Vick for Brandon Marshall veto?

[disgruntledjetsfan]

So my league has 1 QB, 2 rb, 2 wr, 1 wr/rb, 1 te. 4 pts for a throwing TD, and 30 yards per pt in the air. 10 reception yards per point and 6 pts for all other TDs.

A trade was pending that would swap Vick for Brandon Marshall and I vetoed it two days ago. The owner who was going to receive Marshall has been vigorously complaining and after Vick's game today I'm starting to rethink my stance.

Two questions: Was I right to veto it a couple of days ago? And, after today's game, would you change your stance or maintain the same opinion you held prior to gametime?

[LJ's Crush]

I don't like veto's at all unless it's something ridiculas like CJ for Adam Viniterai or something along those lines Vick for Marshall is fair

[mojoorising]

Vetoing trades gets very contagious and you never know how they will pan out. Last week i got a trade vetoed where i was gonna send maclin and get back witten, we all know how that turned out hehe. Vick for marshall at this point of the year seems pretty good... dont veto if u plan on doing any trades later in the year cause the guys involved in that trade will veto anything u do from here on out. Just admit you were wrong try and save some face for your future trades and just worry about making your team better.

[kiddragonsoft]

i dont think its vetoable. unless its obvious collusion it shouldn't be vetoed. it may not be the smartest move but that trade is not that lobsided depending on the team's need.

[Jear3]

It was a fair trade. The difference in value between both players is negligible; a starting quarterback (who's looking like an elite option right now) for a top 5 fantasy wide receiver isn't far off at all.

Halp?: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=477036

[B3N1ZJAM1N]

Wow I would have been very upset

[ZeroPointZero]

In some leagues, like mine, a trade requires a considerable amount of work and negotiation to get the other party to see it as a win-win and accept the trade. So yeah, to have others in the league just veto it for no clear reason? You owe an explanation to the people who wasted their time and effort.

Also, you should only consider what has happened up to the point where the trade was accepted, not yesterday's stats. If one half of the trade took a season ending injury, that's still not grounds for a veto. That's just too bad.

[c0megets0me]

I just traded Vick for Marshall in my league, He was in need of a qb and Vick is huge right now and marshall didnt do much untill last night.

[k.k.]

You gotta let a trade like Vick for Marshall thru. Vetoing that is overthinking it. Let guys make trades unless it's truly dumb ass. Vick for Marshall even before Marshall's week 3 performance was still okay. Depends on what guys need and where they have depth to make a deal.

[displaced longhorn]

i would go postal, especially if it's a money league