Keeper trades.... any way to prevent the controversy?

[bjbhobbes]

Wondering if you could weight in on a recent trade. This one was between the teams in 1st and second place in our league. The league is a 6x6 (add OPS and Holds) keeper league, mixed, 15 teams, competitive, 5 yrs old league, auciton league, $260 budget, 7 keeps (5 rook keeps - not counting towards the $260). The teams involved in the league are perennial leaders. The deal went as follows:

Team in first gave up:
D. Ortiz @$52 Y1
Ichiro @ $42 Y1
Team in 2nd gave up
R. Braun @ $3 Y1
J. Lester @ $5 Rook elig

Probably, neither ortiz or ichiro are keeper contracts. The thought process for team 1 was his lead was great enough(~20 pts) to sacrifice some current talent for a bright future. The team in second's logic was of course to close the gap and take the title, sacrificing Braun in the interim.

In your opinion, is this vetoable? as a point of reference, this league recently vetoed a Ortiz and IRod ($14 Y1) for Russ Martin ($1 Y2) and Lastings Milledge (pre beltran injury, $10 Y1). This was between the leading team (who eventually did get ortiz) and a back of the pack team. The vote to veto was 12-2.

Thanks in advance for your help. Also, any thoughts on preventing such controversy in the future?

[talan37]

I wouldn't Veto it. Auction keeper trades can be so tricky because in some cases the keeper cost can vary so widely from there actual value.

Honestly, I would probably prefer the 2nd part of the trade, although you didn't mention if the keeper price changes, or how long you can keep someone, which would change it a little.

Team 1 is trading two not so great keepers, for 1 great keeper, and 1 ok keeper.

[Bloody Sox]

Unless I am completely misreading the scenarios, I don't think either of the trades you mentioned were anywhere near vetoable. In both cases, Team A was trading studs for prospects, which is the entire essence of trading in keeper leagues. It seems like the only reason it is coming up at all is because Team A is in first place - which shouldn't be a factor at all. If Team A were in last place, would people have vetoed those deals? I doubt it. If he's done well enough to build a substantial enough lead, why should he be punished and not allowed to take the risk of trading his studs for prospects? That's just poor sportsmanship on everyone else's behalf. In fact, if you veto the latest deal (involving Braun) then you are also punishing the 2nd place team who is trading in a more traditional keeper sense - trading prospects for studs - why should he not be allowed to try to win this year?