Should I veto either of these trades

[Wolf Howl]

No one likes vetoes, especially if you are the commissioner doing so. I had to do one earlier this season and am afraid I will have to again. It sucks royally to have to do it but when the trade is so uneven regardless of whether both the "coaches" agree you have to veto simply for the integrity of the league.

[Kompressor]

Leave the first alone, veto the second.
In the first trade there is a lot of uncertainty, leave it up to those managers if they want to take a risk.
Blalock probably won't be too far behind Chavez
RJ is obviously the better pitcher but it might take him awhile to regain his form when he returns from surgery, meanwhile if Suppan pitches like he has been he could be very valuable.
I see Hunter and Lee pretty equal right now, Hunter will probably put up better stats at years end, but look how his second half numbers declined last year, he has a lot of work ahead of him.

I don't see very much risk in the second trade, I think its pretty obvious Pujols injury isn't affecting him very much, and even if it is just think how good he will play when he's 100% If I had Pujols I'd be hesitant to trade him for all three of the other players. That trade definetely gets vetoed.

[ondeckb]

No collusion....no veto....Period.

[Trojan Pony]

^agreed.

Dumb owners are part of real baseball too.

[Nero]

I
I say, yes to the first trade because Chavez is superstar and so is Johnson.

Yep they are...and they are both moving on the same side of the deal...

I think you have to let both of these deals happen

[Josh]

I think we would need to know a little more about these teams. what are their rosters, where are they in the standings. Are the people giving up these good players near the bottom? If they are, they may be dumping players. I know many people are veto only if there is collusion, but I cant stand it when a league is ruined due to dumbass's. It is a hard call, but I think both trades are unfair and would veto them,.If they can give you a valid argument, maybe I woudl ch ange my mind, but I can stand unfair trades.

[Sevillano]

Since everyone's opinion of what a vetoable trade is differs, why not have a system in place that allows every owner in the league to have a say? If it's a private league, and your the commish, everyone should have your e-mail address. If a majority of the teams not involved in the trade vote to veto, then veto the trade. The trade review period should be there so that the whole league can review the deal, not just the commish.

[ironman]

Do NOT veto unless you suspect collusion or the trade is so rediculous that it effects the integrity of the league. Neither of these trades applies. Let them pass. What if RJ never fully recovers from his injury? Perhaps Pujols' injury hurts his production. I don't think these trades are lopsided enough to veto.

Gotta agree here. If you know all your managers and you know they aren't cheating then let it go I say. As I've mentioned in other threads, at the end of the season take a look at the trades made in April and May. You'll probably laugh at how lopsided they look when in fact at the time they seemed pretty even. Then there will be trades that appeared lopsided and controversial when they were made, but now appear to be a nonissue. I think vetoing trades can damage league integrity a whole lot more than not vetoing. That is not to say however that if there were a huge outcry from half the league that I wouldn't veto. In a case where a large number of managers are crying foul I would definitely act on it.

[chennemann]

Well I posted for people to email me with their opinion.

I only recieved 1 vote and it was to veto. So I let it go through, but I personally feel that this trade will hurt the league.

Thanks for all the help.

[DGroundhog]

Veto them both...because you can.