Trade Vetoed (twice)

[pangbones]

I don't see the other teams need for a closer. He has 3 good closers, and he won't finish last in saves, unless there are only 6 teams in the league.

I don't veto trades unless I think people are cheating, or I think the trade is so lopsided, it'll compromise the integrity of the league. I don't think it falls into the latter, I can't comment on the former though. I do think the other guy is fine with his closers.

[Tizzle]

Unfortunately people don't really understand the whole Veto process, and they use it as a tool to stop good teams for getting better especially if you are in 1st.

[Seanyfever]

Some leagues are sure sensitive with veto. Nothing wrong with this.

[Fritzenhammer]

no veto - avoid the dunderheads, and find a league with a decent commisioner who knows what to do.

FH

[SuperS1989]

I would have to agree with seanyfever. Unless its a disasterous trade, let managers manage according to their plan for the team

[5]

This is the trade:
I get: Morneau
I give: Estrada and K-rod
He desperate needs saves and his catcher is carlos ruiz. It makes sense for both sides.

Mob rule (twice) vetoed the trade and I'm really angry. It seems like I can't trade at all!

There's nothing wrong with that trade. What's the problem? Your league has some women in it, that's all.

[Lofunzo]

Your league needs to understand that the only reason to veto should be collusion. If they think you guys are working together for some lopsided benefit to one party, then the trade should be vetoed. Otherwise, they are dictating value, and we all know that value is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.

I used to think that way but have since expanded my thinking to include trades that will greatly affect the balance of the league (ie. completely stupid trades). This doesn't qualify for either, IMHO.