November 24, 201015 yr It's a bit bush league, but here's the trade: Trade: Aaron Rodgers Greg Jennings For: Vincent Jackson Mike Tolbert Matt Forte The guy getting Rodgers and Jennings would have: Rodgers Chris Johnson LeSean Mccoy Roddy White Greg Jennings Vetoable? What do you think?
November 25, 201015 yr The trade is 50/50 on the veto but when you added this to your post: The guy getting Rodgers and Jennings would have: Rodgers Chris Johnson LeSean Mccoy Roddy White Greg Jennings It makes me think you would be vetoing for the wrong reason. Only veto if you think the trade is one sided not because you wouldnt like the end result.
November 25, 201015 yr Borderline. I only veto if it's lopsided. That one is close. I think it's Bush if you do it because one team will be too good. I can see an argument in this one. When everybody looks at it and says they would take Jennings/Rodgers everytime then I think you have a legit argument.
November 25, 201015 yr I think you veto if it seems shady. Also, I don't think it's that even and wouldn't do it myself if I was the one giving up Rogers and Jennings. He's getting two mid pack running backs and a receiver that hasn't touched the field yet. In my league Rogers and Jennings are combining for an average of 34.7 points per week and the other 3 only 24.3.
November 25, 201015 yr What does the other guys team look like? Maybe its not that one sided when you consider the other team? But straight up, it's not really a fair trade IMO.
November 25, 201015 yr How does it change the other guy's team? I don't think this trade is vetoable. You can say the other two backs combine for 10 less points, but there's no way to factor in Vincent Jackson. He'll likely be the #1 target for a guy who is on pace to break Marino's single season passing yardage record. I'd rather have Rodgers and Jennings without seeing the rosters, but I also don't see this one as being crazily lopsided. The rosters could justify the trade, or it could convince me that it's a shady deal.
November 25, 201015 yr It looks to me like one team has tanked the season and trying to help the other make a playoff run. Sounds like a good reason to have no trades after week 10.
November 25, 201015 yr Author The other guy's team would then be: Vick Thomas Jones Forte Brandon Jackson Vincent Jackson Terrell Owens I know I want to veto partly because of the way the other guy's team looks, but I also want to veto because the trade is clearly so one sided. The discussion is going on in our league, I was just getting some other opinions on the matter.
November 25, 201015 yr Vetoing trades is very, very childish. If two adults come to an agreement and there is no collusion than I don't see any reason to interfere.
November 25, 201015 yr If you have a right to vote(veto) use it how you want regardless of the reason. As a commissioner, I'd allow it. As a competitor, I'd veto it if it is in a money league. Childish or not. Straight cash homey.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.