pegos 73 Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) So I'm pretty sure there is no collusion involved, these guys are roommates but I think it's an issue of one guy lacking knowledge of the NFL/FF. This is a QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, Flex (TE/RB/WR), Flex (RB, WR), K, DEF League Non-ppr, bonus points for 40+ & 50+ yard plays More knowledgeable FF owner gets Mike Wallace, Less knowledgable FF owner gets Martellus Bennett. Should we veto to protect the integrity of the league? Seriously, I don't want to assume collusion, and I wont. I've talked to both owners and the guy getting Wallace knows he is getting better end of the deal, guy giving up Wallace thinks he needs a TE bad enough to give up his best WR (he has Austin and Jordy Nelson). It's to the point where guy giving up Wallace is pissed off that he is being lambasted so badly that now he's like 'screw it' I'm giving up Wallace for Bennett and won't listen to reason. Edited October 4, 2012 by pegos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
G.K.Trey 129 Posted October 4, 2012 mind your business, let owners manage their own teams, and you do the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lzrdkng14 2 Posted October 4, 2012 So, te is not mandatory? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegos 73 Posted October 4, 2012 My bad, dumb mistake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lzrdkng14 2 Posted October 4, 2012 Let it go then....can you check my post: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/topic/387905-rg3-for-mjd/page__gopid__3742182#entry3742182 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegos 73 Posted October 4, 2012 No about leaving out that 1 TE is mandatory. I'm still down on the trade, I feel like I would be in the right making a lopsided trade in retaliation. I wouldn't feel right accepting Wallace for bennet , I'd know it was unfair and wouldn't feel right about the increase in points per week. Taints the joy of winning in my opinion. Shouldn't that be the criteria for vetoing a trade? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seahawk 14 Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) First, I don't think you should veto, let people run their own teams. Second, more info is needed if you want people to respond for one what are his other tight ends. Furthermore based on stats alone theirs Bennett 36pts to Wallace 40pts espn standard scoring. It would be nice to know what they've done so far in your leagues scoring system as i've only really got espn standard scoring to go off of. the eagles vs nyg game was a sloppy game hard to fault bennett also Bear Pascoe (TE) had a TD in that game. to make matter worse philly is actually very good versus tight ends. I don't feel as if it's lopsided at all it might bolster one team and help another. sometimes you have to give a bit more to get what you want. Edited October 4, 2012 by Seahawk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegos 73 Posted October 4, 2012 They are both 1-3. Team getting Wallace owns bennett and Tony Gonzales. Team getting bennet own Aaron Hernandez and Brent celek Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weasel 0 Posted October 4, 2012 This is a very lopsided trade and I would veto this. This sounds like collusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seahawk 14 Posted October 4, 2012 Celek has had only had one big game and Hernandez is hurt, he actually does need a tight end. Plus Celek bye week is coming up in 2 weeks. whats the point differential between wallace and bennett in your second system ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrMoFo 16 Posted October 4, 2012 Is it not within the realm of possibility that Bennett could finish as a top-5 TE this season? Is it also not within the realm of possibility that Wallace could tail off in the second half like he did last season, becoming almost bench-worthy? Sure, Wallace for Bennett looks a little ridiculous on the surface. But many think that Bennett is for real, and if the coach really wants him... well, who's to stop him? Vetoing ths trade would be a big, big mistake. You said yourself there is no collusion. (Plus, who the heck colludes in Week 5?) The league has no right to tell the coaches involved that a good-but-not-superstar WR is not worth a potentially top-5 TE. Heck, some commentators were even saying during the preseason that they thought Wallace was the 2nd-best WR on his own team. If he ends up being the top-10 WR that most of us think he should be, then so be it. Let it be, and don't ruin your league by pulling for a veto that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be justified. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pgi83 1 Posted October 4, 2012 If there's no collusion, you don't veto it. Not everyone thinks the way you do. People make trades because in their mind it will make their team better. He wouldn't make the trade if his thought it would hurt his team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theprofessor 0 Posted October 4, 2012 You don't veto trades that have no "proven" collusion. Ever! Carry on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadwood 7 Posted October 4, 2012 Absolutely let the trade pass if no collusion is suspected. Allowing the possibility of every trade to be vetoable sets a really bad precedent in the league and creates a lot of unnecessary animosity. I was in a baseball league like this and left the following season because it was so annoying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
