Fair trade or veto?

[Vlad the Impaler_ffc]

IMO, two reasons to veto trades:

(1) Collusion;
(2) Unconsciounable, which means that it is so bad on its face that no sane person could make the deal and it is upsetting the competitive balance of the league.

In this case, I have seen no evidence of collusion, so the issue is if it is unconsciounable. I can't say this trade is so bad that no sane person could make it. You have to be able to play hunches. Maybe the guy from team one thinks Portis will never perform well in D.C., and maybe he thinks this is Tiki's breakout year. Maybe he also thinks CJ is going to struggle during Palmer's learning curve. I don't necessarily agree with these positions, but they are not so off the wall as to be unconsciounable.

The commish should let the trade go through. In 99% of trades, people are going to argue that one side got the better of it. That is not the proper analysis. The proper analysis is whether the trade is unconsciounable, and this trade is not.

[Free Bagel]

I wouldn't veto this. For all we know, Tiki could end up being the best player coming out of this deal. While I highly doubt that, I'm sure there are people out there that see Tiki nearly doubling up Portis thusfar and do think it. On the same token, Palmer seems to be ruining CJ.

I think team B is getting ripped off here, but if he's sitting in last and feels he has to do something, I could see how someone might agree to a trade like this. Who knows, maybe Tiki keeps it up all year and Portis stays right about where he is.
_________________

[Vybes]

Don't veto this trade, for reasons that others have already mentioned. On draft day, this may have been a ridiculous trade but based on the numbers put up this far, it is not too far out there to think that Team B is just looking for a spark. Again, you can't predict with 100% certainty that Portis will outperform Tiki and the commish should not allow his own opinions dictate someone else's actions unless the numbers just really don't add up. If someone cries, too bad. You will never please all the people all of the time. You want to keep things competitive and fair, but vetoing a reasonable trade is not the way to do it.

[Flux]

i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.

I've seen this happen before too. Trades like this ruin leagues.

Dictating what managers can and cannot do is what ruins leagues

[BrutallyHuge]

i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.

I've seen this happen before too. Trades like this ruin leagues.

Dictating what managers can and cannot do is what ruins leagues

That's hearsay. I've been in leagues where trades like this have caused the league to collapse. Are you saying vetoing a lopsided trade has caused a league that you were in to fold?

[gatorman1122]

Don't veto it. Team A is simply doing what most experienced FF players do-Buy Low and Sell High.

[Flux]

i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.

I've seen this happen before too. Trades like this ruin leagues.

Dictating what managers can and cannot do is what ruins leagues

That's hearsay. I've been in leagues where trades like this have caused the league to collapse. Are you saying vetoing a lopsided trade has caused a league that you were in to fold?

Thats hearsay? wtf are you talking about?

One of my leagues almost folded after a veto did take place on a trade. It turned out that the team that was getting the raw end of the deal would have by far gotten the better players (statistically by the end of the year). At the time it was all speculation, but that owner who was vetoed, barely missed the playoffs, and after calculating what his points would have been had the trade gone through, he actually would have won the league. And yes this was a money league.

[Flux]

I'm the commish. Is this a fair trade or worthy of a veto?

Team A gives up:
Tiki Barber
Donte' Stallworth
T. Houshmandzadeh
Green Bay Packers defense

Team B gives up:
Clinton Portis
Chad Johnson
Atlanta Falcons defense

In my opinion, it's a bad, bad trade for Team B, who might be panicking because Portis and Johnson are off to slow starts. I think it's a downgrade at every position.

Thoughts?

Veto-able?

heres a question nobody asked

Whats the scoring in this league?

[Bartleby1983]

i would not veto this at all, these guys are not working together, it may be a little off but still warented with the slow starts of portis and johnson, and the hot start of tiki

[Bowie]

i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.

I've seen this happen before too. Trades like this ruin leagues.

Unless there is cheating involved, how does this trade ruin the league. If one team goes on to dominate, so be it (any other team in the league could have offered a buy low trade too, if they had thought of it). That is the object of the game. It is not the commish's job to keep the league competative, it is his job to interprit and enforce the rules to promote fairness. When one team dominates a league, for whatever reason, it is up to the other managers to continue being competative themselves.
You'd think we were in kindergarden playing musical chairs with an extra chair (we're all winners!!!).