Vetoable Trades??

[Giants415]

Trade 1: P.Fielder and A.Rios for Hafner

Trade 2: M.Holliday and R.Baldelli for J.Santana and N. Markakis

Are any of these vetoable?? And which one seems more fair?

[Jakra]

I don't think either are vetoable. There could be legitimate reasons for both, although I don't agree with them. For #1, Hafner doesn't have 1B -eligibility, and might need a first baseman. Hafner for Fielder straight up I could justify a veto for, but Rios has a shot at 25/25 or 30/30. I'd rather have the Hafner side, but I think it isn't vetoable.

For #2, the owner who has Santana may have too much pitching on his team. It isn't as if Holliday and Baldelli are scrubs. Again, definitely want the one side(Santana), but its not rising to the level of vetoable.

[trevizzle]

neither is touchable

[A Fleshner Fantasy]

Neither is more vetoable, 2nd is more fair though.

[CBMGreatOne]

If I believed that both teams involved were honestly trying to improve themselves, I wouldn't veto either deal.

I might consider a veto vote if there was some other reason to suspect collusion, but these trades are close enough that they shouldn't be vetoed purely based on player value.

[converge241]

both fine

[prricci]

why would this be close? Only veto collusion and obvious managers that have given up.

I do not participate in leagues where there is vetoing of legimate arms length deals.

now if pujols was traded for lugo for example, then this would be obvious enough to be considered collusion, but those two trades are not close to being suspicious.