Just because of the furor it seems to have caused,

[ABA316]

I'll ask here.

Jermaine Dye for Dave Roberts. Both were largely bench players on their previous teams. Team getting Roberts is at/near the bottom for steals, but does have some guys who will chip in such as Jeter, Podsednik (I know he's on the DL but just sayin), Utley.

Personally I think it's a dumb move for the team getting Roberts for sure. There is not a trade veto system in this league where the owners have a say, the commish makes the call on trades. What seems to be causing the furor is that the commish is the player who received Jermaine Dye.

Standard 5-5, 5 player keeper.

Any thoughts?

I should mention that while I myself don't have any trust issues with the commish, I did let him know I thought that this system shouldn't remain in the future years b/c of leaving himself open to such implications of "he let that trade through for his team" and such.

[walkoffblast]

That is one of those gray area deals. If the owner getting roberts is active and wants the deal it is hard to say it is a definite veto. Take your concerns to the message board and a good commish will at least take somethign into consideration if you are not the only one.

[ABA316]

I don't myself have concerns, although a couple of others have voiced them. I personally only think that the trade review system should be different so as to not cause such concerns by others, nothing more.

My take is the side getting Dye makes out but that being said I'm just not a big believer in Dye either.

[Born Slippy]

only if there's collusion or it would damage the league somehow is always my thoughts on these things

[ABA316]

Thanks for the insight Slippy; however, can someone OTHER than the commish of said league provide an opinion? Or at least if the commish would post under his "primary" screen name and not one only originated to hide (jabs elbow in ribs).

[CBMGreatOne]

As a commish, I would be leery of allowing this trade if people are complaining. It's pretty bad, but not horrible. I would judge the trade more on the sincerity of the intent of the last place team than anything else. If the league is furious, the deal should be vetoed regardless though.

You can't be a commish next year if people think the league was tainted because of your ethics this year.

And it certainly is questionable (not necessarily horrible) ethics to allow that trade.

[Pablo975]

In our 5x5 12 team keeper, I'm the commish and I decide vetos. Our rule is if I am one of the teams in the trade, then the majority vote of the other 11 owners decides.

That's def a bad trade, but unless collusion is in the air, no veto.

[Born Slippy]

we eliminated vetoes because people complained about ganging up on trades and the veto system itself (including ABA316)

the one person who complaiend the most said later that he was not saying it was abuse of integrity or power just a lopsided trade and i made it clear I would allow same trade for any other team

only other person who complained also stated same thing, just a lopsided deal..stated that it drives them crazy i have a way to talk people into trades but there is no collusion issues

everyone else who chimed in about the trade was fine with it

I also allowed chad cordero for harang the other week not involving me ..it was lopsided to the guy getting harang for sure but so what? I dont want the other owner to get Harang so cheap but Im not going to disallow it or complain just to protect my spot

specialty categories like saves and steals sometimes require an overpay if someone wants to do it and they have the need

some people in this league complain about eveything

[ABA316]

Let's face it, last year and year before in our league I think most if not all had issue with the system at some point for vetoes. 2 years ago was league vote just push a button, last year was Yahoo review which let some real clunkers fly.

Again, my only point is that the process itself leaves the commish open to allegations..and commish, I said this to you the day I found out that's what the system was so this is not something I just flip flopped on like others do.

[CBMGreatOne]

Let's face it, last year and year before in our league I think most if not all had issue with the system at some point for vetoes. 2 years ago was league vote just push a button, last year was Yahoo review which let some real clunkers fly.

Again, my only point is that the process itself leaves the commish open to allegations..and commish, I said this to you the day I found out that's what the system was so this is not something I just flip flopped on like others do.

You should just do league votes, and settle it like men. If you remove the league's input from the situation, you get people who are angry because they have no say whatsoever.

Again, this trade isn't an obvious veto, but I think it should still be voted on.