Would you veto this trade? (1 Viewer)

[Judge Smails]

Original trade that went down in our league was originally AJ Brown and Rhamondre Stevenson for Mike Evans and Baker Mayfield. This is a 25 year, very competitive, big $ league and people went ballistic. It was then changed to AJ Brown and Taylor Heinecke for the same Mike Evans and Baker Mayfield. That was allowed, though several owners still up in arms. To me, while I still strongly prefer the AJ Brown side I don't see that as over the top egregious and worthy of veto consideration. No collusion. One owner traded CJ Stroud when Joe Burrow was healthy and then Burrow got hurt the next week. So he had no QB and nothing on the wire. The trade went through, and then Baker/Evans had 2 double dips this past weekend, with Evans outscoring Brown by himself. Would you or your league have vetoed this trade?

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Nope.

Is it a Superflex/2QB?

 

[JohnnyU]

Dumb trade, but no.

 

[jwsbowler]

Agree with JohnnyU... no veto

 

[Judge Smails]

Nope.

Is it a Superflex/2QB?

No

 

[RenegadeRoy]

Not a great trade IMO but no veto.

 

[Gally]

Also assume this is redraft which makes it even less of a vetoable offense.............not that it was in the first place.

 

[pinkstapler]

Original trade that went down in our league was originally AJ Brown and Rhamondre Stevenson for Mike Evans and Baker Mayfield. This is a 25 year, very competitive, big $ league and people went ballistic. It was then changed to AJ Brown and Taylor Heinecke for the same Mike Evans and Baker Mayfield. That was allowed, though several owners still up in arms. To me, while I still strongly prefer the AJ Brown side I don't see that as over the top egregious and worthy of veto consideration. No collusion. One owner traded CJ Stroud when Joe Burrow was healthy and then Burrow got hurt the next week. So he had no QB and nothing on the wire. The trade went through, and then Baker/Evans had 2 double dips this past weekend, with Evans outscoring Brown by himself. Would you or your league have vetoed this trade?

Appreciate the descriptive post detailing the whole scenario, but those two words were all I personally needed. For me, no collusion = no veto 99.9% of the time.

 

[-OZ-]

Heck no.
Basically WR 5 and a backup QB for WR 9 and (a startable) QB 16

The guy getting brown has to be thrilled but the guy getting baker and evans is probably better off too.

 

[-jb-]

Dumb trade, but no.

this

 

[robb]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

 

[The Dude]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

This is just the knee jerk response to swing the pendulum the other extreme. I am not sure of the mechanism but all leagues should be protected in some manner. An extremely bad trade can end leagues.

 

[brun]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

Funny. I voted yes for this very reason. Eventually, if enough people are pissed off, a rule change could happen.

 

[Judge Smails]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

Funny. I voted yes for this very reason. Eventually, if enough people are pissed off, a rule change could happen.

So the poll wasn't should any trade be vetoed. It was about this specific trade. So you vote yes?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Dumb trade, but no.

I need to know a few more things though.

SF? That matters a lot.

Dynasty? That matters a lot. I assume it’s redraft, but a$$ | u | me and all that…

Records of respective teams? That matters a lot.

Any familial relationships between these two teams? Brothers, sisters, spouses, lovers, or some gross, unnatural, unholy combination of those things?

If nothing shady & both teams are competitive and it’s redraft, it’s just a dumb/bad trade.

 

[Runkle]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

Technically, all trades are collusion and therefore illegal.

No leagues should allow any trades, period.

 

[Gally]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

Technically, all trades are collusion and therefore illegal.

No leagues should allow any trades, period.

Not exactly:

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others


Typical trades are not trying to cheat or deceive others.

(yes, I know it was sarcastic....but still)

 

[bryhamm]

Dumb trade, but no.

As quoted by someone more famous than me ... don't confuse stupidity for collusion

 

[Runkle]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

Technically, all trades are collusion and therefore illegal.

No leagues should allow any trades, period.

Not exactly:

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others


Typical trades are not trying to cheat or deceive others.

(yes, I know it was sarcastic....but still)

The problem with your definition is that it relies on the word "secret", which apparently means public collusion is allowed... that is, if you post on the league message board "I'm loaning a player to Team B, he's going to trade him back to me after he beats my main rival", makes it kosher. Otherwise, you're hanging everything on the word "illegal" in your definition, which then forms a circular argument. It's illegal collusion because it's illegal. That doesn't help.

Plus, the use of "especially" pre-supposes there are types of collusion that don't fall within the definition, so the definition is useless. It has enough gray area to drive a truck through. But that's OK: it's impossible to define collusion in a way that still leaves trading legal.

 

[Gally]

The problem with your definition

It was the definition from the google. Not my definition. But I think most believe the element of secrecy is involved in collusion.

 

[eighsse2]

NO- No league should have rules where owners or Commish can veto ANY trade!! This is "old school" and not a league I would have any part of.

Technically, all trades are collusion and therefore illegal.

No leagues should allow any trades, period.

Not exactly:

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others


Typical trades are not trying to cheat or deceive others.

(yes, I know it was sarcastic....but still)

The problem with your definition is that it relies on the word "secret", which apparently means public collusion is allowed... that is, if you post on the league message board "I'm loaning a player to Team B, he's going to trade him back to me after he beats my main rival", makes it kosher. Otherwise, you're hanging everything on the word "illegal" in your definition, which then forms a circular argument. It's illegal collusion because it's illegal. That doesn't help.

Plus, the use of "especially" pre-supposes there are types of collusion that don't fall within the definition, so the definition is useless. It has enough gray area to drive a truck through. But that's OK: it's impossible to define collusion in a way that still leaves trading legal.

 

[BassNBrew]

I ran into this 20+ years ago. Owner A basically sent (2023 example, week 1 timeframe) Barkley and Garrett Wilson for Owner B Nuca and Mosert. The league went ballistic and overturned the trade with owners threatening to quit. Trade was reversed to salvage the league. I tracked it for the rest of the year and Owner A would have won the league if the trade had stood. Obviously Owner A quit.

 

[Chemical X]

can you post all the roosters here so i can review?

 

[da_budman]

Send your league mates who are complaining here to see the vote total.....currently 70-1 lol

 

[Judge Smails]

Dumb trade, but no.

I need to know a few more things though.

SF? That matters a lot.

Dynasty? That matters a lot. I assume it’s redraft, but a$$ | u | me and all that…

Records of respective teams? That matters a lot.

Any familial relationships between these two teams? Brothers, sisters, spouses, lovers, or some gross, unnatural, unholy combination of those things?

If nothing shady & both teams are competitive and it’s redraft, it’s just a dumb/bad trade.

Redraft. Both owners mathematically alive for playoff spots. We’ve all known each other for 25-30 years. Just friends.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Wouldve definitely raised an eyebrow at the original trade

 

[Gruden's Keyboard]

I really don't like that trade, and I would have clicked veto without feeling guilty.

I rather play in redraft leagues with deep benches and no trades.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go put up my Stay Off My Lawn sign.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Just friends.

With benefits?

 

[Stat Correction]

can you post all the roosters here so i can review?

 

[Chemical X]

can you post all the roosters here so i can review?

that’s only 1 rooster.

 

[Ray_T]

Original trade that went down in our league was originally AJ Brown and Rhamondre Stevenson for Mike Evans and Baker Mayfield. This is a 25 year, very competitive, big $ league and people went ballistic. It was then changed to AJ Brown and Taylor Heinecke for the same Mike Evans and Baker Mayfield. That was allowed, though several owners still up in arms. To me, while I still strongly prefer the AJ Brown side I don't see that as over the top egregious and worthy of veto consideration. No collusion. One owner traded CJ Stroud when Joe Burrow was healthy and then Burrow got hurt the next week. So he had no QB and nothing on the wire. The trade went through, and then Baker/Evans had 2 double dips this past weekend, with Evans outscoring Brown by himself. Would you or your league have vetoed this trade?

I also would not veto the deal.
regardless of keeper or not, Evans stats are pretty comparable to AJ browns in terms of fantasy production this year. I think Brown is ranked slightly higher but overall it is pretty close.
Rhamondre is not having a good year so far. and if he is in need at QB trading a piece that isnt producing for a player that helps him today it at least makes sense from a fantasy perspective.

obviously if this is a keeper/dynasty league he is giving up a fair amount of future value for present value but that is not your problem.

I have seen a lot worse. but this is not a veto for me unless you have proof of some sort of collusion.

 

[Dickies]

I don't think it's that bad of a trade. If he is in desperate need of a QB and there is nothing available I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Most of us would rather be on the AJB side of the deal, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that Evans finishes the season outscoring Brown.

 

[Ray_T]

I don't think it's that bad of a trade. If he is in desperate need of a QB and there is nothing available I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Most of us would rather be on the AJB side of the deal, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that Evans finishes the season outscoring Brown.

well thats the thing isnt it?
in my 2 QB league I was 10-1 and in first place in the league. then Cousins went down and my backup (tannehill) lost his job. suddenly I only had 1 QB.
Being the first place team, nobody was willing to trade me a QB. Eventually at the trade deadline I aquired Carr in a pretty sizeable overpay. but in a 2 QB format, I could not afford to have one of the QB slots drawing a zero every week so I swallowed hard and did what I had to in order to get a QB

 

[JohnnyU]

Hard to believe this thread is still active.

 

[beef]

Absolutely! I always vote to veto trades unless it benefits me.