Getting bitched at for veto'ing this...

[tinfoilxtouch]

So last week someone accepted:

Eric Chavez, Gagne
for
Wright

I thought there was no option but to veto this... and then I got bitched at by like... four different teams in the league.

It's a 6x6 (ops, k/bb) and I can't think of ANY reason to take two 12/13 rounders for Wright.

I made the right move here... didn't I?

[chris8]

Sorry, but I don't think you did make the right move.

Obviously, I would prefer to have David Wright here. But the team who traded him is probably looking at his lack of homers so far, and also probably wants to get another closer, so wants to take a chance on Gagne being back to his best.

Dumb move? Probably. Vetoable? Not for me...and apparently not for at least 4 guys in your league as well.

[CBMGreatOne]

I think it's a veto for all of the obvious reasons. I don't think any would argue that the Wright side is getting the better end of the deal. I think this is a clear veto. It would certainly be voted down in any league I play.

[converge241]

yeah no way on this one

if it was gagne from a couple years ago maybe

[bpizle]

No veto. Although it would have had numerous objections in my league probably

[BigMusky]

the correct action is allow the trade an not invite back the person next year for being an idiot.

You do not veto trades just because it is lopsided unless it equates roster dumping.

[CBMGreatOne]

the correct action is allow the trade an not invite back the person next year for being an idiot.

You do not veto trades just because it is lopsided unless it equates roster dumping.

Again, I don't understand this mentality. It shouldnt' be incumbent on every league manager to make a crappy offer to a newbie owner lest they "not get there first." This trade is too lopsided to go through, because one person's ignorance (you concede as much) has given another owner a huge leg up on the rest of the league. In the interest of fair play, I can't get behind the above philosophy in trades that are this bad.

[las_vegas_keith]

I don't like the trade at all, but I do not think that a veto is in order. I am of the mind that people should be allowed to manage their team. If you found cheating then fine, but to say one person is getting way more than another, it's up on the team owners to make their own trades.

I know there are people out there saying that all trades must be fair and by allowing the trade you are destroying the league, hey that's baseball. There are always bad trades in baseball and there will always be bad trades in fantasy baseball.

In my league, there have been two vetos in nine years of the league. Teams are allowed to do what they want and the owners are generally pretty good about knowing what's going on. But there have been some questionable trades and in the end it always works it self out. We have a keeper league with salaries, so that does come into play, especially when someone is playing for next year.

But in this case, horrible trade, I would never do it, but you have to let people make their deals. When I first started, I made some questionable deals and learned from them.

[CBMGreatOne]

I know there are people out there saying that all trades must be fair and by allowing the trade you are destroying the league, hey that's baseball. There are always bad trades in baseball and there will always be bad trades in fantasy baseball.

There is a veto policy in MLB. If you want to compare fantasy to real life, you're barking up the wrong tree by saying they are the same because there AREN'T vetoes. Bud has vetoed deals for the sake of the league many times.

[pangbones]

Wow. I can see arguements for both sides on this one. I would probably let it go if it were my league. I don't like the "two 12th rounders for a 2nd rounder" argument, because as each week passes, draft position matters less and less IMO. Chavez has been a "top 5 3B" for most of his career. The only reason he was available so late was because he played hurt last year and his numbers suffered because of it.

I would definitely give up those 2 for Wright, because I'm a firm believer that good hitters eventually figure things out. Wright's power will come. But who are you to tell this guy that he can't take a closer, that he may need, (and that was the best in baseball by far 2 years ago), and an underrated 3B to replace his underacheiving 3B!! I don't think it's that lopsided of a deal.

What happens if Wright ends up with 28 HR's 99 RBI and 90 runs scored, and Chavez hits 26 HR's and has 90 RBI and 84 runs scored and Gagne saves 34 games? Would you veto it then? You just don't know whats gonna happen. Thats why I don't veto any trade unless it is so horrible it'll ruin the league. That trade won't ruin the league IMO. Just my 2 cents.