As league commish, should I veto this trade?

• SportsAndLady

  

  So a 1-7 team and a 4-4 team just did this trade.
  
  1-7 trades Larry Fitzgerald (#23 ranked WR)
  4-4 trades Donald Brown (#67 ranked RB)
  
  These guys are best friends and roommates, and yes they would be the type to secretly go "halfsies" on the pot if the 4-4 team were to win any money.
  
  Is this trade fair in any way shape or form?
• Iliketurtles

  

  Looking at the names you could say yes it's an obvious veto. But Fitz has been terrible all year and Brown might start getting invovled more if Addai doesn't get healthy.. although Hart looked impressive last night. Depending on each teams needs it might be fair but I'd still say you'd have to veto it.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Fitz hasn't really been terrible though. He is the 25th ranked WR, he's got 4 TDs on the year, he's been above 8 fantasy points five of his seven games. He is a pretty good flex start and a decent 2nd WR start.
  
  Brown has only scored (fantasy wise) in 4 games this year, and his points were .7, 1.2, 2.9, and 14.8.
• Gblock

  fitzgerald although he did well this week has sucked.....brown has missed 4 games he easily could be a productive player going forward....i would veto it if you had 3 owners who also want to veto it
• Manhattan Buckeye

  1) If you have a veto policy, you need better owners.
  
  2) Even if you have a veto policy, it isn't right for one person alone to make the decision, it should be a league vote.
  
  3) If these guys are the type to go halfsies, don't invite them back next year.
  
  4) Re the trade itself, Fitz is #31 in our league PLUS he hasn't had his bye week yet. Bye week issues should be reviewed when judging trades.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Just to clarify, it is a league vote. And i've gotten about 3 texts in the last hour from people upset about this trade. So it should go through with a league veto.
  
  I don't really know why I was thinking I am able to veto it as league commish, that would be borderline dictatorship haha
• Laley23

  

  Yes. Addai is out for the foreseeable future, but if Mike Hart doesnt get hurt, at most Brown will split the carries.
  
  Fitz has been poor, but if Anderson is the QB (as bad as he is) Fitz will put up numbers. Anderson has an arm to go down field and Fitz will make the plays.
• bo shemmy3337

  Normally I would veto but with the current situation I would leave it be. You do however need to let us see both teams rosters. If the 4-4 team is in desperate need of a WR and the rest of his team is solid than this is not really that fair as the 1-7 team is out of the mix at this point.
• j_crazy

  

  does brown make the 1-7 team better?
• Laley23

  

  j_crazy;543454 wrote:does brown make the 1-7 team better?

  
  There is no way a 3rd string RB makes a team better. Both he and Hart were healthy, and Hart got the start and performed well. He was also better the game both Addai and Brown were hurt and he came in.
  
  Addai will be back eventually, and I would guess....for the foreseeable future, Hart is the #2 (but if Brown gets more healthy, the Colts could put him back as starter till Addai is back)
• SportsAndLady

  

  I mean even if it does make the 1-7 team better, he is virtually eliminated from the playoffs. It wouldn't matter...I saw these two guys out last night, I said "so is he giving you half? 30%?" and they just kept smiling and were like "i dont know what you're talking about"
  
  Rats lol
• SportsAndLady

  

  And yes, the trade went through. Only received 5 vetoes, needed 6.
• like_that

  

  Should have been vetoed. That was a bs trade.
• jmog

  I agree with the above statement, if you have owners like this, they don't get invited back.
  
  I play in a pretty serious money league that has keepers and all. This kind of crap wouldn't fly. Shoot, we dno't invite owners back if they forget to set a valid lineup or if they don't show up to the live draft of end of year banquet.
  
  Something far worse like collusion would be an immediate boot.
• like_that

  

  jmog;555187 wrote:I agree with the above statement, if you have owners like this, they don't get invited back.
  
  I play in a pretty serious money league that has keepers and all. This kind of crap wouldn't fly. Shoot, we dno't invite owners back if they forget to set a valid lineup or if they don't show up to the live draft of end of year banquet.
  
  Something far worse like collusion would be an immediate boot.

  
  You guys have an end of year banquet lol?
• hoops23

  

  I run a league with 11 of my closest friends. It's annually a pretty decent sized winner take all pot and this league has been a 12 team league for several years.
  
  Well anyway, last season, one of our friends asked if his four buddies could join to try out a 16 team league. Now, we're all cool with these other guys as they've hung out before, so we had no problem with it.
  
  Now, in a 16 team league, overall talent is pretty sparse, so every good player turns into a very valuable piece.
  
  As time goes on, 2 of the 4 dudes completely fall out of the race for the playoffs. Then the fishy shit starts kicking in... You see both of the winners trying to make trades with the losers. I'm talking trades that made me want to slap the hell out of all involved.
  
  So, we have a league vote for EVERY trade, if it's vetoed, that's final.. Naturally, the trades were shot down. That's when the fun started. All 4 of them start posting messages about how the league was against them..blah, blah, blah...
  
  The worst team even dropped his entire team. It was a total mess. One thing lead to another and there is a full fledged war going on between a few of the long standing league members and these 4 dudes who joined up. So, enough was enough and I eventually just kicked them 4 all out at around week 10.
  
  Never again. 12 teams is enough anyway, and much more calmer when you know you can trust everybody to play it the right way.
• Iliketurtles

  

  hoops23;560352 wrote:I run a league with 11 of my closest friends. It's annually a pretty decent sized winner take all pot and this league has been a 12 team league for several years.
  
  Well anyway, last season, one of our friends asked if his four buddies could join to try out a 16 team league. Now, we're all cool with these other guys as they've hung out before, so we had no problem with it.
  
  Now, in a 16 team league, overall talent is pretty sparse, so every good player turns into a very valuable piece.
  
  As time goes on, 2 of the 4 dudes completely fall out of the race for the playoffs. Then the fishy shit starts kicking in... You see both of the winners trying to make trades with the losers. I'm talking trades that made me want to slap the hell out of all involved.
  
  So, we have a league vote for EVERY trade, if it's vetoed, that's final.. Naturally, the trades were shot down. That's when the fun started. All 4 of them start posting messages about how the league was against them..blah, blah, blah...
  
  The worst team even dropped his entire team. It was a total mess. One thing lead to another and there is a full fledged war going on between a few of the long standing league members and these 4 dudes who joined up. So, enough was enough and I eventually just kicked them 4 all out at around week 10.
  
  Never again. 12 teams is enough anyway, and much more calmer when you know you can trust everybody to play it the right way.

  With a winner take all pot like that I'd probably never do a 16 team league anyway. 8-12 is the best IMO. And I'd only do 6 or 14/16 team leagues if it was for fun or if the buyin wasn't too much and atleast top 3 paidout. The most fun I ever had tho was in a 24 team league(not for money of course haha).