murphysxm wrote:I don't mean to be blunt, but I think you are being short sided. You are looking at the trade only as it impacts the current year. The player that "dumped" players this year greatly improved his team for 2012, which is well with in his rights. If you aren't comfortable with that as a commish you should probably go back to a redraft format. My guess is if we polled 100 commissioners of keepers league 90%+ disagree with this trade being vetoed. I have absolutely no issue with the trade and would have been upset if I had been in a league where it was vetoed.
I don't mind the criticism of being short sighted, but the idea that I am looking at the trade as it only impacts the current year isn't correct. I've said many times about how this trade would effect future seasons trading scenarios. My goal is to look at the overall repercussions not just the repercussions of the two teams involved in the trade.
I don't disagree at all that either team felt like they were acting in their best interests. If they weren't then there wouldn't even be a discussion because the alternative would have been both managers were cheating. So the point distilled down to one sentence is this "should the the interests of the two teams in the trade override the overall interests of the league?"
My initial reaction is no, this scenario raises multiple questions about how trades should be evaluated:
1. The timing of the trade.
a. Would this trade been offered and accepted in week 6?
2. The two teams essentially are no longer in direct competition.
a. This removes all downside to the trade for the two teams involved, and sets a precedent that when you make it to the top four you will have to trade keepers for starters to be competitive.
3. The imbalance of the trade i.e. trading 4 healthy players for 2 injured players and 1 TE
a. I fully understand that the injured keeper players have future value, but future value must be weighed against current value.
4. To evaluate any trade on a cheating only requirement is nearly impossible. How do you prove cheating happened? So by that logic why even have a trade review system at all.
5. Finally, I understand that you would be upset about the veto, but what about people who were upset about the trade? They paid their money should their opinions be limited?