Fantasy Football trade possible veto?

[Steve9347]

OK, so I am the commissioner of a fantasy football league. I left trades up to vote this year bc its for cash-money.

 

Anyway, after Eli Manning was injured, his owner made me this offer. (note, today the news came out that it might not be a month, but that should have no bearing on a trade already agreed to).

 

Eli Manning

Andre Johnson

Tatum Bell

Bears D/ST

 

for

 

Phillip Rivers

Javon Walker

LenDale White

Cowboys D/ST

 

Obviously I crave that Bears defense, but feel that I downgrade at the three other positions. (Manning was drafted 3 rounds after rivers for a reason, has injury questions, and was a question mark before that), Walker is in a much better offense and 2 years removed from knee surgery, Bell's days at starter are numbered once KJ gets off the PUP list.

 

Anyway, some other manager posted that this should be voted against and urged all other managers to vote against it, I argued my case... but in all honesty, want to know if outside people think it should be veto'd as well...

 

thanks for the input!

[RockRaines]

You are getting the short end of the stick there. The benefits of the Bears D doesnt outweigh the step down at QB, WR and RB

[Steve9347]

You are getting the short end of the stick there. The benefits of the Bears D doesnt outweigh the step down at QB, WR and RB

 

See a level headed person.

 

I had made the decision myself that I like Jay Cutler more than Phillip Rivers... and though I slightly downgrade at WR... I'm also downgrading at backup RB (Willie Parker/Willis McGahee starting) and backup QB (Eli vs Rivers... funny how it always comes down to that.)

 

So the way I look at it, I downgrade ever so slightly at WR from Javon Walker to Andre Johnson, but the Bears D/ST blows dallas away... and I get a tad weaker at BYE weeks (though week 5 bye for one of my RB tatum bell > lendale white)

 

However, this is why I was so perplexed as to why someone would b**** about the trade... but i guess that's how things are done in fantasy.

[RockRaines]

Not a bad explanation.

 

Of course you are now upgrading your competition at certain positions though

[Steve9347]

Not a bad explanation.

 

Of course you are now upgrading your competition at certain positions though

 

yeah, but id rather he run that woeful cowboys defense out there than me...

[AssHatSoxFan]

is it worth trading away the other 3 positions to make this deal work? I would try and eliminate the WR aspect of it but then again all trades depend really on league scoring and positional importance in the league

[Steve9347]

I wasn't asking if I should do the trade... I already accepted it and am quite happy with what I am getting. I was asking if the trade should be getting veto'd by douchebags in my league because my team (the one receiving the bears defense) was getting way too much.

 

Obviously not since two on this board think i'm getting the least value.

 

It's worth it to me to slightly downgrade at WR in order to get a competent (and top 3 imo) defense in the league. With the injuries they have sustained hte last few weeks, I feel I'd be hard-pressed to get more than 5 points a week out of Dallas (and that -1 week 1 didn't help)

[AssHatSoxFan]

It isn't worth a veto; a few years I used to veto somewhat uneven trades where one team was clearly getting the better end but I really see no point in vetoing trades now unless they seem collusive which this one is not; it especially makes it dumb when you give reasons to these other owners your own logic for the deal

[mreye]

FWIW, Kevin Jones is not officially on the PUP list.

[Steve9347]

FWIW, Kevin Jones is not officially on the PUP list.

 

Yeah, I noticed that... I thought I heard before the season started that he was going to be. however, Eli's not out for 4 weeks, so I'd say they cancel each other out, and I'd bet Bell continues to get carries in that offense... he's more Marshall Faulk than Kevn Jones is.

 

Did I just compare Tatum Bell to Marshall Faulk? haha

 

It's a 14-team league...

 

QB Cutler

WR Moss

WR A. Johnson

WR C. Chambers

RB Parker

RB McGahee

TE McMichael

K whoever has a good matchup and is available

DEF Bears

 

RESERVES

Tatum Bell

Eli Manning

Greg Olsen

Brandon Jones

Patrick Crayton

Washington D/ST

 

I just can't decide whether to play Crayton or Chambers (DAL/MIA play each other... and I think DAL D will give up a few airborne touchdowns... so I'll probably go with Chambers.)

Edited September 13, 2007 by Steve9347

[JuiceCruz16]

That is far from a veto type trade. Just because other owners don't like it does not give a reason to nix a trade. There is no shady reasons for this transavtion, so other owners should worry about running their own team.

[Steve9347]

That is far from a veto type trade. Just because other owners don't like it does not give a reason to nix a trade. There is no shady reasons for this transavtion, so other owners should worry about running their own team.

 

Agreed... it looks like only a couple of managers voted against, bc it went through this morning... I love the scope of my team now with "DA BEARS."

[Controlled Chaos]

Yeah people misuse the veto all the time. I had guys in my league veto a trade of mine a couple years ago, because I was playing one of them that upcoming week and was in 2nd place at the time. The trade was dead even. The two players had scored the exact amount of points to date. But those two guys got two of their other friends and they all veto the trade. I was like WTF...There is nothing unfair about that trade. and they said....yeah well you need a WR and I'm playing you...so I don't want you to get one and get better. I'm like that is not what the veto is for. And they said...well there is no rule against doing what we did.

 

I was like a fair trade getting veto'd just to stop a team from getting better? That has never ever happened. That's just bad sportsmanship. You don't try to win by hurting another team. I think it was Tonya Harding who tried that and look where she ended up. I can't beat this person, so let me break her leg. Charles Martin tried it with Jimmy Mac and now Martin's dead. No there isn't a specific rule against it. There shouldn't have to be. I just don't believe in hurting another team as a way to improve yours. If the players being traded are fair, then the trade is fair and that is the bottom line. The veto is only there so like one team that sucks and is in last palce...doens't trade his buddy his best players for a coupe of scrubs or something. I mean the veto should hardly have to be used because most teams are trading and receiving players they want.

 

Now I personally think you fleeced the guy on the trade. Eli has been a top 10 fantasy QB. For all the flack the guy gets, he puts up consistent fantasy numbers every year. Him and Rivers if anything are pretty equal. A-Johnson > J. Walker in my book, but they are also pretty equal...definitely not a step down. When Jones comes back, Bell will split carries as does LenDale White now, but Bell is in a prolific offense and has a better chance to score and if you get ppr he is even more valuable. And I don't even need to discuss Bears D over Dallas. So basically all things are pretty equal except Bears D and Dallas D.

 

That being said, there is no way a trade like this should be veto'd. Every trade has winners and losers. Thats what its about and the commish shouldn't be the guy to decide who that is. The only time a trade should be veto'd is if it's blatantly unfair and there is some scheming goin on.