OAK/NE

[Deleted]

Raiders Give:
Joseph Randle (DAL) $796,000 (2015) RFA
Jamar Taylor (MIA) $230,000 (2015) RFA

Patriots Give:
Olivier Vernon (DE - MIA) $3,070,000 (2018)
Sio Moore (LB - OAK) $845,000 (2015) RFA

[Deleted]

I think vetos are getting wayyy out of hand. We are throwing them around left and right, and I've been thinking about this long before my trade got a veto vote. I get trying to protect a new team but we also have to let owners make their own decisions sometimes. This veto on my trade floors me... Seahawks are making an assumption that Randle is a starting RB. I think he will be, but we have to take these personal assumptions out of the equation when voting and look at it from all perspectives. He is in no way guaranteed to be a starter. He's had off the field issues as well as pissed off teammates and coaches. There is constant talk in Dallas about bringing in a veteran. Even of Randle starts he could be part of a three headed committee, but he still has to hold the job through training camp and preseason. It is absolutely ridiculous that a trade like this would get a veto vote.I have 3 better RBs on my team and needed DL and LB. Randle is a one year contract before he goes way up in price and he is FAR from proven. Vernon is well worth a 2nd and I believe Sio is as well. 2 2nds is a fair deal for Randle imo, especially when the players I'm getting round out my team perfectly. I've been shopping Randle for a week without better offers imo.

I feel like we've gotten away from vetoing to protect the longevity and integrity of the league and are more just vetoing when we don't like trades.

[Deleted]

I hear what you're saying and I thought to give a passing vote because of the teams involved but I would vote this way if a new team were involved so I should vote this way regardless. Randle has some question marks but gets to run behind the best line in football, looked good last year and is the starter right now. Randle probably gets a 1st round tag next off season, if Sio gets tagged at all, maybe he gets a 3rd cause you like him but I don't think he repeats last season and he looks to me like a situational player. Vernon is really good but he's not going to score like a RB and the CB that gets thrown in is another NFL starter on an RFA deal. You're sending two starting players that can be tagged at the end of the year, one of which has top 25 overall potential, for a couple of okay defensive players and to me it looks like a rip off. If you get the votes to approve I'm not mad but I think you know you lose out on this deal. Would you want me to pass this if it were a new league member and if so why should the standard be different for any other teams?

[Deleted]

I strongly believe that the standard is different for different owners. We protect new owners and damaged franchises because we don't want them to leave a franchise in a undesirable state, making it hard for us to find replacements. New owners have no commitment to the league. We see far too often where a new owner comes in makes bad trades and bails, leaving a damaged franchise for us to find replacements for. Guys that have been here for years have committed countless hours to their teams and are less likely to leave. Also franchises in stellar shape can easily find new owners.

[Bills GM (Greg)]

I don't think that we have gotten veto happy. It's just that time of year when savvy owners are shaping their teams for the season. In my opinion, every TAB member has the right to their opinion concerning whether to approve or veto. I don't agree with Bryan's evaluation of Randle in the above trade nor did I agree with Tyler's opinion of Hopkins vs. Ellington in yesterday's trade. It shouldn't be personal or contentious.

We are responsible for evaluating each trade fairly and either passing or vetoing. As long as we are clear concerning the rationale for the vote, I don't see a problem. Overall, I think all of us look a little more critically at a trade between a new owner and a veteran...but in my opinion the standard should be the same.

Everyone is doing their best to make the league better and to maintain a true sense of fairness.

[Deleted]

I prefer the Matt Berry view on Veto

"Veto the veto. You've heard me say this before, but until this miscarriage of justice is abolished, you're going to keep hearing it. Unless you can prove actual collusion, no trade should ever be vetoed. It is not your job to manage someone's team for them. Everyone should be allowed to manage their own team their own way. Even if you don't agree with it. Even if it's badly. You don't think he got nearly enough for his star tight end? So what?

I maybe new to this league but this is 5th 32 man league I play and I am in the same league as the Skins and Mewter and I remember the name of the Ghost of Al, in another 32 man league that died NFL real fantasy draft.

A veto should only be used where the value is clearly lopsided e.g. AP for a 4th round pick, every owner will always value players differently, some may place less value on players that are certain to be starters.

You cant look to the future to determine the value of a player, you need too look at what he has done, otherwise an argument can be made that every QB is an Andrew Luck, every RB is an AP and every WR is a Dez Bryant waiting too happen.

[Deleted]

I agree in most cases Mike, but we've seen too many times where a new owner comes in and gets destroyed by savvy owners in trades and then bails. You might be an exception, but many times people don't understand values clearly when they first join. Maybe the other leagues they've been in were setup different, or they just don't know what they are doing. We've seen it too many times and after they bail its very hard for us to find replacement owners for the trainwreck that they left behind. It's especially easy for a new person to bail when they've put literally nothing into the league... time or money since this is a free league.

IMO, that's the only reason we should be vetoing... to protect franchises on the brink of disaster, especially when the owners are brand new and have nothing vested into the league. In the end, it's only to keep the league alive and healthy and keep the talent gap from widening too far, because most of the time it's the really good teams taking advantage of a struggling team.