Jump to content

Do you see something wrong with this trade?


jailbirds
 Share

Recommended Posts

An owner in our league  has Wentz and Brady as QBs. We can only play one QB. He has decided on Brady the rest of the way. Wentz will be on his bench. He needs a RB and a WR. My QBs are M Ryan and Dalton. He proposes that I send him Dalton, RB Tarik Cohen and WR Tyrell Williams for Wentz, He is Happy. I am Happy. The Commish vetoes it and says that owner could have gotten those players off the waiver wire.( there isn't jack left on the waiver wire)  Also the Commish wanted to trade for Wentz, but the guy did not go for his offer. so I think the commish has a conflict of interest. By the way, we initiated the trade early on Thursday. The commish didn't act until late Friday night. The commish also says he does not have the time to discuss it with us on Friday night. His decision is final.  We both missed the opportunity to make changes via free agency. Now that owner is angry because the trade would have allowed him to field a complete team. Now he doesn't have a complete starting team. His team and mine are both trying to fight our way into the playoffs. This veto could dash both of our hopes. My argument is that value is perceived. Wentz is no good to him sitting on the bench, But if he can fill his team at positions of need, then so be it. We wee both happy. he did not fell that I was weakening his team and I did not feel that he was weakening mine. Not many players would add up to Wentz point for point and that is not the point. Value is subjective and is determined by each owner. Based on all of this, was the commish right to veto the trade? As of now there is no trade and we both feel stuck. I am ready to walk from this league.

Edited by jailbirds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That honestly sounds like complete BS to me. While I think Wentz is worth more than what you were giving, he's worth nothing on the bench and the owner made the call that HE thought was best for his team. Both teams are vying for playoff spots so there's not even a hint of collusion (as I would maybe...MAYBE suspect if the Wentz owner was a bottom feeder). IMO the commish has no right whatsoever to veto that trade, it seems that he vetoed it for his own personal gain and I would reach out to other league mates to stir the pot on this. Total abuse of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone else. I think it's a lopsided trade but unless collusion is likely, no trades should be vetoed Imo. 

Nobody can predict future stats so everyone will have different opinions. Unless you have gray's sports almanac in which case you'll dominate fantasy football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to be an ass, but without anymore info, this trade does seem pretty sketchy. There can be just as much collusion trying to prop up a team for a championship run, as there might be in propping up a team to hinder another team's ability to make the playoffs. 

 

I'm not sure if your league votes on trades or not, or if it is just the commissioner's decision, BUT in all of my leagues, this trade would have been rejected. Maybe if it wasn't so blatantly obvious, it might get through, but hooking a buddy up can be collusion too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always gone by the rule that all trades go through regardless of what people think. Earlier in the season commissioner wanted to reject a trade someone offered me, Dez Bryant and Hunter Henry for Larry Fitzgerald. I was the one who had Fitz. I readily accepted the trade.

 

I had to argue my case to the commissioner and pretty much threaten to quit because I didn't want to be in a league where trades were going to constantly be brought into question and potentially vetoed. He let the trade go through people freaked out and that was that. In hind sight the trade wasn't too bad for the team receiving Larry Fitz. And that's the point. Cohen could take over this backfield tomorrow and all of the sudden this trade doesn't look bad anymore. If the owner has a player of value that literally provides him nothing it should be up to him what he wants to sell him for.

Edited by Inziladun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jailbirds said:

An owner in our league  has Wentz and Brady as QBs. We can only play one QB. He has decided on Brady the rest of the way. Wentz will be on his bench. He needs a RB and a WR. My QBs are M Ryan and Dalton. He proposes that I send him Dalton, RB Tarik Cohen and WR Tyrell Williams for Wentz, He is Happy. I am Happy. The Commish vetoes it and says that owner could have gotten those players off the waiver wire.( there isn't jack left on the waiver wire)  Also the Commish wanted to trade for Wentz, but the guy did not go for his offer. so I think the commish has a conflict of interest. By the way, we initiated the trade early on Thursday. The commish didn't act until late Friday night. The commish also says he does not have the time to discuss it with us on Friday night. His decision is final.  We both missed the opportunity to make changes via free agency. Now that owner is angry because the trade would have allowed him to field a complete team. Now he doesn't have a complete starting team. His team and mine are both trying to fight our way into the playoffs. This veto could dash both of our hopes. My argument is that value is perceived. Wentz is no good to him sitting on the bench, But if he can fill his team at positions of need, then so be it. We wee both happy. he did not fell that I was weakening his team and I did not feel that he was weakening mine. Not many players would add up to Wentz point for point and that is not the point. Value is subjective and is determined by each owner. Based on all of this, was the commish right to veto the trade? As of now there is no trade and we both feel stuck. I am ready to walk from this league.

 

I agree there's a conflict of interest. That's why I would suggest in the future to require a league vote on trades - all owners must vote whether a trade should be accepted or vetoed. That way, it's more of a democratic balance to keep the league more fair. The fact that the commish is another owner in the league is what made the conflict of interest so apparent and made the situation more conflicting. It needs to be reminded that the commish's team must also be allowed to be competitive. Otherwise, you must have someone that is neutral to the owners in the league to be the commissioner.

Edited by LuckyBub
Added additional sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @LuckyBub,  I am the commish of my league and set it up for league vote/Veto on trades. All accepted trades have a 2 day hold and a notice is sent to every team for vote to approve or deny the trade. 

Unfortunately something you can’t change now, but can suggest for next year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, you shouldn't have one person in charge of vetos because that said person can just veto trades that will weaken his own position. IMO, I don't like vetos at all, unless it's very sketchy. That trade is very lopsided, and Wentz should receive more in return, but if he's doing it to field a team then its understandable. I would first try to talk with the comish and see his reasoning, and explain the situation. If that doesn't work, try to get all the members support to override the veto. Next year, get rid of that dictatorship, unless it's given to someone you know is trustworthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information