Does this have the right to be vetoed? (ethics question)

[BaseballFann0008]

Yesterday afternoon I traded Hideki Matsui, Ichiro Suzuki, and John Smoltz for Pedro Martinez and Carl Crawford. At 3:00 p.m. the trade was on its 2 day pending period.

Last night Matsui broke his wrist, and now the other owner is going nuts saying he wants a veto, and so are other members in the league. Me and the commish believe once you hit accept the players traded are now on different teams and the voting process is to help stop cheating. This simply seems like bad luck for the other owner, and the trade should go through. What do you guys think?

[Matthias]

I would say that people should veto based upon their idea of the trade at the time it was made, i.e. 3.00pm yesterday.

The fact that Hideki broke his wrist during the review period shouldn't be relevant to anyone's veto vote. Trade looks about fair; shouldn't be vetoed.

[chadlincoln]

I just traded for Matsui in my keeper leauge and last night was his first night on my roster. Too bad for me. No the trade doesn't get vetoed. Injury risk is always there. His just happened immediately.

[Matthias]

Note: If he had that offer sitting out there before, and then you just pulled the trigger the minute after Hideki broke his wrist, THEN I would say it should be vetoed upon the broken wrist basis. But the deal was accepted: all risks have passed and been accepted.

[pokerplaya]

As long as the trade occured before the injury, which it did, I beileve the trade should still stand.

[FlawedReasoning]

This doesn't seem like it will be a popular approach around here, but I'll go ahead and say that I think the trade is vetoable. No trade is really "complete" until after the waiting period--until then, it's really just a proposal for the rest of the league to look at and either say it's okay or it's not okay. I don't think there are any set rules as to whether the league is looking at the trade at the exact minute it was accepted or if they're considering it in light of events that occur while it's still under review. In that case, they should be able to do what they think is most fair.

Moreover, why force the trade through and create all that bad blood in your league? I'd just take the hit and work out some other deal. It stinks, but I think it's better than the alternative.

Just my .02.

[mikegp]

The purpose of the veto is so there is no collusion IMO not to protect teams from bad luck. Trade should stand.

[bdrotoronto]

As long as the trade occured before the injury, which it did, I beileve the trade should still stand.

Exactly. Any player can get injured at any time. It's often totally random. What matters is whether people thought it was a fair trade at 3:00.

To put the loss for Matsui's injury on the original owner is no more random or 'fair' a decision than putting it to the new owner. If you think that's a fair thing, then you may as well go back and re-do the whole draft, considering various injuries throughout the league this year.

[Melo255]

I agree as well that the trade should stand. Once a manager hits accept the only reason a trade should be vetoed is collusion. Bad luck is just bad luck and you have to deal with it.

[BronXBombers51]

Trade goes through.