Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **jake_harv88** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:12 am

I think its obvious but some say otherwise...

Team A trades Erik Bedard
Team B trades Adam Jones

What do you guys think

by **talan37** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:01 am

Unless its a long term keeper league where there are funny contracts involved...

Yes.

by **Knights** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:21 pm

talan37 wrote:Unless its a long term keeper league where there are funny contracts involved...

Yes.

ditto

by **Bloody Sox** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:32 pm

Yeah - really need more info about your league to answer. Some thoughts on different types of leagues:

- In a redraft league, definite veto.
- In a straight keeper or dynasty league, definite veto.
- In a league where contracts are used where you can keep Jones cheaper and for more years than Bedard, it could be fine
- In a league where you forfeit draft picks to keep players, if you can keep Jones for a low pick and Bedard for high pick, it could be fine.

It all depends.

by **nyrblue2** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:04 pm

Top-notch pitcher for a possible top-notch hitter? I don't see the veto here. Maybe one team needs hitting and one needs pitching.

by **talan37** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:50 pm

So, If I traded say... kevin slowey(when he got called up), for jose reyes that wouldn't be veto'able if my opponent needed pitching and i needed hitting?

by **baseballstud** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:13 pm

nyrblue2 wrote:Top-notch pitcher for a possible top-notch hitter? I don't see the veto here. Maybe one team needs hitting and one needs pitching.

yeah to a certain extent maybe man, but bedard has been absolutely lights out as of late and adam"don't call me pacman"jones has all of what, 20 major league ABs? give me a break. veto this.

by **Santana's Squad** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:13 am

No brainer here.....veto that!

by **Snakes Gould** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:25 am

yeah i dont see how that could not be vetoable. get the guy who's getting adam jones to give you some sort of detailed reasoning and if he has nothing, veto it.

by **Oatsdad** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:48 am

Boy, I hate to veto, but unless there's some REALLY good explanation from the managers why this trade makes sense, I'd have to veto it. On paper, it sure looks messed up...