8rattoon Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 I'm commissioner in a work league. The guy in first (whose team we autodrafted for him because he bailed on the draft, by the way) has never played before but is riding the luck bestowed upon him by his patient and generous colleagues. He has been researching heavily since he doesn't do much at work and is learning quickly. He offered a trade to another first year-player who isn't quite as savvy but I think may be tempted by 2 for 1, even though unbeknownst to her she'd have to drop a player. Trade is: He gives Buck Allen and Charles He gets Calvin Ridley His RBs: Gurley, Crowell, Allen, Davis, Charles His WRs: Cooks, Evans, Lockett, DThomas, Hogan Her RBs: Barkley, R Freeman, Murray, Barber Her WRs: Allen, Fuller, Baldwin, Cobb, Ridley Should I veto this? I know her RBs aren't great but neither of those guys really helps her. To me this seems lopsided in the favor of the guy in 1st. Plus Cobb is basically useless right now so her WRs aren't deep either. It's not collusion but I don't think it's a fair trade. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpkrufus Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 It’s not collusion, gotta let it ride! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roamingbull Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Unless its cheating, and/or collusion let it go. You can give advise, but its up to her in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelmastr21 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Who is Charles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantguest Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Looks fine to me. They both benefit and no one is being taking advantage of. She needs Buck and Ridley is an improvement over half his WR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8rattoon Posted October 11, 2018 Author Share Posted October 11, 2018 Jamaal Charles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montana is da Man Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Let it go if they aren't colluding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rr23724 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Normally I would say no...but any trade involving Jamaal Charles in 2018 should at least get a second look at a veto. I didn't know he was even still trying to find a job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gballi15 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Again, I am confused by the rationale I find here...on another post, people are saying veto, and it wasn't near as bad as this...but now it's, let it go. In my opinion, it sounds like he is trying to lowball...JC isn't a factor right now, sounds like he is trying to trade based off name. But, it's not your job to manage another player's team, or even give unsolicited advice (as that would be more collusion to me). Definitely a lopsided trade, but I wouldn't call it veto worthy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk3133 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 2 hours ago, rr23724 said: Normally I would say no...but any trade involving Jamaal Charles in 2018 should at least get a second look at a veto. I didn't know he was even still trying to find a job! He just signed with Jacksonville Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk3133 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 A guy is trying to rip off a newbie female??? That's a man card violation!!! It does her minimal good, but it isn't bad enough to veto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.