What do you think of this trade?

[Biohazard1454]

So I had a trade get vetoed and I was wondering everyone's opinion on it. Here it is:

I get Manny Ramirez, Michael Young, and Tim Wakefield for Gary Sheffield, B.J. Upton, Al Reyes, and Jared Weaver.

I understand that I get the two potentially best players, but here is how I break it down.

1. Sheffield and Weaver for Ramirez. Sheffield may come close to Ramirez's production, but obviously he may not (swing in my direction). Weaver, I think, makes up for the difference because the other team could use pitching.

2. B.J. Upton and Al Reyes for Michael Young. Say what you will about Upton (I'm trying to sell him high) the other team needs a 3B. The other team also needs a closer and I think Reyes makes this part pretty fair.

3. Wakefield was just thrown in so that the other team didn't have to drop 2 players. I would have dropped him if the deal went through.

Again this was vetoed in my league by the other managers. I'm looking for opinions on this and any advice would be appreciated. Thanks guys.

[pokerplaya]

You get the better end of the deal, but it certainly should not have been vetoed. Just sour grapes on their part.

[BTOWNHESS]

absolutely not vetoable. Another classic case of why the veto power should rest solely with the commish and not the entire league.

[CBMGreatOne]

That was a really bad veto. I don't think the people you're playing with have been paying attention. Sheffield, Upton, Weaver and Reyes are all very valuable players.

Michael Young is arguably done (I don't think so, but you could argue) and Wakefield is an absolute afterthought. Manny is a great player, but the deal was perfectly fair.

[Biohazard1454]

Thanks guys for your thoughts. I'm a little stunned that the people vetoed it, but can understand why. I'm currently in 1st place and the guy I'm trading with is in last. People in the middle are starting to make moves and I was trying to stay ahead of the curve.

This all relates to my other post "Trade Vetoing Power" where it's clear that the other people in my league are using the veto as a defensive move. It's well within their right and that's the problem. Since I'm in first, they don't want to see me get any better so they veto every trade that I'm involved in. Is that fair...I think not.

I know that CBM has had strong opinions towards people vetoing trades, but here I think shows where it can be a problem. What do you think CBM?

[CBMGreatOne]

Thanks guys for your thoughts. I'm a little stunned that the people vetoed it, but can understand why. I'm currently in 1st place and the guy I'm trading with is in last. People in the middle are starting to make moves and I was trying to stay ahead of the curve.

This all relates to my other post "Trade Vetoing Power" where it's clear that the other people in my league are using the veto as a defensive move. It's well within their right and that's the problem. Since I'm in first, they don't want to see me get any better so they veto every trade that I'm involved in. Is that fair...I think not.

I know that CBM has had strong opinions towards people vetoing trades, but here I think shows where it can be a problem. What do you think CBM?

I'm a little confused by this question, only because I just said what I thought in the previous post.

Honestly, it was a fair trade and I think you should link the people in your league to this site. Show them my contributions to the "Trade Vetoing Power" topic to establish that I do veto trades more than some, then point them to how I said that this deal clearly wasn't vetoable.

Sheffield + Upton for Manny would be fair.

Reyes + Weaver for Young would arguably be a bad deal for you.

I really don't understand the commotion.

[Biohazard1454]

Sorry I didn't make it clear CBM. I know that you have been a proponent of vetoing a trade (even if there is no collusion). I don't mean to pick on you, but I've seen where you have stated this point in a few posts.

My point is, this veto seems to be a defensive move by the other teams. They don't want me to improve, so they veto the trade. They then could either swoop in and make a trade with the same guy (but that's hypothetical) or they could just do it to make sure I'm not distancing myself from them.

Since CBM you have talked about people being able to veto a trade, even if there is no collusion (because you have stated that it's hard to prove), here is the opposite to that point with the vetoing power. This is where the veto becomes strategic rather than making sure the competitive balance doesn't change in a league. I have mentioned before that I believe in a competent commish deciding if trades are fair rather than a league vote (i.e. your competitors).

I just was wondering what your thoughts are on vetoing in this situation meaning more do you believe in a commish vote or a league vote? If a league vote, than what about this problem with a strategic veto to make sure a team in front of you doesn't get better.

It's just an interesting thought, and hopefully you understand.

[Lofunzo]

You get the better end of the deal, but it certainly should not have been vetoed. Just sour grapes on their part.

I agree.