Brutal1 0 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Team "A" Trades QB Arron Rodgers (Also has Goff and J. Allen) Team "B" Trades TE Mark Andrews (Also has Kelce & starting QB is Newton). Not providing any other commentary in order to avoid swaying opinion in any way. QUESTION: WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A VETO WORTHY TRADE?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
slimswol 26 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Not veto worthy. In context it could make sense for either team. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mikeflavaz 679 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Been a commish for 12 years. My insight is, unless you can prove collusion, all trades go. A guy wants to make a bad trade, that's up to him. Plus, things tend to work out the opposite of how you think. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chargers88 355 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Not veto worthy makes sense for both teams actually Kelce owner who will likely never start Andrews upgrades at qb since newton has played terrible a likely te needy team with three qbs trades a qb for a te. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brutal1 0 Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 That is 100% my philosophy Mikeflavaz, but would you even consider this a "bad trade"? Just curious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mikeflavaz 679 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Just now, Brutal1 said: That is 100% my philosophy Mikeflavaz, but would you even consider this a "bad trade"? Just curious. Too hard to say if it's a bad trade or not. Time will tell. I know why Team A did it though. He thinks he can be just fine with Allen and Goff, while upping his TE game. And he may right. It's just what the doctor ordered for Team B though. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dms80790 192 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 The answer to whether a trade should be vetoed or not is no 9 times out of 10. Just because YOU think a trade is UNFAIR doesn't mean it is COLLUSION. When a trade is executed, one owner should only have to convince the other owner that a deal is fair, not the other 9 or 11 members of the league. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Athebaby7 86 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 I actually offered the same trade. I have Aaron Rogers. I offered Aaron Rodgers for Mark Andrews. Here are the particulars on why 1) I have Lamar Jackson 2) he has Travis Kelce and he picked up Mark Andrews on waiver wires 3) he just lost Drew Bree’s to injury and has no backup QB on his roster in a 12 team league. i thought to myself , well, wouldn’t it be nice to have Lamar Jackson and Mark Andrews on the same team? I’m already 2-0 and Rogers isn’t sniffing the field until Jackson cools off (if he ever does) Now i know I’m getting absolutely robbed in this trade. Aaron Rogers is drafted as a top 5 QB and just faced arguably two of the toughest defenses in the league. Mark Andrews he just picked off waivers. THE GUY REJECTS THE TRADE. Even after all those circumstances. He still said no. Blows my mind because I absolutely know he’s getting the better end of the deal no question. HE HAS KELCE AND NO QB. The guy tells me QB position is deep and he can just go with Matthew Stafford. Its not collusion. Some people literally just don’t “get it”. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dms80790 192 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 31 minutes ago, Athebaby7 said: I actually offered the same trade. I have Aaron Rogers. I offered Aaron Rodgers for Mark Andrews. Here are the particulars on why 1) I have Lamar Jackson 2) he has Travis Kelce and he picked up Mark Andrews on waiver wires 3) he just lost Drew Bree’s to injury and has no backup QB on his roster in a 12 team league. i thought to myself , well, wouldn’t it be nice to have Lamar Jackson and Mark Andrews on the same team? I’m already 2-0 and Rogers isn’t sniffing the field until Jackson cools off (if he ever does) Now i know I’m getting absolutely robbed in this trade. Aaron Rogers is drafted as a top 5 QB and just faced arguably two of the toughest defenses in the league. Mark Andrews he just picked off waivers. THE GUY REJECTS THE TRADE. Even after all those circumstances. He still said no. Blows my mind because I absolutely know he’s getting the better end of the deal no question. HE HAS KELCE AND NO QB. The guy tells me QB position is deep and he can just go with Matthew Stafford. Its not collusion. Some people literally just don’t “get it”. While I agree with your overall point, I'm not surprised the guy rejected the trade. If Andrews finishes as this year's Kittle (a top 3 tight end, which is highly possible but certainly not definite), in a draft that is roughly equal in value to a pick in the 24-30 range. Aaron Rodgers would most likely be drafted in the 36-50 range (in leagues that don't reach for QBs early). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Athebaby7 86 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, dms80790 said: While I agree with your overall point, I'm not surprised the guy rejected the trade. If Andrews finishes as this year's Kittle (a top 3 tight end, which is highly possible but certainly not definite), in a draft that is roughly equal in value to a pick in the 24-30 range. Aaron Rodgers would most likely be drafted in the 36-50 range (in leagues that don't reach for QBs early). It’s possible but also a big what if. But I guess what I was trying to say is, people have their own reasons for sending and accepting trades. What you may think is unfair, could actually be in the best interest of both teams. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dedicated 0N3 26 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 👌💪 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brutal1 0 Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 Thank for the great feedback. Please keep it coming if anyone else has thoughts. I really appreciate it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brutal1 0 Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 bump Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DarinB300 2,434 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 The team who has 2 solid TE's, traded for a position of need, as did the team who had 3 QB's. Imo, it doesn't matter which QB was dealt, as that was the deal that both teams agreed upon. Usually when the word veto comes along, is because other teams in the league are upset they couldn't make a solid trade like that. Good job on limiting the details of the league/trade in your topic, as that can lead to a lot of unwanted posts & go off script. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.