VETOABLE?

[KPucks]

No veto. This trade is fair and should go through. Show your commish these postings.

[Jack-In-A-Box]

The ONLY reason a trade should ever be vetoed is if you have some reason to believe that there is collusion involved. Otherwise, I personally never veto trades. My feeling is that owners should be able to manage their teams the way they see fit. Were it up to me, the veto power would not even be an option in Yahoo public leagues. The private league I'm in does not allow vetos.

And this trade is very fair........

Another "someone has to admit to cheating for you to veto" comment from the peanut gallery. So many of you out there sit there and dont veto to trades that are vetoable because you're waiting for some moron to come out with his cheating ways. You think if Sammy had hit a homerun with a corked bat and found out later it was corked he'd admit it?? No. Same here. NO ONE WILL ADMIT TO COLLUSION. Veto to keep integrity of the league intact if you feel the need. Thats what its there for.
This trade, however, is not vetoable. Not what i would do.. but its not like this is a vetoable trade.

[Phatjimmy]

Great trade for you, but shouldn't have been vetoed.

I've been in the same league for 6 years. For the first 2, we had vetoes through ESPN. The next 1, through Yahoo. If it's ESPN, I think vetoes can be very helpful. Yahoo makes it much more difficult with the Commish being a member of the league. We got rid of it now that we have stuck to Yahoo. Life is much better without it, but it only works because everyone knows every other manager and how competitive they are. It is readily understood that any sort of collusion will end that managers tenure in the league.

[trevisc]

I agree with the majority on this one. No veto.