I don't really think that should have been veto'd.
Victorino will probably end up more valuable in 2008, but neither is really a proven quantity. Victorino has had one good 4/5 year, and Ellsbury has had one good 1/5 year. Their numbers are actually pretty similar if you project ellsbury out to 450ish ABs(Ellsbury's average is higher, but his career peripherals don't really support that so it will probably come down during a full season). I can honestly say I am not really all that sure which side I would want.(throwing in cuddyer does make things a bit screwy though)
My guess is you just have a league of veto happy guys, is it a friends league or a public? If its a friends league try asking for them to actually justify their veto's...
Try to make them see reason? I doubt you have an option within the rules themselves. Talk to the other owners and see what they say, and try to check if there are any rules about veto's.(When a veto can be given etc)
If an owner can veto for any reason, and the veto can't be overturned, your pretty much stuck. If it happens often i would suggest moving to another league if it really bothers you.
Trades are a very sticky situation and going veto happy can destroy a league just as easily as not veto'ing anything.
This is why silent vetoes are so annoying. If there are vetoes, the commissioner should ask the two guys involved in the trade to explain their reasoning, then make people who veto explain their reasons for doing so, then the commissioner can make the decision.
All you can do is to email the league, explain your rationale for why the trade is fair, and hope they let it go through.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
I agree with everything stated above. Victorino/Cuddyer for Ellsbury should have definitely been vetoed, but Victorino for Ellsbury should not have. Maybe post a message on the league home page asking for the veto reasons.
If this isn't a keeper league, then yes, that trade should be vetoed.
Come on people, Ellsbury doesn't even have a job. He was great for one month in the majors, but before that was Juan Pierre in the minors.
Victorino was on pace for a 15 homer 50 SB season last year with 100 runs! There is zero chance that Ellsbury hits 15 (or even 10) homers this year.
Adding Cuddyer into this deal, makes it a hugely lopsided deal; yes, it should have been vetoed (if they are going to veto anything - I can see the argument for no vetoes - let everyone run their own team) in a league that allows for vetoes.
...sorry, but I don't see Ellsbury not having a chance to compete with Victorino's numbers this season. As a Phillies fan, I think I know a thing or two about Victorino...he's good no doubt, but he's not a sure thing and nobody can say right now that the players abilities are so far off that the trade would be veto-able.
I'm not saying I'd rather have Ellsbury, but I can see why an owner would rather have Ellsbury.
Basically, the 2 are comparable in SB, RBI, R, and K potential. However, Ellsbury probably has an edge in AVG.
Will always help in return (leave a link to your question in response)
no, the two are "potentially" comparable in those categories. Ellsbury doesn't have a job, and came nowhere close to those numbers in the minors.
It's like trading Colby Rasmus for Grady Sizemore because Rasmus "has the potential" to match Sizemore.
At this point, Victorino is head and shoulders above Ellsbury. Victorino's performance last year is the top of Ellsbury's absolute best case scenario for this year. PLUS adding in Cuddyer, makes this a way lopsided offer.