I have been trying to work a deal for a power hitting Of, and made an offer to guy with 7 OF and plenty of power on his team. He countered with the following deal.
I get Carlos Lee OF, he gets Millwood/Biggio. Biggio will start for him and Millwood has been solid in many H to H categories. I think I'm getting a good deal, but he's filling some needs as well.
This is what my commish posted, "If you are against it post soon or forever hold your peace. I'm not quite sure why Team A would accept this offer, giving away the 17th ranked fantasy player at this point in the season, for some mediocre pitching and a washed up second baseman ranking 100 and 300 something respectively... to each his own i guess. Nice move Team B, way to offer up that solid "ill take your best player and dump 2 nobodies to you" that your so notorious for."
This is not a money league and it is strictly for bragging rights. I don't even know the guy I'm trading with so collusion is out of the question. Any ideas about how to respond to this one on the old message board?
This brings up the old argument about what is a vetoable trade. In my opinion, collusion is the only reason to veto a trade in a league with knowledgable owners. I play ball with most of these guys and they know what their doing. Although I don't know the guy who offered me this deal, he is currently in 5th place and has a solid team.
That is a horrible deal, and I don't have a problem with the commish questioning the deal. If he needs a 2B, surely he can do better than Biggio, and Millwood is avg at best. Veto's are probably the most controversial thing in fantasy sports. I don't like to veto, but trades like that should be IMO. I can't imagine anyone who knows what he's doing accepting/offering a trade like that.
As long as the commish isn't vetoing it or encouraging a veto, I think it's fine. I'm a commish, and if a deal that dumb went through in my league, I'd probably post a good-natured "Boy, are you stupid!" message. He was a little harsh, but meh.