as a commissioner, i held a veto vote on the following trade: Josh Jacobs for Wash D, Q Johnston, and Pittman. The team getting the 3 players has not been involved in his team all year. The team getting Jacobs is now bitter that the trade was vetoed. Thoughts?

as they should. looks to be nothing wrong with the deal. unless collusion suspected, which I dont see, shouldnt be vetoed

Trade looks good to me - if you don’t like the manager just kick him next year

10 teams and it got 7 vetos

that context would have been good to know beforehand. the trade part who cares. nobody should be forced to trade but if you are saying he wasnt setting a lineup or making roster changes, I guess I could see that. but the trade overall isnt that drastic that I think it warrants a veto

it's a fair deal tho

The trade itself is fine. It should go through and then you shouldn't invite the person who doesn't check their team to play next year. Hopefully the brother in law follows them out the door.

Is there a veto vote for every trade or only this one? If it's only this one then you are the problem.

EVERY trade.

It reached 7 vetos in 5 minutes

Veto's are lame, it was a fair trade imo

So a team doesn't set line up all year. Doesn't make add drops all year. Doesn't respond other trade requests all year...but then when another team who is his brother in law comes to him and says "hey I know puca nacua has been on your bench all year, but how about I give you 2 lesser wide outs for your top RB? ...yeah there is a heavy collusion problem. Shame on me. I should have put a block on that team to avoid what the other 6 who vetoed the trade knew was coming.

These commissioners have no idea when to veto trades

I just read thread n changed my opinion

But if a guy's gonna try n cheat .

Hes not gonna say .Hey u got me

Hes gonna be defensive bout it.

Value of trade not veto worthy but situation makes it collusion n veto worthy