script-Ohio]

Crappy deal but I'd let it through. It's especially crappy because the guy is picking up Anderson for a bye week so I figured "Well, maybe the Browns are playing St Louis or something and while the trade sucks, maybe it's a great matchup for Anderson and so not as bad a trade as it seems".
But the Browns play Baltimore that week so Anderson is a weak, weak start. Still, I'd let it through. Can't worry about "precedent". If it's not collusion it's not collusion.