Fair Deal? B.Jacobs for B.Wells?

[elraider77]

I am the Co-LM in a 10 man fantasy league NON-PPR and wanted to settle a dispute over a trade that was vetoed in my league.
This trade involved a team that is 0-4, trading B.Wells to an owner who is selling high on B.Jacobs. The owner of B.Jacobs was disgruntled at this outcome.

Do you think this trade was fair? Or did it deserve to be vetoed?

[prophecy135]

why should it have been veto'd.. not like he was trading Jacobs for AP or anything.. Wells might be better, but as long as ARI keeps getting blown out we'll never know. And Jacobs has had a few garbage time scores, but scores are scores.

[bluecheezit]

Tell your league that trades should only be vetoed if there is collusion suspected. That should not have been vetoed. As commish, you should reinstate the trade and allow passage whenever it would've gone through.

Help?
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=480363

[blb2397]

Not a smart trade but no way to veto.
jacobs is getting some goal line work again, Wells is talented but really hasn't proven anything yet and Bradshaw has to show still he can handle the load all year

viewtopic.php?t=480596

[krazymop]

Vetoes are not meant to be used to protect owners from what *you* think they should have done. Unless there is an obvious imbalance to the point where collusion can be reasonably assumed (like AP for Darren Sproles), let the managers manage their teams. I'd reinstate the trade and point them to this thread if they want to know why.

[LJ's Crush]

I really don't think a veto was nessesary its a fair deal it should ony happen if theres collusion or like a kicker for moss

help
viewtopic.php?t=480595

[Gibbs En Fuego]

It's pretty much been said here, but I agree. The key word seems to be collusion. And you better be prepared to site evidence of it...It's a big difference between being a moron and being a cheat.

[VIKINGFAN]

I think this is a fair deal, Jacobs has lost carries to Bradshaw.....

[teker1]

no veto,let teams manage their own teams.