Thoughts On Late-Season Trade Fairness?

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:20 am

If a trade is fair in a vacuum, but has a bigger effect when looked at in the context of a league, should it be vetoed?

For example, a team in my home league that will struggle to make the playoffs just traded derrick blaylock to the best team in the league (who has Priest) for Brad Hoover.

In a vacuum, this is a meaningless trade. in the context of the league, he gave the best team in the league a huge insurance policy for a crap back who might not even start this week.

Is that vetoable?

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:58 am

Ico, not enough information.

Call the Priest owner Team A and the Blaylock owner Team B.

What is Team B's RB situation. Does he have enough legitimate starters to field a roster this week? Will he be forced to start a FB without this trade?

Does Team A and Team B have a history of transactions? Is this a "Quid Pro Quo" to another transaction?

Has team A indicated its rationale for the trade?

IMHO, trades can only be vetoed if they are collusive or if they effect the balance of the league. This trade cannot effect the balance of the league as it exists right now. It can legitimately improve both teams if Hoover starts this week.

Unless there is a pattern to suggest collusion, no veto.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:07 am

Originally posted by I Cojones:
If a trade is fair in a vacuum, but has a bigger effect when looked at in the context of a league, should it be vetoed?
veto only in cases of collusion or where the league integrity would be undeniably threatened.

[ November 05, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:47 am

It's just a savvy owner taking advantage of a less informed one.

[ November 15, 2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: I Cojones ]

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:13 am

No veto.

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:39 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
Ico, not enough information.

Call the Priest owner Team A and the Blaylock owner Team B.

What is Team B's RB situation. Does he have enough legitimate starters to field a roster this week? Will he be forced to start a FB without this trade?

Does Team A and Team B have a history of transactions? Is this a "Quid Pro Quo" to another transaction?

Has team A indicated its rationale for the trade?

IMHO, trades can only be vetoed if they are collusive or if they effect the balance of the league. This trade cannot effect the balance of the league as it exists right now. It can legitimately improve both teams if Hoover starts this week.

Unless there is a pattern to suggest collusion, no veto. Well said!

I agree!

Trades, in theory, should help both teams and the net effect will be to "hurt" the rest of the league. This is why trading is good and not trading can be a disadvantage.

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:51 am

My worst case scenario happened of course. Hoover has rushed for less than 40 yards over the last two weeks and the top team in the league was gifted Blaylock's 186 yards yesterday, when he otherwise would have had to scramble for a Priest backup. And of course, Blaylock's game made the difference for him with a win.