TRADE FEEDBACK - VETO WORTHY?? (1 Viewer)

[Brutal1]

Team "A" Trades QB Arron Rodgers (Also has Goff and J. Allen)

Team "B" Trades TE Mark Andrews (Also has Kelce & starting QB is Newton).

Not providing any other commentary in order to avoid swaying opinion in any way.  QUESTION:  WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A VETO WORTHY TRADE??

 

[pfunkfunk]

Definitely not veto worthy. 

 

[beerbuff]

What a dumb question. I have a feeling this is a new avatar/alias for that clown LoneStar who FBG booted off. I read on another forum that he had created multiple alias's. 

 

[Brutal1]

What a dumb question. I have a feeling this is a new avatar/alias for that clown LoneStar who FBG booted off. I read on another forum that he had created multiple alias's. 

For what reason would you show up to a thread just to be a jerk?  I am not anyone's alias and I have zero clue what you are talking about.  Maybe save your drama for your mama.  Lol.  Bottom line, this trade was vetoed in my league.  I thought there was no way it should have been vetoed.  But wondered if its just how I see it.  Was hoping to get different perspectives. 

 

[notoriousbill]

no

 

[jmble]

Not voidable.  Rodgers isn't what he was.  Still good no question, but not the same league dominating QB he was just a couple years ago.  Andrews is probably a top 5 TE the rest of the season.  Just because some people wouldn't make that trade doesn't make it voidable.  

 

[Gally]

I didn't even have to read the post to say that it is not veto worthy.  The only reason to veto is if there is collusion.  There is no collusion.  Do not veto. 

 

[Gally]

What a dumb question. I have a feeling this is a new avatar/alias for that clown LoneStar who FBG booted off. I read on another forum that he had created multiple alias's. 

Nah...….it would have had to be longer and happen many years ago to be lonestar worthy.....hahaha

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Not veto worthy.

Both teams are trading from position depth for need at a different position.  Both are getting decent value at the position they are trading for.  Both can absorb the loss at the position they are trading from.  No idea why this would be considered veto worthy, but I vote NO to veto.