Crazy Gordon trade

[snitchinsider]

PPR bonus doesn't benefit Thomas as much as it does other elite TEs. Rodgers is valuable but it's really a waste if the league is a 1 QB league and he has another good QB. It's also possible he sees Thomas' value as being almost exclusively tied to Peyton, which could be a sinking ship in the near future.

Crazy or not, you don't veto trades unless you suspect collusion. If you think a trade is "so bad" that it needs to be veto'd, then you are saying an owner is too incompetent to make a trade. At that point, you should look to have the owner removed entirely. If you don't feel strong enough to have the owner removed, then you let the trade happen.

You have to let other owners make their own evaluations. There are plenty of times in fantasy where someone knows, and is willing to overpay excess assets to acquire players they want for one reason or another.

[Creed's Assassin]

Veto for collusion, not imbalance trade. Gordon could be the WR1 for 5+ years, Peyton could retire at the end of the year and JT dwindles with a new QB, and Rodgers is great but a QB. You never know. I'd sell Gordon for that for sure, but not vetoable.

[snitchinsider]

Veto for collusion, not imbalance trade. Gordon could be the WR1 for 5+ years, Peyton could retire at the end of the year and JT dwindles with a new QB, and Rodgers is great but a QB. You never know. I'd sell Gordon for that for sure, but not vetoable.

Collusion means working together to achieve a common goal for one party. Collusion does not mean talking to one trade owner about trade opportunities more than other owners.

[Phaded]

Veto for collusion, not imbalance trade. Gordon could be the WR1 for 5+ years, Peyton could retire at the end of the year and JT dwindles with a new QB, and Rodgers is great but a QB. You never know. I'd sell Gordon for that for sure, but not vetoable.

Collusion means working together to achieve a common goal for one party. Collusion does not mean talking to one trade owner about trade opportunities more than other owners.

...he was saying that a trade should be veto'd for collusion not because of imbalance. Not calling that specific treed collusion. I don't see why you have to come in and define collusion.

[FiremanEd]

I'm not about veto, so I won't say that, but this trade is pretty bad. Gordon has spent more time off the field and proving he doesn't get it than he's shown the contrary. Thomas in a 1.5 PPR? Rodgers is top notch regardless of 1QB. Why even have the 2nd? That could not have been forced in to make it work.

Makes no sense to me. People say no collusion, but how do you not start to question if there may be? How does the risk add up?

[WashingtonFever]

Vetoing the trade is way crazier than the trade. You clearly know it wasn't collusion, he made an overpay.

x2

Agree. Next time pull the trigger on the traded offered to you instead of sitting on the sidelines.

[ericanadian]

Which trade is more imbalanced? Lynch, Thomas and a 3rd for DeMarco (he's still injury prone) or Rodgers, Thomas and a 2nd for Gordon? I think it's pretty weak to be openly admitting to wanting to accept the first trade while going so far as to veto the second.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking the first deal while negotiating another. There's no line up where it's first come, first served. If I offer out DeMarco and receive several offers, I take the best one. Why would I feel bad if I sent the offers out instead of received them?