I see it the same way as you, Chiggidy. But we're the minority here. The most common opinion on this forum is that if there is no collusion, there should be no veto.
No opinion is right or wrong.
I think everyone here will agree that the guy giving up Sosa is getting the better end of the deal. Maybe the other guy has a motive for the deal, I don't know. But if we're going strictly by player values, it's unbalanced.
For some, that's enough to veto. But for others, all is fair in love, war and fantasy baseball.
Sosa and Sheffield cancel each other out? Where is the logic there? When was Sosa drafted, fifth? How about Sheffield? I love Sheffield. I even have him on my team. But Sosa is a much more valuable outfielder than Sheffield on the trade market.
Currently, Sosa ranks number 4 in TSN and Sheffield ranks number 12. That doesn't cancel out. You want a top five outfielder, you have to pay for him. I, for one, think Sheff may end up being one of the top five this year, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. In terms of real trade value, Sosa far outweighs Sheff. Now, Jeter is just coming back from a shoulder injury. No one has any idea if he'll have problems with it.
Next, Lowe sucks. Plain and simple. You may think he'll come around. I certainly don't. And this guy doesn't either. You're going to force this guy to keep a pitcher on his roster because you think this trade is BS? He's trying to get off the Lowe train while the gettin' is good, and you guys want to force him to keep him. That's not really fair.
I bet tomorrow when he offers someone else Lowe for Randy Wolf, they'll turn it down, right? They'll try to low ball him because Lowe has pitched like crap all year. Now, though, they're calling him an all star. That just doesn't make sense.
In the end, the guy giving up Sosa is getting the better end of the deal, but he's also giving up Sosa. He should get the better end of the deal. It's not like he's giving up Hillenbrand for these guys.
This trade is so not objectionable. Anyone giving up a first round draft pick should be free to get whatever they can for it. If the trade was blocked, I would recommend sending out an apology and letting it go through. That's how much I feel like it should have gone through. Both guys are getting a lot of value, even though one is getting more.
The problem is that you are analyzing the trade as if you were considering accepting it or not, which is the wrong approach. When considering a veto, all you can do is see if it is collussionary, which this clearly isn't. The problem with treating vetoes any differently is that trades are viewed differently by everyone, and if someone's trade gets vetoed, they are likely to start retaliating by vetoing someone else's trades and it just causes acrimony. Other managers really have no rights to analyze whether an owner is making a mistake or not because its not their problem or any of their business to do so. As long as it's not a clear roster dump, stay out of it.
Right on, timkell. Very well said. I certainly agree with the consensus on this one. Unless a trade is absurdly uneven or there is proof of collusion, it should NOT be vetoed.
Maybe Lowe will come around. I happen to think he won't, and doubt I would trade Zambrano for him.
Maybe Sheffield will equal or surpass Slammin' Sammy's numbers this year, but I doubt it. Would you want to bet your house that "they will cancel each other out." They certainly haven't for the past several years. Sammy's on his way to the Hall of Fame. Sheff is on his way to a pretty good career. Cancel each other out? Please.
Your logic may be right, or it may not. Projecting who will break out, who will flop, who will stay healthy, who will get injured, trying to balance rosters, address weaknesses, capitalize on strengths...all of this is part of why we play this game. Imposing your own will as commissioner over anyone else's right to trade according to their own judgment is just going too far.