Vetoing trades

[Banedon]

I'd like to get some opinions on this. I'm the commish of a office fantasy football league. One of my buddies has his wife and brother in law both in the league. Last year, we had no money involved, and about halfway through the season, his bro in law threw in the towel, and decided to try to get all of his players from one team, and made a few trades to try to do that that were...uneven at best. At the time I set the league to commish approval on trades, and got a lot of arguing about trades at that point.

 

So this year, the same folks are in the league, but I've set the trade policy to be a veto system...4 managers have to vote against a trade to veto. If it's been 3 days and there's not enough vetoes, it's approved.

 

So my buddy and his bro-in law agreed to this trade.

 

Frank Gore

Fred Jackson

 

Marques Colston

CJ Spiller

 

It was rejected and he's quite upset about it. They've resubmitted it without Fred Jackson in there, but I'm wondering if that one will pass either.

 

So my question is this. What's the criteria for vetoing? A trade being lopsided? Or do you have to have a supicion of collusion/cheating? Would you guys approve the trade now that it's 2 for 1?

[NCCubFan]

I think a trade is fair if it makes sense for both teams given the teams' relative strengths and weaknesses even if it appears unfair on the face. For example, if Team 1 were to trade Adrian Peterson to Team 2 for Kyle Orton it would certainly appear to be unfair at first glance. However, if Team 1 also somehow has Chris Johnson, but its best quarterback is Matt Moore, then the trade might make sense for both teams despite appearing lopsided.

[SouthSideRyan]

However, if Team 1 also somehow has Chris Johnson, but its best quarterback is Matt Moore, then the trade might make sense for both teams despite appearing lopsided.

 

Hahaha what?

[Guest]

I'm not a big fan of vetoing trades, with the exception of stuff like dumping a bunch of good players on another team when you fall out of the hunt. It's still before the season, and you can make a (misguided) case that this deal could work out either way, so I say caveat emptor.