Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rodgers4MVP

Trade Vetoed, Opinions?

Recommended Posts

Alright, so our leagues trade deadline was last night and there was a trade that went through between a 2-8 team and a 5-5 team currently sitting in a playoff spot. The trade was:

2-8 Team receives:

Jimmy Graham

Cecil Shorts

Jonathan Stewart

5-5 Team receives:

Aaron Rodgers

Jordan Reed

Keenan Allen

Our league commissioner started a league chat about wanting to Veto it because the 2-8 team is mathematically out of the playoffs so therefore the trade is only trading the 5-5 team. The 2-8 teams response was that he didnt want to finish last. So far the votes are 2 for vetoing the trade and 2 for not vetoing it. What do you guys think? This trade does not involve me at all and in my opinion should not be vetoed.

Leave your thoughts and a link so i can help in return. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's vetoable. A lot of people say to let owners screw up for themselves, but I think there's a lot higher burden of proof for trades between playoff teams and eliminated teams. I think the 2-8 team is giving up too much.

Allen -> Shorts is a downgrade.

Reed -> Graham is about even... a slight upgrade right now at best.

Rodgers for Stewart is what tips it over the edge... Stewart doesn't have any trade value in my opinion.

I personally never trade with teams that have been eliminated. That being said, if the 5-5 guy would take the trade if you remove Rodgers from the equation, I think maybe you allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Graham is on one side, and there aren't any real stars there. Reed's a slightly overhyped TE, Allen's a WR2, and Rogers is an elite, but injured QB. Might be a little lopsided toward the team receiving Rogers, but it's not that big a gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Graham is on one side, and there aren't any real stars there. Reed's a slightly overhyped TE, Allen's a WR2, and Rogers is an elite, but injured QB. Might be a little lopsided toward the team receiving Rogers, but it's not that big a gap.

Rodgers should be back for the fantasy playoffs... that's what makes the deal lopsided in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Graham is on one side, and there aren't any real stars there. Reed's a slightly overhyped TE, Allen's a WR2, and Rogers is an elite, but injured QB. Might be a little lopsided toward the team receiving Rogers, but it's not that big a gap.

Rodgers should be back for the fantasy playoffs... that's what makes the deal lopsided in my opinion.

Team making the trade needs to win now though to accomplish his goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team making the trade needs to win now though to accomplish his goals.

Maybe so, but in my opinion, avoiding last place isn't really a very legitimate goal, when you are upgrading a playoff team as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team making the trade needs to win now though to accomplish his goals.

Maybe so, but in my opinion, avoiding last place isn't really a very legitimate goal, when you are upgrading a playoff team as a result.

Change the facts a little. If the guy was 5-5 and had a shot of making the playoffs, but he had to win now, is it a vetoable trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 2-8 team actually gets the better deal so let it happen. I don't see why the 5-5- team would want to give up Jimmy Graham. He's not really improving his team by getting Allen over Shorts, and is significantly downgrading TE. Unless he really needs a QB, but why would you want a QB that's not going to help you in the coming weeks when he probably needs wins at 5-5?

http://forums.rotoworld.com/index.php?showtopic=402440

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 2-8 team actually gets the better deal so let it happen. I don't see why the 5-5- team would want to give up Jimmy Graham. He's not really improving his team by getting Allen over Shorts, and is significantly downgrading TE. Unless he really needs a QB, but why would you want a QB that's not going to help you in the coming weeks when he probably needs wins at 5-5?

http://forums.rotowo...howtopic=402440

The 5-5 team is currently sitting in 5th because of tiebreakers. There are 3 5-5 teams and 1 4-6 team right behind them if that helps a little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not vetoable...if a 2-8 eliminated team can't make trades then u need some new rules in place...graham is the best player in the deal and Rodgers is injured , one team wants to win now the other is eyeing the playoffs , what's the big deal??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way this should be vetoed. IMHO, it's hard to tell who would benefit most from the trade without knowing the rest of their players. Graham and Rogers is a wash in my book. Both are injured tier one players. Rogers should be back for the playoffs, but who knows if there will be any lingering effects. Plus, you have to make the playoffs for him to be relevant. The playoff eliminated 2-8 team is likely to only get game 13 out of Rogers. Rogers is basically dead roster space to him. He get's Graham back, who may be limited, but can contribute immediately. I agree Stewart probably wasn't worth much, but the rest of the trade may not be too bad depending their rosters and the impact of Rogers/Graham.

Vetos should be limited to collusion. An eliminated team giving up and trading away their best players for peanuts is collusion whether it is coordinated between the teams or not, but it's not obvious that is what is happening here. Also, playoff eliminated teams should not be prevented from improving their teams. Maybe they want to at least play spoiler, or not end up in last place. Trades shouldn't be vetoed just because some of the teams don't like the results...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the facts a little. If the guy was 5-5 and had a shot of making the playoffs, but he had to win now, is it a vetoable trade?

In that case it's not vetoable. But like you said, the facts have been changed. The 5-5 guy is giving up more because Rodgers could be useful to him this year.

As another hypothetical, what if the 2-8 guy wants to trade Aaron Rodgers for some guy who will never start this year, say Cordarrelle Patterson. To the 2-8 guy, it's technically an even trade, but it's definitely upsetting the competitive balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow your leagues predefined rules for veto.

If I were in the league and fighting for a playoff spot I would vote against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you saying veto, what if the trade had been just Rogers for Graham? Would you still veto the trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That trade is not anywhere close to being vetoable. As for a mathamatically eliminated team trading, everyone has the right to upgrade their team as they see fit. If you dont want elimated teams making trades, you need an explicit rule stating so. Since there is not one, the trade is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright thank you for all of the responses, this is incredible. I think ive come to the conclusion that i am going to say this trade should not be Vetoed. Im probably gonna say something like this:

I think the trade is fair and i dont think a 2-8 team, that is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, should be restricted from trading. Like he said he is trying to avoid finishing last and could still affect the playoff race by playing spoiler. In johnny's (5-5 team) defence i was trying to trade for Rodgers and Reed too. I don't think this trade should be vetoed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2-8 team can trade, a 2-8 team shouldnt be trading good players for dog**** in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you saying veto, what if the trade had been just Rogers for Graham? Would you still veto the trade?

If the trade were Rogers for Gronk Id have no problem with it. If the 2-8 team were getting a clear upgrade it is no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the facts a little. If the guy was 5-5 and had a shot of making the playoffs, but he had to win now, is it a vetoable trade?

In that case it's not vetoable. But like you said, the facts have been changed. The 5-5 guy is giving up more because Rodgers could be useful to him this year.

As another hypothetical, what if the 2-8 guy wants to trade Aaron Rodgers for some guy who will never start this year, say Cordarrelle Patterson. To the 2-8 guy, it's technically an even trade, but it's definitely upsetting the competitive balance.

It doesn't matter if the trade "upsets the competitive balance," that's what trades do. It's clearly not a ridiculously lopsided trade and the guy who's out of the playoffs may be out, but he still plays games. If he's helping his team in his estimation and is trying to win games despite being out then more power to him.

To veto a trade that's not collusion which makes a team better just makes the veto-er a jerk. If they're both helping their teams then sick it up an deal, the guy out of the playoffs has every right to keep playing and trying to win games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the facts a little. If the guy was 5-5 and had a shot of making the playoffs, but he had to win now, is it a vetoable trade?

In that case it's not vetoable. But like you said, the facts have been changed. The 5-5 guy is giving up more because Rodgers could be useful to him this year.

As another hypothetical, what if the 2-8 guy wants to trade Aaron Rodgers for some guy who will never start this year, say Cordarrelle Patterson. To the 2-8 guy, it's technically an even trade, but it's definitely upsetting the competitive balance.

It doesn't matter if the trade "upsets the competitive balance," that's what trades do. It's clearly not a ridiculously lopsided trade and the guy who's out of the playoffs may be out, but he still plays games. If he's helping his team in his estimation and is trying to win games despite being out then more power to him.

To veto a trade that's not collusion which makes a team better just makes the veto-er a jerk. If they're both helping their teams then sick it up an deal, the guy out of the playoffs has every right to keep playing and trying to win games.

Maybe it's not 'ridiculously lopsided', but it's still lopsided. I wouldn't be vetoing for myself, I would be vetoing for the league as a whole. I have vetoed a lopsided trade in a similar situation where I had already been eliminated from playoffs myself.

Sorry, I just don't think that fantasy football should come down to who can be the best at lowballing eliminated teams for their studs. It should be about who is better at drafting, making waiver pickups, and making legitimate trades. If the eliminated team is giving up more than they are getting, even if it's close, it's not really a legitimate, fair trade.

As to the original poster, that's not what I would have done but I can respect the decision. Obviously not everyone feels the same way about these types of situations as I do, and you've given logical reasons for your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.