VETO Worthy?

[ozzyozwalt]

So I just completed a trade that has some in the league trying to veto. Basically talent for talent they are right it is not fair. However, if you look at the whole situation, i think this is exactly what two manager look to accomplish in a trade.

I Give:
Kevin Smith
Jason Witten
Colby Fleener

I Get:
Robert Griffin III
Brent Celek

Now the kicker is the guy already has Aaron Rodgers, so RG3 is useless to him. Just trade bait. In no world would he start RG3 over Rodgers. On top of that he is in desperate need of a RB. Plus he gets a slight bump in TE. Am I wrong here that a trade that obviously benefits both teams, both managers are willing and not cheating, is a fair trade? Honest opinions please agree or not.

[Indibuck]

So I just completed a trade that has some in the league trying to veto. Basically talent for talent they are right it is not fair. However, if you look at the whole situation, i think this is exactly what two manager look to accomplish in a trade.

I Give:
Kevin Smith
Jason Witten
Colby Fleener

I Get:
Robert Griffin III
Brent Celek

Now the kicker is the guy already has Aaron Rodgers, so RG3 is useless to him. Just trade bait. In no world would he start RG3 over Rodgers. On top of that he is in desperate need of a RB. Plus he gets a slight bump in TE. Am I wrong here that a trade that obviously benefits both teams, both managers are willing and not cheating, is a fair trade? Honest opinions please agree or not.

I hate vetoes, and this trade is a perfect example of why only a commish should be able to veto a trade, and ONLY if he believes there is collusion between the 2 parties.

Heck no this shouldn't be vetoed.

[gsnts725]

So I just completed a trade that has some in the league trying to veto. Basically talent for talent they are right it is not fair. However, if you look at the whole situation, i think this is exactly what two manager look to accomplish in a trade.

I Give:
Kevin Smith
Jason Witten
Colby Fleener

I Get:
Robert Griffin III
Brent Celek

Now the kicker is the guy already has Aaron Rodgers, so RG3 is useless to him. Just trade bait. In no world would he start RG3 over Rodgers. On top of that he is in desperate need of a RB. Plus he gets a slight bump in TE. Am I wrong here that a trade that obviously benefits both teams, both managers are willing and not cheating, is a fair trade? Honest opinions please agree or not.

I hate vetoes, and this trade is a perfect example of why only a commish should be able to veto a trade, and ONLY if he believes there is collusion between the 2 parties.

Heck no this shouldn't be vetoed.

This.

[BigFin13]

No veto. Most of the time it's either jealous losing owners that veto trades, or it's the classic angry nerd who just spites everybody. Heck no! No veto!

Help with mine?

viewtopic.php?t=521858