I'm of the mind that you have to let managers manage their teams how they see fit...so no veto. If you suspect (and can verify) collusion then the action is to lock their teams and not invite them back to the league next year. If you don't suspect collusion then you have to let the trade go through.
I think you should handle it exactly how you handled it on here ..
Just explain it to everybody ..
Say something brief about the objections you recieved on your deal, but how you felt it wasn't enough to overturn, since it didn't mess with the competetive balance of the league. But then be sure to ask for "thoughts" about this current deal. Try and stay as nuetral as possible.
Its my guess that a majority of the owners will be upset, and when you use the veto on this deal there will probably be very little if any heat, about your swap.
We have a couple of people on the board protesting it at this point. The league is a bunch of friends and each person knows about a third of the league (other people are friends of others in the league, that not everyone knows personally) and he told me tonight that he got a lot of phone calls asking what he was thinking.
I saw him come online late tonight and I told him I have recieved some complaints on the deal and he told me I could veto it if I want, and that he has his reasons and is just too tired to get into it at this point. This was at like 145am after we were out all last night hanging out with some other friends.
I am just going to wait until tomorrow to hear his case before I do anything, however, there isn't much he can tell me that can possible change my stance.
A side note, one person who complained on the board came on and said he would have given him Halladay, Puudge, Kent and Delgado for the exact same players. Is this right? I kind of have a problem with this because it lets everyone know what it will take to get him and if it gets vetoed he automatically has a strong hand and can milk it for everything its worth.
this is a really tough situation. It's clearly not collusion, but clearly a bad trade that the guy is probably starting to regret. However, in my opinion you can't veto this trade. To the guy who just offered more- he should have offered that beforehand. There is one league I'm in which is all friends, and we all chat outside of the board. There have been MANY trades in that (keeper) league (especially between two guys) where I wanted to veto and offer better. But the fact is, if an owner doesn't get full value because he doesn't shop around a bit, that's his own fault, and good luck for the other owner.
I think this is a perfect example of a very lopsided trade that can't be vetoed because there is no collusion.
That said, if your league has decided there will be a review of trades, and lopsided trades without collusion have been vetoed before, then you must veto. But then I think you have your vetos set up wrong. Good luck!
Major League Manager
Joined: 2 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: my home is in NYC, my heart is in PNC Park
Based on current numbers, this trade isn't really that lopsided. It appears one owner is giving up some proven talent for who he thinks is and will be hot. Other than Santana moving, this could be a fair deal. No trade is ever exactly equal. Does the owner of Santana have other quality starters. If so, he may have something else up his sleeve (not necessarily collusion).
Don't veto, try to get in on the good deals while they last. It's too early to know if Vmart and Soriano are going return to form. Barmes and Towers could be the reason for the deal.