So in our league we have a blockbuster trade - on the surface it looks "fair" and no reason to veto - Peterson/T.Smith(WR/Bal) for Charles Johnson/Deion Branch and J.Stewart. Obviously the trade is about Megatron for AP. BUT the team trading away AP is 3-5 - His next best RB is now Stewart (or hillis) AND both Stewart and Johnson are on a bye along with AP - So he's not making his team any better AND all this trade accomplishes is to stack the teams roster who is getting AP - He also has Wallace/Nicks/Fitz @ WR and @ 6-2 is prime to run the table now
As Commish would you VETO this trade based upon a losing team giving a winning team a major advantage and balanced roster (and losing team has not improved their team) OR leave it as is purely because the talent in the trade itself is legit.
Roster of player (3-5) giving up AP post trade = QBs/Schaub/McCoy RB's/Jacobs/Addai/Hillis/Stewart/
I'd leave it. Neither team is getting screwed. I'd only get involved if one team was taking complete advantage of the other, not because I just don't like how one team decides to balance itself out.
I left - and now in another trade a losing team is trading away McCoy/Bowe/T.jones(obvious throw in) for Welker/Starks and Moreno. Needless to say the guy getting McCoy and Bowe is in the playoffs and the guy @ 3-5 somehow believes starks and moreno wil lead him to the promise land. Yes welker is a stud but he's not McCoy.
That one's pretty bad, but I wouldn't get involved in that one either. Bowe/Welker are somewhat comprable with a tilt to Welker, if he thinks having Starks and Moreno is better than having McCoy, he's possibly a little desperate for a change, but I'd let him have it.
G-R-I-MThu 11/3/11 1:07 AM
So in our league we have a blockbuster trade - on the surface it looks "fair" and no reason to veto - Peterson/T.Smith(WR/Bal) for Charles Johnson/Deion Branch and J.Stewart. Obviously the trade is about Megatron for AP. BUT the team trading away AP is 3-5 - His next best RB is now Stewart (or hillis) AND both Stewart and Johnson are on a bye along with AP - So he's not making his team any better AND all this trade accomplishes is to stack the teams roster who is getting AP - He also has Wallace/Nicks/Fitz @ WR and @ 6-2 is prime to run the table now
As Commish would you VETO this trade based upon a losing team giving a winning team a major advantage and balanced roster (and losing team has not improved their team) OR leave it as is purely because the talent in the trade itself is legit.
Roster of player (3-5) giving up AP post trade = QBs/Schaub/McCoy RB's/Jacobs/Addai/Hillis/Stewart/
WR's/Dez/C.Johnson/Branch/J.Jones/M.Williams(TB) TE's/Hernandez/Shockey
Roster of player Getting AP post trade (6-2)= QBs/Fitzpat/Haslback/Ponder
RBs/AP/Sproles/Bush/Tate/
WR's/Fitzgerald/Nicks/Wallace/
TE/Chandler
BourbonCowboyThu 11/3/11 3:59 PM
I'd leave it. Neither team is getting screwed. I'd only get involved if one team was taking complete advantage of the other, not because I just don't like how one team decides to balance itself out.
G-R-I-MThu 11/3/11 4:15 PM
I left - and now in another trade a losing team is trading away McCoy/Bowe/T.jones(obvious throw in) for Welker/Starks and Moreno. Needless to say the guy getting McCoy and Bowe is in the playoffs and the guy @ 3-5 somehow believes starks and moreno wil lead him to the promise land. Yes welker is a stud but he's not McCoy.
BourbonCowboyThu 11/3/11 4:31 PM
That one's pretty bad, but I wouldn't get involved in that one either. Bowe/Welker are somewhat comprable with a tilt to Welker, if he thinks having Starks and Moreno is better than having McCoy, he's possibly a little desperate for a change, but I'd let him have it.