Yeah he looks like a good player

Since the Cleveland - Arizona trade was voided, this one shouldn't have fallen into the 1st Rd pick violation. I certainly hope I receive a legitimate explanation for this action. Particularly from the Admin.

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean another owner can't. I say we act like adults and let each owner handle their own team as they see fit, not as how anyone else thinks they should run it.

Or let's just veto trades that might make one team too powerful. We don't want anyone to develop a dynasty as that is not fair.

Can we just not veto trades. People have the right to trade who they want when they want

You will learn in time that speed is a MUST in this game for all positions except OLs and maybe QB .... and speed will drop drastically starting 30yo ..... so i guarantee you that you are looking at the wrong skills..... that 28 yo player will not bring anything to your team and could easily be replaced with an FA player in order to save those valuable picks that can make your team a force in the league....

P.S. Apologize to @Crazy for bad advertising of his player, it's just my opinion ....

It would take seasons to rebuild a team ruined by bad trades, so to keep the league healthy we cannot do that....

There is just about nothing more irksome than the issue of whether and how to monitor trades and disallow unfair trades. Some leagues allow all trades without question and some prohibit trades outright. We are attempting to chart a course that is somewhere in between.

Of course, whether a trade is fair or not is a subjective decision and therefore there are bound to be disagreements from time to time. All in all, the vast majority of trades are not challenged, although trades involving 1st rd draft choices are closely scrutinized. Despite these efforts, we’ve had a few teams severely mortgage their future salary cap by making unsound trades (and free agency signings). Witness Arizona’s and Miami’s struggles this season. For those reasons, it’s important that all GMs monitor and ensure the overall health of the league and each team.

I appreciate your frustration, CR. However, please note that as a trade participant, you would not be allowed to vote on your trade.

I know you didn’t receive a PM about the challenge. There is no requirement that the administrator must do so, but in the future I will try to notify the trade participants via PM that a challenge has been made - if time permits.

In the trades that were voided today, as soon as 3 of the 5 members the Trade Committee voted to void the trades that settled the matter. I could have waited until all 5 (or 4) votes were in, but thought it best to notify the trade participants, as well as the rest of the league, as soon as the issue was settled.

For what it’s worth, I did not originate the challenge. However, in order to encourage GMs to participate, the identity of the challenger and how committee members voted will remain anonymous. Therefore, I can’t give you an explanation unless I am authorized to do so by the challenger and Committee’s voting participants. And that assumes they even share their explanation with me.

After the season starts, we’ll treat trades like we do waivers. They must be done after game day and before the midweek phase. This will give the league’s GMs, including the participants of a challenged trade, an adequate opportunity to have the challenge process play out. Otherwise, a trade can be made immediately before a game and before any GM can see or challenge it, much less have the Trade Committee act on a challenge.

P. S. I will post a sticky thread which identifies the members of the Trade Committee.

Bullshit. The accuser needs to be identified. We all can't sit here and have one owner jack up every trade they don't like. THAT WILL RUIN THE LEAGUE.

I would go so far to say that no trade challenge is valid unless the accuser publicly states their reason for the challenge.

If the league votes for that requirement, it will become a rule.

I don't think it's necessary because we haven't had that many trades challenged. However, as a compromise, as administrator, unless a challenger volunteers to go public, I will require an explanation from the challenger as a condition for his/her challenge to proceed. Rather than identifying the challenger, I will cut and paste the explanation (or paraphrase the explanation) so that the reason for the challenge is clear. My take is that most GMs prefer the challenge system remain anonymous out of a concern that a disgruntled GM will retaliate. By the way, all challenge explanations shall be more specific than that the trade under consideration is UNFAIR.