I normally try to run a laissez-faire league. We have a first timer that agreed to let Carnell Williams and Brian Westbrook go to a veteran player for Eddie Kennison, Issac Bruce, and Darrell Jackson.
Granted this guy is hurting at receiver, but he is letting 2 arguable top 10 RBs go for 3 mediocre receivers. I think there should be at least one if not two stud receivers (C. Johnson, T Holt caliber) to get those two backs.
There is $500 bucks on the line in this league so I have to watch what I do.
Veto or not??
2006-09-08 07:04:00 · 17 answers · asked by erik d 2 in Sports ➔ Fantasy Sports
The rookie does have alot of RBs as he missed the draft and itt auto picked for him. Still I think he should get at minimum a WR Stud for giving up those two. The advantage is too great for the guy receiving the back, could inbalance the whole league.
2006-09-08 08:42:50 · update #1
The golden rule of being a commissioner is, allow it unless it's collusion.
While the trade's pretty off-balance, I agree, I think it falls under the category of stupid rather than malicious, unless you have other info.
If there IS collusion, kick 'em out.
2006-09-08 07:07:07 · answer #1 · answered by rorgg 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
properly at the beginning, because of the fact which you are the commissioner and have all of the flexibility to veto/enable trades, it is going to be all as much as you. If the different communities needed ability to veto trades they should no longer have joined the league in the 1st place. So brush aside all that different communities are asserting. If I have been you, i might truthfully enable this commerce. check out their stats: Willis: 7-6, 4.ninety era, sixty seven ok, 40 4 Walks, a million.fifty 8 WHIP; Papelbon: 0-a million, a million.seventy 8 era, 34 ok, 10 Walks, sixteen Saves; as adversarial to Escobar: 8-3, 2.ninety seven era, seventy 4 ok, 25 Walks, a million.14 WHIP; Isringhausen: 3-0, a million.fifty 5 era, 21 ok, 8 Walks, 14 Saves. i'm propose i'm no longer the main important stat guy you will ever see, yet maximum anybody is asserting that team A is getting the better deal. in accordance to this years stats, team B is in actuality getting the better deal. common this is a straightforward deal although, because of the fact i think of Papelbon is the common better nearer because of the fact of his youthful human beings, and Escobar is the better starter, for a minimum of this twelve months. in case you have watched Willis in any respect you could discover that he basically won't have a sturdy season, and he's injured besides. Escobar has been lighting fixtures fixtures out additionally. ultimately, some people who're asserting that team A is getting such very lots, you should evaluate communities' desires. common, there is no way which you would be able to veto this commerce, enable the communities make their very own judgements.
2016-10-14 11:20:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without knowing the league rules, I would look at what that leaves him at starting running back and at receiver and see if any reasonable person would consider that a better team. Personally, I would not feel right getting those two backs for those 3 receivers. Westbrook is an injury risk, but D. Jackson hasn't played in a while with his knee problems. I could find free agents that may match an old I. Bruce.
This trade doesn't seem to be fair to the other owners. I can't justify it.
2006-09-08 07:12:18 · answer #3 · answered by ciza29 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you didn't set up criteria ahead of time, you really only have two choices. 1) Put it up to a league vote, or 2) Unilaterally decide.
We have had trades far better than this overturned. The common theme was protecting the league from one managers stupidity. I'm not sure I agree with that philosophy. Collusion is really the only veto worthy offense.
However, if a trade is so lopsided that one team takes the title, you probably should act.
If Jackson wasn't hurt, I think I would let it slide.
If you have to decide solo: Send them back to renegotiate. Veto.
Otherwise, have the league weigh in with simple majority ruling.
AFTER this incident, immediately install trade review and veto criteria/procedures. Post them...
2006-09-08 07:50:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
People will tell you not to Veto but you should Veto it, i mean he's a rookie and it wouldnt be fair to you either, to let this trade go through, because the guy getting williams and westbrook would have a good team at rb's. So dont let this go through, and also it could be a trick and be the same guy, you never know.
Smart idea would be to Veto
Good Luck
2006-09-08 07:39:28 · answer #5 · answered by xcef2005 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Veto.
Sounds fishy. Look at the rest of their rosters Does the guy have 5 RB's? Or is he giving up his only RB's to get the 3 WR's? And what does getting the 2 RB's give the other guy? If he gets a 'super team' built, the whole league in screwed and its your fault.
A smaller deal might fly, 1 stud RB for 2 average WR's is more believable.
2006-09-08 08:32:34 · answer #6 · answered by biggie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
advise the player on what he is doing, and make sure he understands the scoring and how points are accumulated. Then, if he still wants to make the trade, let him. How pissed off would you be if someone vetoed your trade that you really wanted.
If you veto the trade, and one of those receivers has a 2000 yard season, you would have totally screwed him.
No one would have possibly thought steve smith would have been as successful as he was, at the beginning of the year a trade would not have made sense but it does now.
In 1999 I wanted to trade kordell stewart for kurt warner. People talked me out of it and kurt warner had an MVP season, I should have done what I wanted to and the people talking me out of it should have kept their fat mouth shut and mind their own business. Cadillac williams could have a season ending injury this weekend, and jackson could have a 1500 yard 20 td season, then would you feel sorry for him.?
2006-09-08 08:00:59 · answer #7 · answered by greencaddyman 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Veto, if it was Holt I would say yeah but not for that. He needs to get more value out of those backs. I always run my leagues so there needs to be a minimum of votes to veto a trade. With money on the line like that I would veto it.
2006-09-08 13:40:57 · answer #8 · answered by hockeyman7lw 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how your league's rules address this situation. You do address it, right?
But I think what you are asking is: Is it my job to protect owners from themselves?
And the answer should be "NO".
Yes, this trade appears to be lop-sided, but that is never a reason to undo a trade. The owners that may complain should be chastised for not taking advantage of the situation themselves, thereby alerting the 1st timer that his trade could get more. Why weren't they doing that?
How else is a 1st timer supposed to learn with you handicapping him?
2006-09-08 07:14:24 · answer #9 · answered by TheSlayor 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like greencaddy's idea of talking to him and letting him know what he's getting into. Jackson is going to play, so don't take that into consideration. I don't think Westbrook is a top 10 back, so I personally would allow the trade. But talk to him, see what his line of thinking is and then decide.
2006-09-08 09:22:22 · answer #10 · answered by jdbreeze1 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋