Would you veto this trade:

[Red Storm]

I am in a 12 team non-keeper league, and the following trade was vetoed late last night:

 

AhmanGreen

 

for

 

Jamal Lewis

 

The commish vetoed this trade due to the fact Ahman was ruled out on MOnday and the team with Jamal is in last place. Do you see any problems with this trade, and/or do you think the commish should not have stepped in?

 

Thanks!

[Mus]

I think the Commish did the right thing and I think you're looking pretty thin at WR. Try to trade one of those average RBs.

[nhoops]

I think the Commish did the right thing and I think you're looking pretty thin at WR.  Try to trade one of those average RBs.

 

1098280[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree, but from the looks of it he wasn't one of the parties trading.

 

Green is out for the year and Lewis is a starting RB, granted he's not doing that well but right now Green isn't even worth Alex Smith...he has no value so yes your commish did the right thing. I think the team trading away Green was pulling a fast one.

[Gdawg]

I dunno, they both usually put up zeros...

 

Seriously as bad as Jamal has been this year Ahman is out for the year. Clearly not a fair trade.

[goose228]

I think he did the right thing. On the other hand I think you should follow the advice of Mus and try trading some of your other RB's. Maybe offer Larry Johnson or Moore for a WR.

Edited October 26, 2005 by goose228

[Crispy]

A nonkeeper league is what is important here. Green is out for the year so the party getting Lewis is being literally given a starting RB for nothing. This is one case that I would veto a "trade" if it were in my league.

[BearcatTom]

If you're in a non-keeper league, then yes, it seems ok that your commish vetoed the trade. Just because the team is in last place isn't the issue, it's that they are giving away a healthy RB for one that is out for the year.

 

Check with your Commish, maybe they talked with the other owners before vetoing it. At least they should have.