Should I have vetoed this?

[Think Blue]

17 team 5x5 standard yahoo.

Team A: gives up D. Wright and E. Santana

Team B: gives up Beltre, Jacque Jones and H. Owens

Team A is in 16th or 17th already.

[Think Blue]

Anyone? Even a simple yes or no would suffice. Thanks. In 7 years of playing, I can't remember vetoing a trade. But this one might ruin the competitive balance especially because this followed a trade in which owner b received andruw jones for bob wickman (pre-injury.)

in the last two weeks, owner b has given up: beltre, j. jones, owens, and wickman and received david wright, andruw jones, and ervin santana. and he's trying to justify it.

[mjjamj]

That is a horrible trade but if team A is inexperienced I can see it happening with the way Wright has played so far. I would ask team A to justify why they are making the trade or you will veto it.

[schmidty]

I wouldn't blame you for vetoing that trade. It's not even that he's buying high - as mediocre as Wright has been, his numbers this year are still better than JJones and Beltre. I'd ask Team A to justify the trade. And if he doesn't respond (which he won't if really giving up on the season), then go ahead and veto.

[ahuff]

It is too hard to answer, because I am not aware of the rosters strenghts and weaknesses. That is really what it comes down to. Team B has really gotten some pretty good players in return. Is Team B trading with other teams, or just the one? Perhaps he is selling high/buying low or offering other teams players that would strenghen their teams. If there is collusion, then certainly veto. That, in my book, is the only time one should use that right.

[CBMGreatOne]

It is too hard to answer, because I am not aware of the rosters strenghts and weaknesses. That is really what it comes down to. Team B has really gotten some pretty good players in return. Is Team B trading with other teams, or just the one? Perhaps he is selling high/buying low or offering other teams players that would strenghen their teams. If there is collusion, then certainly veto. That, in my book, is the only time one should use that right.

People always say that collusion is the only reason to veto. People who collude don't announce that they are colluding. You judge collusion by lopsidedness also.

[Vicious_Machine]

i think you can vote outside collusion too. I mean, some idiot traded Sizemore for Curtis Granderson (and the guy trading Sizmore was the league commish), trades like those will ruin the league for EVERYBODY else involved.

but this feels like collusion though.
cause like somebody said, its not like he's buying red hot guys, the guys he's getting back are doing marginal themselves.

if say he traded wright for like JJ Hardy + Owens (sorry, 1st name that came to be of a hot bat), i could say that is inexperience.