Ryan Grant and Michael Bush (out 2-4 weeks) for Johnny Knox, Dustin Keller, and Darren Sproles. This is a keeper league and his argument is that Johnny Knox is going to have a breakout year as is Dustin Keller - both have keeper potential. I think, that the trade is one-sided and that he is basically giving up a top 20 player and a potential feature back for 3 unproven fantasy players. I am just trying to keep the league as competitive and fair as possible but if the guy really believes that both knox and keller will have amazing fantasy year, should I just let them go with the trade?
you gotta let that go through. if he wants to take a risk on some guys having big years let him. what would you tell the guy at the end of the year if he was right and the trade actually would have favored him? the only trades i would want to see vetoed in any league i am in are trades that involve the elite guys. when someone trades a top 5-10 pick they are usually making a dumb move so i like to see those looked at.
This is how the teams look like: TEAM A (Getting Grant, Bush) QB: Drew Brees RB: Joseph Addai RB: Arian Foster Flex: Donald Driver WR: Andre Johnson WR: Wes Welker TE: Visanthe Shaincoe D: 49ners K: Lawrence Tynes BN: Santana Moss BN: Darren Sproles BN: Johnny Knox BN: Carson Palmer BN: Dustin Keller BN: Chris Chambers TEAM B (Getting Keller, Sproles, Knox) QB: Tom Brady RB: Ryan Grant RB: Jamaal Charles Flex: Felix Jones WR: Brandon Marshall WR: Larry Fitzgerald TE: Kevin Boss Dackers K: Crosby BN: Terrell Owens BN: Michael Bush BN: Thomas Jones BN: Correll Buckhalter BN: Nate Burselson BN: Vincent Jackson
Unless there's clear evidence of collusion, let all trades pass. That goes double for keeper leagues. Everyone has their own method of evaluating talent. You can't manage someone else's team or prevent them from making (in your opinion) a lop-sided trade. In the beginning of 2006, would you have vetoed a trade of Reggie Bush (stud rookie w/once-in-a-generation talent) for Maurice Jones-drew (2nd round pick playing behind Fred Taylor), in order to "save" the Bush owner?
depending upon the league settings, I might actually prefer having the Knox-Keller-Sproles side of that deal
Its a PPR League 1pt per reception. 1pt = 10 Rush Yards, 20 Rec Yards, 25 Pass Yards I normally would not think about it unless is really obvious but, the Guy giving up Grant is fairly new to Fantasy Football. He took over that team from another owner this year. Also, the trade does not make any sense for his team. He has a pretty solid group of WRs and decent at RB. This trade leaves him thin at RB. I haven't Vetoed the trade, I have till Tues morning to do it. I'm just wondering what you guys would do. Thanks!
If both guys want to do it, and it's not completely absurd, pass it. This deal is stupid for the side dealing Grant and Bush, but don't veto it.
Whether you think the trade makes sense for the new guy's team is irrelevant, since it's not your team. I understand you want to maintain the competitive balance and integrity of the league, but it's not like someone's trading Drew Brees for a kicker or something league-ruining like that. Again, a commissioner's job is not to manage everyone's teams for them. Because you don't agree with every nuance and angle of a trade is not grounds for a veto. I'd be pissed if I was in a league where the commish vetoed that deal. Just my 2 cents.
I'm stuck in a league where most trades get vetoed because in the interest of fairness the league tries to prevent any team from becoming too good, rather than worrying about whether any team is becoming too bad. It sucks.
