trade vetoed? should they be upset

[shawngee03]

this trade recently got vetoed, and the guys involved are trying to change everyone's mind so that they can get it passed. i vetoed it so that the guy getting vlad wont have such a superior team. we are all sending messages to the commish to see if it should go through or not

14 team, h2h, 8x8..k, fpct, ops, L, hlds, hr allowed
hlds being the important part, as in devalues closers tremendously

team a trades hanley/juan pierre/jenks/sheets
team b trades vlad/oswalt/damon

team a b4 trade
c barret 1B ortiz 2b durham
3b chad tracy ss hanley
lf bonds cf hunter pence rf luke scott
util JOSE REYES
bn pierre, willingham, jd drew, crede

sp beckett, chris young, sheets, d willis, gaudin
rp fuentes, f cordero, jenks


team b b4 trade
c ivan rod 1b swisher 2b polanco
3b beltre ss tejada
lf jose cruz cf damon rf vlad
util fr thomas
bn reggie willits

sp paul byrd, dan cabrera, lackey, maddux, vasquez, oswalt
rp weathers, mike gonz, gagne, ryan franklin
dl tom gordan, bj ryan

[shawngee03]

let me add the guy trading away vlad is in last, and wants to now try and win steals, as it is a side pot. and teh guy getting vlad is already near the top of the standings

[CBMGreatOne]

I probably wouldn't have vetoed that in any format. You could argue that Hanley is more valuable than Vlad all things considered (age, health, etc.). The other pieces involved are still pretty good on both sides. I'd say they have a right to be upset.

[las_vegas_keith]

this trade recently got vetoed, and the guys involved are trying to change everyone's mind so that they can get it passed. i vetoed it so that the guy getting vlad wont have such a superior team.

I don't think the vetos should be used because you think one team is going to get better. The vetos are based on the trade and if the trade is fair. The trade is fair and shouldn't have been vetoed.

[shawngee03]

thanks guys. ill pass yalls advice on to the group. hopefully we can settle it before someone loses a limb

[TonyCee]

this trade recently got vetoed, and the guys involved are trying to change everyone's mind so that they can get it passed. i vetoed it so that the guy getting vlad wont have such a superior team.

I don't think the vetos should be used because you think one team is going to get better. The vetos are based on the trade and if the trade is fair.

Word, thats lame.

[Lofunzo]

Definitely no veto. I also hate your reasoning for vetoing.

[Danger]

No veto, bad reasoning to veto as well by you.

[Bloody Sox]

Aside from the stated reason for vetoing (Vlad to the top team), you also show the teams' rosters which implies that is a reason to veto - it might shed light on why a team made a trade, but it certainly shouldn't affect your veto decision. PLUS the last place team had a very good reason for making the deal - if your league has side pots in place to keep bottom teams interested, why handcuff them?

[shawngee03]

a trade finally got approved which included...

Hanley Ramírez (Fla - SS)
Barry Bonds (SF - LF)
Juan Pierre (LAD - CF)
Bobby Jenks (CWS - RP)
Dontrelle Willis (Fla - SP)
for
Johnny Damon (NYY - CF)
Vladimir Guerrero (LAA - RF)
Roy Oswalt (Hou - SP)

and he afterwards tried to use willis and lackey for russell martin which also got vetoed(not by me as ive given up vetoing)

as you can see he is just trying to do whatever he can to win steals. which is a side pot, and yes is in his right, but the feeling of everyone else is that he is overloading some teams just so he can win $25(buy in was $150). why should some teams have a run away roster bc he wants to win back 1/6 of his money?