Is there following trade veto worthy

[basilthesnake]

As a commissioner of a 16 team league a recent trade went down this morning

Team A offers 2017 1st for Terrence Williams
Team B accepts

One owner is calling for a veto. Is he justified in doing so? I know my feelings on the matter but am in search of support material from strangers in the dynasty community.

[cp3]

No

[Goirish374]

maybe team A believes TW is poised to break out opposite Dez's return to dallas
maybe he has no faith in the Dallas ground attack of 2015 and forecasts heavy action for multiple targets in Dallas
maybe he expects to do well that year and predicts his 2017 1st to be quite late
maybe he doesn't like the projected 2017 crop of 1st round rookies
maybe he has a deal going with someone else contingent on TW as a piece
maybe he buys into this idea that next year's draft pick = one round less valuable this year, so 2 rounds less valuable for 2017
maybe he doesn't have confidence that Dez can stay on the field or out of trouble

a thousand, thousand maybes. and, certainly, reasonable minds can dismiss or discuss the validity of any of them.

but none of those minds are involved in the trade. and none of them know the mind of Team A.

neither not knowing the mind of Team A nor not agreeing with Team A's reasoning are viable motivations for vetoing a trade.

[princey98]

Not even a bad trade, and certainly not collusion, which is the only grounds for vetoing IMO

[TommyL31]

First of all not veto worthy at all.

Second, I feel like most people who think vetoes should even exist have a very itchy trigger finger and think anything that doesn't match with their personal evaluation is veto worthy.

[zounder]

Not even a bad trade

It's a terrible trade but not veto-worthy. Only time a veto should ever occur is in the case of collusion.

[REPTAR]

Quit being silly.

[Cameron Giles]

A 2017 first isn't worth much currently, so if the owner thinks Terrence Williams will breakout, he paid a small short term price for it that could equal the long term gain when his 2017 first is relevant.

I don't think it's a good deal, but the logic is at least transparent.

[Never Veto1]

We need to get a big sign at the top of the forum that says no trade is veto worthy unless it is collusion.

[doktor]

We need to get a big sign at the top of the forum that says no trade is veto worthy unless it is collusion.

Might not be big enough, but it's the best I could do on short notice.

[RavingLunatic]

Not veto worthy - overpay maybe but that's just my opinion
I'm also of the opinion that upwards of 90% of veto-happy people are just upset they didn't make the deal with the so-called "sucker" instead.
bunch of hatin azz stat junkies

[slaughterrt]

Which side is the winning side?

[zounder]

We need to get a big sign at the top of the forum that says no trade is veto worthy unless it is collusion.

Agreed. Every time someone posts "Should this trade be vetoed?" The answer is almost always a unanimous "no."

[cc texan]

My guess its lingering butthurt from an owner who thought he made a better offer and got turned down.

"Dude, I totally offered Dwayne Bowe for his 2017 1st, and he turned it down for Williams... it must be collusion! Someone call the commish!"

[Never Veto1]

Which side is the winning side?

lol, right. I'd probably rather have the 1st