Trade questions.

[B.P.E]

This trade got vetoed last week.

 

T.Holt

P.Rivers

Reggie Brown

 

for

 

Rudi Johnson

S.McNair

C.Chambers

 

1pt/10yds rush/rec

6pt td's rush/rec

1pt/25yds pass

3pt td's pass

 

Remember this got vetoed last week before the big games by holt rivers and brown. The owner who was to get these players ended up losing.

 

Was this a fair deal or was the commish right in vetoing this deal.

[Fatman]

That was a terrible choice by the commish and I would be pissed. He's way over stepping his bounds.

[wildkat80]

Definitely not a veto-able trade. Presumably team A needs an upgrade at RB and so he's sending his stud WR for a stud RB. Chambers-Brown and Mcnair-Rivers swaps are also just fine. Nothing wrong.

[Savage Beatings]

I'm assuming the Commish was not accusing these guys of tryign to cheat somehow, but he decided to veto the trade because he thought the trade was unbalanced... is that correct? If he thought they were cheating, the correct move would have been to kick them out of the league.

 

So, ruling out cheating as a possibility, there is 100% absolutely no possible reason to justify vetoing that trade. Your Commish totally F'd that one up! If I were either one of those owners I would walk away and never look back. You've got yourself a BAD Commissioner.

[NavinRJohnson]

That's obviously a fair trade. Your Commish is up to something fishy.

[fantasyjoker]

I agree. There is no reason that trade should have been vetoed.

 

I would be pissed!

[rew70]

I know as a commish myself, that no trade gets vetoed unless cheating can be proven. Owners are free to make up their own mind about who to trade, drop, pickup, etc. It's their team and their business. A commish should simply run the operations of the league, be an arbiter of disagreements and break ties on votes held by the league, etc.

 

A league that gives one person the authority to override an owner's decisions is nuts. If no one is cheating, then ALL trades should stand whether they are blantantly stupid or not. Live and learn. I would cut bait with such a league. That's just ridiculous!

 

It's one thing if each trade must be voted on by the whole league, and maybe if a two thirds vote doesn't pass it, then it fails, but for one person to have that much authority is a mistake. Not that I agree with a vote needing to take place for a trade to happen, but at least there's a consensus among fellow competitors.

 

Just my .02.....

[lock_it_up]

I know as a commish myself, that no trade gets vetoed unless cheating can be proven. Owners are free to make up their own mind about who to trade, drop, pickup, etc. It's their team and their business. A commish should simply run the operations of the league, be an arbiter of disagreements and break ties on votes held by the league, etc.

 

A league that gives one person the authority to override an owner's decisions is nuts. If no one is cheating, then ALL trades should stand whether they are blantantly stupid or not. Live and learn. I would cut bait with such a league. That's just ridiculous!

 

It's one thing if each trade must be voted on by the whole league, and maybe if a two thirds vote doesn't pass it, then it fails, but for one person to have that much authority is a mistake. Not that I agree with a vote needing to take place for a trade to happen, but at least there's a consensus among fellow competitors.

 

Just my .02.....

 

 

 

Stated perfectly. If that happened to me, I'd be pissed. I would drop all my players and walk away leaving the league in disarray!