Should this trade be vetoed?

[pokerplayer1000]

A trade happened last week in a league I commission....I did not make the trade but it is for league that Team 1 in my sig is in

I will remind everyone that this is a MUST START 2qb league, PPR, everything else is pretty standard.

Team 1 is currently 3-8(about to be 3-9), old and not competing and Team 2 is 7-4(about to be 8-4), loaded with talent and in the think of things.

The trade that took place in the league was Team 1 traded Julio and Tannehill to Team 2 for Jameis and Spencer Ware. On paper, and personally I do not like the trade nor do some other owners in the league but it was agreed upon, also Team 1 had QBs off Romo, Fitzpatrick and Tannehill and RBs of Rawls, Ingram, also a JC owner.

There is another underlying issue where others in the league have not been happy with some trades that Team 2 has made, as they view many trades Team 2 has made as ripping off Team X.

Veto or Not that is the question?

[bot]

Nope. Unless you have proof of clear collusion you can't penalize an owner for playing with a bunch of guys that don't value players correctly. #NeverVeto

[pokerplayer1000]

It definitely isn't collusion as said owner has traded with several teams, it isn't as if it is just one team he has traded with.

[bot]

It definitely isn't collusion as said owner has traded with several teams, it isn't as if it is just one team he has traded with.

Then def not. It sounds like some of the other owners just don't like the fact one guy seems to keep finding all this value in trades he makes - which does suck when you see an opponent make a trade that's good for them, especially when they already have a strong team. Try and educate the league to places like this where they can learn player values and ask for help before they make bad trades. Other than that, you gotta let owners run their teams the way they want to.

[pokerplayer1000]

It definitely isn't collusion as said owner has traded with several teams, it isn't as if it is just one team he has traded with.

Then def not. It sounds like some of the other owners just don't like the fact one guy seems to keep finding all this value in trades he makes - which does suck when you see an opponent make a trade that's good for them, especially when they already have a strong team. Try and educate the league to places like this where they can learn player values and ask for help before they make bad trades. Other than that, you gotta let owners run their teams the way they want to.

Agreed...I think because of this some owners have/will not trade with the owner and some have become aware. I have, as have others, directed owners to resources, but it becomes harder when not all owners are invested as others, and I believe this frustrates some

[Kleva1]

My league has some issues like this as well.

Mike Evans was traded for Abdullah 2017 2nd and 3rd and 2018 1st 2nd and 3rd .

Like your situation, I'm sure most owners would have taken the deal if they were in the lopsided sides favor. The problem is with the owners. Maybe your bad owners will quit after being bottom feeders bc they wont want to pay league fees anymore.

[flyersfan1981]

I don't like it, but this is not that bad and the people complaining I will bet are the guys that don't send offers and don't make deals.

The guy has an old team (as you said) and got younger and better at QB and at RB. I would never do it, but as commish you should be able to see who else made Julio offers if it is on MFL. If nobody else made the guy any offers then tell them all to sack up and grow a pair.

A guy in my league that I commish traded Jordy (preseason) for Spencer Ware/3rd and the league went bonkers. I told them all to chill out and by Week 6, Ware had more value.

That's dynasty...not saying in a year the value will be with the Jameis side, but this is not an egregious deal if Ware is the starting RB next year.

[captain howdy]

In that format, I think Jameis and Julio are similarly ranked. Others may disagree...but, they are close.

So when looking at Ware and Tannhill, Tannehill is clearly a lot more valuable. But if Team 1 really likes Ware and doesnt like Tanny, and I can see that side of the coin for each of those players..then he made the best move he could for his team.

I dont think it was good value, but certainly not vetoable

[alphaxray]

No way you veto this deal. Team 1's season is over, so he's clearly looking to the future. Winston will likely be hitting his prime (which will probably last a decade barring injury) right around the time Julio's play begins to decline. He is probably losing value wise on Tanny, but if he wants Winston to build around I don't have a big problem with the trade.

[Balzac]

It definitely isn't collusion as said owner has traded with several teams, it isn't as if it is just one team he has traded with.

You answered your own question then. If it isn't cheating then you dont veto. Plus, that trade isn't as bad as if it were a 1QB league. You could argue Julio=Winston, and Tanny is heading towards backup duty.

[joeday]

In that format, I think Jameis and Julio are similarly ranked. Others may disagree...but, they are close.

So when looking at Ware and Tannhill, Tannehill is clearly a lot more valuable. But if Team 1 really likes Ware and doesnt like Tanny, and I can see that side of the coin for each of those players..then he made the best move he could for his team.

I dont think it was good value, but certainly not vetoable

x2

[sharkattack]

I'd prefer the Julio side, but this deal is actually close. Winston in a 2QB league is almost = to Julio. Tannehill is just ok to me. I can understand the concerns about this owner, but this isn't too bad imo. Short term yeah it's not great, but 2-3 years from now Julio could be entering his decline and Winston will be 25, and could very well be a top 5 to 10 asset in your format for the foreseeable future.

[joeday]

just to expand on my "x2" from earlier, I am in a superflex league and if you aren't flexing a QB then you are not a contender so it is basically a 2QB league. I was in the wilderness for a lot of years in that league because my QBs stunk...I had awesome talent around them but terrible QBs. I know it sounds crazy but if I was rebuilding and out of the playoffs this year I think I would rather have Winston than Julio in a superflex and definitely in a must start 2QB league.

[SpartacusPTech]

No way you veto this deal. Team 1's season is over, so he's clearly looking to the future. Winston will likely be hitting his prime (which will probably last a decade barring injury) right around the time Julio's play begins to decline. He is probably losing value wise on Tanny, but if he wants Winston to build around I don't have a big problem with the trade.

My thoughts also. Since you clearly made sure to let us know that this was a 2 QB league. Winston's stock takes a huge jump in this format and makes him almost as valuable to Julio. Tanny won't be in the league much longer. Ware looks legit, but RBs these days are a dime a dozen and it's anyone's guess how long they will be around for. Having said that I don't think it's that bad of a trade value wise. Not veto worthy based on value(WHICH IS NEVER VETO WORTHY, but since that was your concern I commented on it, and since you already confirmed it's not collusion, just let it be.

[DinoDynasty]

This isn't even close to vetoable. While I prefer the Julio side, I see every reason why a team thats looking to rebuild would prefer Winston in this format. Tannehill's career might be shorter than Ware, this trade can go either way.

In the league I commish I had to digest the following trades without vetoing.

Watkins for Dion Lewis/Dwayne Washington - Week 4
Eifert for late 2017 2nd - Week 9
Alshon for Kelley/Meredith Week 11