Is this trade vetoable?

[The Loveable Losers]

Very interesting. These guys obviously take their league very seriously and they've reached a consensus. There was an additional wrinkle to the deal other than the straight up player for player that seems to have swayed a lot of people who might have otherwise been on the fence which was the draft round swap, what is it exactly?

I heard a 9 round difference, but being removed from the situation, what is the pragmatic difference there?

I guess to me the deciding factor would be the level of activity of the manager giving up Zambrano. Is he like those of us here that pour blood sweat and tears into our teams or is he just some guy casually hitting the accept button out of indifference to the game?

I can't say for sure what I'd do, but if I were you I'd probably just let the matter lie or try to work a more favorable draft pick swap.

9 round difference originally. We keep 6 players and it's a 14 team league so we're talking a 4th rounder in the redraft so players 127-140 in next year's draft with the 4th rounder and players 280-293 with the 15th rounder.

Team A (my team) actually tried to compromise and bump the 15th rounder up to a 9th rounder (players 197-210). The compromise was also rejected by the consensus.

Team A is in 2nd place, is completely obsessive about the league and obnoxiously anal (as well as the worst sort of waiver wire vulture when it comes to closers) and has a ridiculous 139 moves on the year already. (It's alright to talk badly about someone when it's you ).

Team B is in 5th place, is a very active fantasy manager and has 51 moves on the year.

Both Team A and Team B have been in the league for well over a year (longer for Team B) and have been active positive members in the league.

As for letting the matter lie, that's exactly what I plan on doing now that even the compromise has been rejected. As I mentioned, missing out on the trade doesn't hurt my team in my opinion. I could care less on that regard as I wasn't sure about the deal to begin with but the lottery ticket that is Zambrano was too good to pass up given the fact that the pick upgrade would make up most of what I would be losing by not being able to deal someone for picks at the end of the year.

I am however livid about what this means for the future of the league. I've always thought this league would be a great place to be around for the long haul. Now? I'm just not so sure. I'm very much a believer in vetoes being for illegal activity (collusion, player dumping, etc) and that's IT. I firmly believe that owners should be able to have their own valuations on players even if those valuations go against the norm. If you don't let people value players differently than the consensus then that leads to very boring leagues where you have straight-up value for value trades supplementing paint-by-number drafts. I'd much rather see people going out on a limb, trying things out of the ordinary and seeing how their team fares. I'm just not sure if this league will allow that anymore and I'm very disappointed by that fact.

[The Loveable Losers]

I don't know if anyone else sees what I see - but what I see is that LL has a dominant team (as evidenced by vetoer number 2 complaining that he is stacked in several positions) and they are using this as a tactic to deflect him from getting any stronger.

Seems pretty bush league to me. I'd be furious if I was either manager here...

You've hit on something there though not exactly in the way you phrased it. I didn't start with a stacked team when I took this team over after the 2005 season - quite the contrary. I've made a TON of trades to get to this point (you can read back through the entire saga of my team at my team page - there's a link at the bottom of each page that goes to previous years) and while I've been comfortable that I wasn't ripping the other owner off on all of those trades but one (get to that in a moment) the rest of the league hasn't always agreed. There's been the sentiment at points in the past that I always get the better end of deals and I think that's some of what you're seeing here.

By the way...the one deal I DID feel I was ripping the other owner off with was one that was offered to me and I had to take it even though it was blatantly unfair (though it didn't turn out well for me). Before this season started, way back in February, a guy offered me a draft pick upgrade and BJ Ryan (who he'd have to drop into the draft to make room for Prior anyways) for Mark Prior. I had Prior on my protected list but had no intention whatsoever of making him one of my 6 keepers. I did however like keeping BJ Ryan more than John Smoltz and honestly even if he hadn't given me Ryan (who again, he wasn't going to keep anyways) I would have taken whatever someone offered me for Prior. I'm surprised that one didn't get vetoed...that was far more aggregious than this one. Too bad it didn't...I would have kept Smoltz then instead of BJ Ryan.

[Lofunzo]

Whether I agree or not with the vetoers (I don't), I like the fact that they all explained their reasoning.

[The Loveable Losers]

Whether I agree or not with the vetoers (I don't), I like the fact that they all explained their reasoning.

There's no question (in my mind at least) that they all think that the deal is unfair. I don't have any problem with any of them nor do I question their motives. I do think my perceived history of 'winning trades' coupled with some questionable valuations (Vernon Wells is a borderline FA in a 14 team league?) has led to a veto in a situation where the deal is a lot closer than that.

My bigger issue is why trades are getting vetoed in a situation where there is no hint of impropriety and where both teams are very competitive in the standings. That's not what vetoes should be used for and I don't like any league heading in that direction.

[CBMGreatOne]

Whether I agree or not with the vetoers (I don't), I like the fact that they all explained their reasoning.

There's no question (in my mind at least) that they all think that the deal is unfair. I don't have any problem with any of them nor do I question their motives. I do think my perceived history of 'winning trades' coupled with some questionable valuations (Vernon Wells is a borderline FA in a 14 team league?) has led to a veto in a situation where the deal is a lot closer than that.

My bigger issue is why trades are getting vetoed in a situation where there is no hint of impropriety and where both teams are very competitive in the standings. That's not what vetoes should be used for and I don't like any league heading in that direction.

I agree with you, I always say that the most important factor in deciding whether a deal is vetoable is the intentions of the teams involved. You guys are obviously both very sincere in your intent to improve your own teams. While I also agree that people should be able to value players the way they want to, there is always IMO a point to draw the line. Drawing it at this trade, though, is just not appropriate.

I don't know if anyone else sees what I see - but what I see is that LL has a dominant team (as evidenced by vetoer number 2 complaining that he is stacked in several positions) and they are using this as a tactic to deflect him from getting any stronger.

Seems pretty bush league to me. I'd be furious if I was either manager here...

It's not really fair to chalk up the replies of 10 different guys who have obviously given a lot of thought to their opinions on this trade to mere jealous blockery. I think that there is a general consensus of logic that tends to be flawed, but the league is a democracy and these seem like reasonable people. Vetoes are always a touchy subject.[/quote]

[pokerplaya]

Whether I agree or not with the vetoers (I don't), I like the fact that they all explained their reasoning.

There's no question (in my mind at least) that they all think that the deal is unfair. I don't have any problem with any of them nor do I question their motives. I do think my perceived history of 'winning trades' coupled with some questionable valuations (Vernon Wells is a borderline FA in a 14 team league?) has led to a veto in a situation where the deal is a lot closer than that.

My bigger issue is why trades are getting vetoed in a situation where there is no hint of impropriety and where both teams are very competitive in the standings. That's not what vetoes should be used for and I don't like any league heading in that direction.

I agree with you, I always say that the most important factor in deciding whether a deal is vetoable is the intentions of the teams involved. You guys are obviously both very sincere in your intent to improve your own teams.

I don't know if anyone else sees what I see - but what I see is that LL has a dominant team (as evidenced by vetoer number 2 complaining that he is stacked in several positions) and they are using this as a tactic to deflect him from getting any stronger.

Seems pretty bush league to me. I'd be furious if I was either manager here...

It's not really fair to chalk up the replies of 10 different guys who have obviously given a lot of thought to their opinions on this trade to mere jealous blockery. I think that there is a general consensus of logic that tends to be flawed, but the league is a democracy and these seem like reasonable people. Vetoes are always a touchy subject.

[/quote]

Understood. But people are inherrently flawed and self motivated, so I wouldn't be surprised even if it wasn't malicious.

That's why I don't play in leagues with vetos. Or if their is a veto policy, it's made clear that it is only to be used in collusive circumstances.

[Snakes Gould]

yeah im with the rest of the guys and say absolutely no veto.

[RowdyRed]

Having read all this, it is blatantly clear that the reason they are vetoing this trade is because of a dislike for your team continuing to improve through trades. While some of your trades may be unfair, that doesn't necessarily mean that this one is. Vernon Wells (while maybe not the greatest OF option in the world) is certainly a worthwile option. On Friday on this board, there were people advocating dropping Zambrano altogether, because he has little to no value for the rest of the year (which I happen to not agree with). I've never thought that Zambrano was a stud must-have pitcher, so I can't see why you can't trade a guy like Wells for a guy like Zambrano, but the draft pick upgrade is a little suspicious, but not awful, altogether. Awful use of veto, though I do love hearing explanations.

[Go Blue Jays]

Some of you guys i think are forgetting the value of a 4th round draft pick.. 9 rounds is a big difference for two players with equal value (or Zambrano whos even better)

[pokerplaya]

Some of you guys i think are forgetting the value of a 4th round draft pick.. 9 rounds is a big difference for two players with equal value (or Zambrano whos even better)

LL, what were some of the players drafted in the 4th round of the draft this year?