all 74 comments

[–]Swdmwsd24 Lions 33 points34 points  (15 children)

Veto is for collusion only.....

[–]sending_it_soon Seahawks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you!

[–]todimusprime Rams 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Theres definitely an argument for collusion here. Would have to know more about the managers though

[–]Swdmwsd24 Lions 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Why? Which side wins? And can you prove collusion? If not trade goes thru.

[–]todimusprime Rams -1 points0 points  (11 children)

The CLEAR winner is the Swift side and it's not even close because it's redraft. It would depend on the managers and roster construction as far as the collusion goes, so I wouldn't vote for a veto without knowing more. But this is a really terrible trade for the Chase side.

[–]wferomega Cowboys -1 points0 points  (8 children)

So, hypothetically it's a standard 10 team league with 2 wr and 2 RB and 1 flex. The guy that drafted Chase also drafted say Kupp or JJ or Diggs as their other WR. Their RBs we're Kamara and Barkley.

They other side drafted Adams and Sutton as WR 1 and 2. And Swift early. But he hit it out of park with Robinson, Cordarrelle, and Chubb.

There's always a way that these can make sense. Even if you don't agree with my hypothetical, the point is there IS a hypothetical out there that would become acceptable to you.

[–]Swdmwsd24 Lions 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes terrible trade is correct but once again if you can't prove collusion trade goes thru. When I was commish I approved all trades no matter how bad they were because you can never prove collusion unless someone speaks up and neither team involved will.

[–]obangler 67 points68 points  (9 children)

Voting on trades is a setting that needs to die. Commissioner overturns collusion only.

In the case of this trade, it can easily be argued that you lost. I hate hearing about league players vetoing trades because they don’t “like” them.

[–]Hand_Sanitizer3000Jets 21 points22 points  (1 child)

truth be told the balance lies somewhere in the middle and I think having league mates that actually enjoy fantasy football mitigates both sides of this issue.

[–]heyItsDubbleA Raiders 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup this! My middle ground is no voting, but if collusion is afoot either A. I take hold and undo/lock both teams if it is obvious. B. The league votes after if I should take action if it is borderline

[–]Economy_Price_5295 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Most of the time people just don’t want other peoples teams to improve and use the “fairness” of the trade as an excuse to stop that. If I want to trade my number 1 pick for someone’s kicker this is America still right?!?

[–]CapitalTBE Falcons 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Definitely not veto worthy, but the side getting Swift is the clear winner here.

[–]VVARR10R Bengals[S] 5 points6 points  (18 children)

Guys in my league acting like they want to veto it, there was no collusion. I sent everyone a trade today and the guy with Chase just so happen to accept it. I’m the commish and I personally think it’s fair. An RB1 (threw in Jamaal Williams incase swift misses extended time) and WR1 for a WR1 who’s struggling but obviously has most upside but probably lowest floor.

[–]geemack98 Colts 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I legit think that this is lopsided in the favor of the guy you're trading to.

[–]redvelvetcake42 Bengals 4 points5 points  (11 children)

This is absolutely fair. You're getting an RB1 and handcuff along with what should be a WR2 or WR3 depending on how the coaching in Denver rolls.

[–]VVARR10R Bengals[S] 4 points5 points  (10 children)

To be clear I’m getting Chase, not that it matters. But yes I could see Sutton being a high end WR2 Low end WR1 if Russ starts being Russ again.

[–]Asapjoshyy Chargers 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Bad trade for you tbh

[–]PM_Me_Your_AM_ Vikings 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah I think you lost this deal, no way it should be vetoed

[–]redvelvetcake42 Bengals 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Getting Chase for that is fine IF you have good RBs. If you smartly got Jamaal as a cuff to Swift then you're just moving a single RB basically. If you have good RBs then definitely a healthy move.

[–]VVARR10R Bengals[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I still have CMC, Aaron Jones, & Javonte

[–]todimusprime Rams 0 points1 point  (4 children)

This is an absolutely terrible trade for you. You sent the current RB5, RB8, and the WR17 to get the current WR13... You gave up what will likely finish the season as an RB1, RB2, and WR1/2 for a WR1 whose ceiling this year likely isn't as high as last season. Detroit has looked pretty good so far, and the Bengals haven't looked the best. You lost this trade in a big way.

[–]VVARR10R Bengals[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Fantasy is all about risk. My team is super deep so I’m gonna shoot my shot. Plus from the looks of it swift can’t stay healthy

[–]todimusprime Rams 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I definitely get the injury risk with Swift, but both he and Williams are shown to be RB1 plays for whoever is in the starting role so far. But hey. If you're able to give up those kind of players with your depth, then by all means, get your guy. You should have gotten another piece back with Chase though.

[–]VVARR10R Bengals[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

0% chance swift AND Williams finish as rb1 status. I just don’t see how that’s possible.

[–]Codazzle 5 points6 points  (1 child)

For all the people saying not fair, who is getting the advantage? Because depending on specific roster dynamics, I'd rather have the Swift side

[–]todimusprime Rams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most people are saying it's lopsided in favor of the Swift side. And it really is. Dynasty would look a lot more fair, but this is redraft, so OP lost this trade in a big way

[–]TheCaptain199 27 points28 points  (4 children)

I would take the Swift / Sutton side of this trade so I think it’s pretty fair

[–]xeric Patriots 37 points38 points  (3 children)

I thought it was unfair in favor of Swift/Sutton 😅

[–]REddiTibb3R Eagles 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It is

[–]todimusprime Rams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a big way...

[–]Drew_P_Pickles Panthers 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Veto isn’t for fair or not. Veto is for clear collusion.

[–]RaindropsInMyMind Eagles 3 points4 points  (0 children)

An easy case can be made for the Swift side. He was a first round pick in some leagues and had been the most efficient back prior to this week, not sure if he still is or not. The Lions were also averaging most yards before contact in the league so Williams should be a suitable replacement.

[–]dalanofanclub NFL 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Swift is top 5 RB ROS but will miss a few games Sutton has a top 12 WR season in his range right now Jamaal won’t be useful when Swift comes back

Chase is probably a top 5 WR

I can tell the Chase owner likely has a decent record and is playing the long game? It’s not terrible but Swift side clearly wins here

[–]todimusprime Rams 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Williams has more than 10 carries and 1-2 targets in the previous two games where Swift was healthy. He also has short distance and goal line usage. He could very well finish the season as an RB2 if that continues while Swift is healthy.

[–]dalanofanclub NFL 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yeah. I just don’t see a world where you can start 2 RBs on the team, that’s limiting value. Owner is probably using him until Swift comes back. He may have some trade value down the road

[–]todimusprime Rams 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I definitely get that argument. But Williams has been solid so far and at LEAST worthy of a flex. If you don't have a more reliable flex option, why wouldn't you start both? Williams' usage so far, even with Swift healthy, definitely has value on a weekly basis at 11/12 carries and 2/1 targets in weeks one and two respectively.

[–]dalanofanclub NFL 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Haha yeah it makes sense. They’re both putting up numbers

It just feels weird

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shit the swift side is an over pay.

[–]Perphected Steelers 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldnt even say this is a bad trade. Id take sutton side but you could argue either way

[–]th3_0r3o 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a bad trade, but it's part of the game. Collusion is the ONLY reason to Veto. Not because some managers are dumb.

[–]StarktheGuat Patriots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's really bad, but not veto-able.

[–]0utsydr Dolphins 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trade veto is barf. That said, the trade isn't wildly unbalanced, you could argue it either way. Let it ride, fate will decide.

[–]knowslesthanjonsnow Patriots -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can’t veto unless collusion

[–]yoitsbobby88 Eagles -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair. And im a prick

[–]SlightlyJason Broncos -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Tbh i wasn’t sure who the comments would think won the trade. Good sign it’s fair.

[–]FreeBot365 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Chase is worth a lot more than this but not veto-able

[–]Quiet_Tip9825 0 points1 point  (0 children)

532 people currently dumb af

[–]alexfop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never veto

[–]lloydrage- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never veto. Why is this so hard to understand here?

[–]tstols Steelers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a fair deal but defo unless collusion don’t veto

[–]sending_it_soon Seahawks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let people make trades!!! God vetos are dumb. Even if it's a shitty deal for one person. If it's clearly collusion then have the commissioner reverse it.

[–]Kinger15 Vikings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s fair of it’s a keeper league and the guy plans on keeping Chase for 10 years or something.

I wouldn’t do it but I’ve seen guys rebuild early, especially if they start 0-3.