Do you allow this trade?

[shippityship]

Team A is someone I don't know personally and he only knows one other person in our 12 team league, is friends w a mutual friend of ours and was a last second fill in to draft. He's not overly football savy from what I've gathered. His team is currently 1-5, and with 6 teams making the playoffs pretty desperate. Especially so for a WR.

He just accepted the trade his Demarco Murray for Team B's Mike Williams.

Team A
Qb (start 1)- Cam Newton, Kolb
Wr (start 3)- Jennings, Hartline, Titus Young, DHB, Greg Little
Rb (start 2)- Gore, Matthews, Demarco, Alex green
Te (start 1)- Pettigrew

Team B
Qb- Stafford
Wr- Welker, Wallace, Austin, Mike Williams, Manningham
Rb- Bradshaw, Forte, Redman
Te- Pitta


Obviously it fills a hole on both teams, but imo (and im sure a few members in the league will voice their own, complicating things) he could have gotten more bang for his buck. There's no chance of collusion because Team A and B do not know each other.


edit: should also mention it's a standard scoring non ppr league

should also be mentioned that Team B is right in the middle of the playoff hunt and this obviously boosts his chances.

[stomperrob]

If there's no evidence of collusion or cheating then any trade should go through. Don't try to micro-manage things, let owners play as they see fit, it only matters that they think the trade is "fair" as everyone has a different opinion as to what is fair. If you have a guy that makes a bunch of stupid trades the solution is don't invite him back next year.

Check out the post on trade veto: viewtopic.php?t=524568

[shawngee03]

no cheating or roster dump equals no veto

[The Lung]

imo (and im sure a few members in the league will voice their own, complicating things) he could have gotten more bang for his buck.

See this right here just irks me to no end. What difference does it make to the league whether the manager got enough "bang for his buck?" What makes you or anyone else in the league an expert who knows the "true value" of every rostered player?!?

I really don't understand where this sentiment comes from in fantasy football. It's like some phantom rule that came out of thin air and everyone adopted. Why do people think that a majority of the league has to agree that trades have to be "balanced?"

I need to stop coming into this forum, because these threads just piss me off.

[Hags888]

Absolutely allow the trade. Why wouldn't you?

One the one hand, Mike Williams hasn't been very good overall this year. On the other hand, he's just had 2 huge games, and may be benefitting from all the attention that Vincent Jackson is getting. So, what is his "real" value? DeMarco Murray is always an injury risk, and so far has had a pretty mediocre year as a RB. Who knows how long he'll be out, and if he can stay healthy the rest of the year. What is his "real" value? The trade helps both teams and is a textbook "win/win". Anyone that thinks this should be veto'd is an idiot, and doesn't understand fantasy football.