vetoable? AP Mendehall/Forte Jones Ryan WHIR

[hockeykidb3]

nonkeeper

so i just got this trade proposed to me and i accepted:

I give Matt Ryan, Matt Forte, and Thomas Jones for Adrian Peterson and Rashard Mendenhall

I think i got the better side of this deal but should it be vetoed? the trade was proposed to me, this kid had the first pick in the draft and logged on late so he got a ton of RB but no good QB and its a 2 QB league, he was very clear about his demands for AP: he wanted a good RB and a good QB in return

if you break this trade down its

forte/adrian peterson who have about the same amount of points

and thomas jones (the replacement for Jamaal Charles) and matt ryan for mendenhall who has only 15 points this year

i think it fair but should it be vetoed?

[hockeykidb3]

here is the point breakdown:

giving up:
ryan 27
forte 36
jones 4 (was barely playing before jamaal charles got hurt)

ap 35
mendenall 15

[Bronco_7]

Definitely not vetoable. It is for sure a better deal for you but the veto is not so others can be the trade police and make sure no one gets ripped off. ONLY reason to veto is if there is collusion. It should not be vetoed.

[hockeykidb3]

i propose a deal for him that i thought was better than this for him (ap/blount henderson ryan) and he countered with this, thank you for the help

[hockeykidb3]

i am one LM the other LM wants to veto

[potatopotahto]

I'm not a fan of vetoing trades unless it's a blatant attempt at cheating or someone just clearing house. I think the commissioner is on some haterade.

[latsprewell20002000]

Definitely not vetoable. It is for sure a better deal for you but the veto is not so others can be the trade police and make sure no one gets ripped off. ONLY reason to veto is if there is collusion. It should not be vetoed.

When will people get this. THE ONLY TIME YOU VETO IS IF YOU THINK TWO TEAMS ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE ONE GOOD TEAM. NOT NOT NOT NOT IF ONE PERSON GETS THE BETTER END OF THE DEAL. NO TRADE EVER IS COMPLETELY EVEN.

[FU - Football Univ.]

Thanks for the help with mine. I agree - there seems to be no collusion or roster-dumping here (too early in the season for that anyway), so I don't know why it would get vetoed.

Besides that, I think it's a fair deal where both sides get comparable players at positions they need.

Good luck.

[Chaoyi Shih]

Definitely not vetoable. It is for sure a better deal for you but the veto is not so others can be the trade police and make sure no one gets ripped off. ONLY reason to veto is if there is collusion. It should not be vetoed.

i agree the part veto is not for other to be trade police
i disagree the part that veto is to keep people from getting ripped off, i believe veto is to keep inexperienced manager to get ripped off and become completely uncompetitive in the league.

if 6 experienced managers is ripping off other 4 new managers, and comes with 6 stacked team and 4 weak team that has zero chance of going to play-off, why don't you start a 6 teams league to begin with?

fantasy football is suppose to be competitive, not ripping off the inexperienced people and propose obviously messed up trade.

back to topic, 2QB league, QB value goes up, Forte is playing well, value goes up.
After all, you got better deal, but not big enough to be veto, this trade should be okay.