Dead team trades.

[cardinal15]

rmeesig,

I stand by my position, the fact that he never answered anyone else is still not reason enough to veto the trade.The fact is someone got through to him or sparked his fancy enough to reply.Maybe the guy was on vacation or busy at work (maybe you know for sure) the fact remains you just don't like his level of involvement, but thats HIS decision not yours.I stand by the rule that the TRADE was fair and that had others proposed it, it would have passed.To veto it for reasons external to the trade is just not right.

[great gretzky]

for this reason (while I agree that if it is fari, it is fair), there should be some commonly accepted rule -- like after a month and a half of no league activity, you lose your ability to trade or something. or your trades are under "Special review"

a guy who was only active for three weeks traded miguel cabrera and tejada for arod and womack -- thank god neither team had a shot of affecting anythign. really pissed the rest of us off to be honest.

[thetongueofire]

is the trade fair ? yes.

then, can you veto the deal ? no.

its as simple as that.

[Xtreemes]

if you want, next season make a rule that if the league feels you are inactive we will take away your ability to trade. but you cant just make that decision now, thats not fair. you shouldnt look at the managers trading. just imagine its 2 random owners making this trade. if it looks like it is fair then you gotta let it go through.

[wannabthechamp]

I don't think you can veto the deal, it's fair, it doesn't matter if the other manager was active or not.

[pomplona's finest]

I don't think you can veto the deal, it's fair, it doesn't matter if the other manager was active or not.

yep, its really pretty simple, if there is no cheating involved and the deal is completely fair then it has every right to go through.

[Lofunzo]

IMHO, next year have a trade deadline and better trade rules. Unfortunately for you, enforcing rules now that aren't in place is unfair. A fair trade is a fair trade with the current rules in place.

[Iguana]

You know what, it sucks when managers are inattentive and don't stay on top of their rosters, injuries etc. But a fact of life is not everyone wants to check their fantasy teams 4 times a day. Some people consider themselves "active" fantasy players, even if that means only checking their team once a week. That's just the way they operate, and you can't force them to do more. So if he's checking trades, and agreeing to one that's fairly balanced, you're just going to have to deal with it.

Two months ago, my league vetoed a Dunn for Huff/Grissom trade (I was getting Huff) because the guy I was trading with was a "inactive" (in their eyes) league member. Both I and the "inactive" league member were friggin pissed, and vented that the league would veto a fairly even trade. Bottom line: some people like doing fantasy, but just won't get as into a you would like them to.

[Madison]

I see zero reason to veto this trade. It's fair, it's not a rip-off, and the rest of the situation doesn't matter. All that matters is the players involved. Sad that something so fair would be vetoed just because other owners think one manager isn't active enough.

I've won fantasy leagues with zero roster moves for the year. Would that classify me as an "inactive" manager? Not in the least. I just have had a couple of drafts in my lifetime that I could not have scripted any better. Now I understand the "inactive" owner in this case has no shot, but it's a fair trade and cannot be vetoed just because the rest of the league wants to be prejudiced against the "inactive" owner, or the owner trading with him.

[Lofunzo]

To add to my previous post, I do get annoyed when there is a manager that has players sitting all the time and DL players starting. That said, a fair trade is a fair trade.