Veto Question: De rozan for Dorell Wright?

[angels7777]

The last place team traded his Dorell Wright for the first place team's De Rozan. A week ago this same last place manager was on the verge of quitting because his team was sucking so bad. However, there was no collusion involved and there have only been about 2 or 3 vetoes in the 7 year history of the league. Two teams have questioned the deal on the message boards. As commish what would you do especially in a money league? Our rule for vetoing is collusion or a trade can be vetoed if it is so lopsided that it greatly affects the competition of the league.

[DVauthrin]

I personally don't feel the deal is veto-worthy. Nobody would have cared if this deal was made a month ago when Wright couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. But DeRozan has gone into a slump and Wright started hitting threes and now it's veto worthy. I don't buy it.

Of course Wright's game plays better in a league that counts three point percentage and assists to turnovers. But it isn't a deal that drastically changes the competitive balance of the league, and owners should be allowed to make deals as they see fit.

[big.d57]

nah not veto worthy.

[baller crimson]

But it isn't a deal that drastically changes the competitive balance of the league, and owners should be allowed to make deals as they see fit.

This.

[kisquick]

Based on the league settings, Derozan is ranked 215 and Dorell is ranked 55. The last place team loses 10 of 11 categories with the trade. The first place team receiving Dorrell actually had to set this last place teams lineup one day last week and was told by the manager that he was throwing in the towel. The last place team refuses to post an explanation as to how this deal helps his team in any way. I am in the league and actually offered Derozan for Dorrell 2 weeks ago before Dorrell got hot, and it was rejected by the same manager. It's pretty obvious to anyone looking at the trade it was done either as a favor to the commissioner or the guys giving up. Plus, this manger has yet to pay for the league, so it's easy to give away players when ur still playing for free and have no chance at the playoffs. If the trade isn't vetoed, it opens up the door for the last place team to have a complete fire sale with his remaining players which include Granger, Parker, Bynum, ect. None of the players will truly shift the power in the league dramatically, but it definitely benefits anyone who is allowed to rip this guy off before he quits this week and never pays.
COMMON SENSE says veto the deal and lock him from making any trades until he pays. And even after that, he needs to post one reason for making a deal that is lopsided at the very least. If the deal was close rank wise or number wise or Dorrell was hurt than no one cares. But as is, it's an obvious veto especially in a money league.