Kazmir for smoltz vetoable?

[A817]

kazmir is coming of an injury and smoltz looks like he will be out for a long the time. Is this trade vetoable? the trade was completed today after smoltz bad news.

[rb11]

not in the slightest

[flloyd]

No way in hell is that vetoable.

[Matthias]

Hm: depends on the situation. How well do you know these guys doing the trade?

It's not the worst trade I've seen but it's very far from being the best. News I see has Smoltz being out for the next month and at 40 years old, you gotta wonder.

[Russell James]

Nah, I'll be surprised if either of them have 20 starts.

[noseeum]

I have a disclosure rule in most leagues I'm in where owners are obligated to disclose injuries. If the guy didn't know about Smoltz' injury, then I would reverse it and admonish the shifty owner for selling damaged goods. But that's in my leagues where we have that rule established.

It's been a few days, so I don't see how the guy wouldn't know.

[A817]

hey thanks, the guy didnt know the degree of smoltz injury and that he will go to the dl, since that news came today. So it got vetoed.

[WaCougMBS]

No way in hell is that vetoable.

agreed

[Russell James]

The guy didn't know the "extent" of Smoltz's injury.

He should be penalized for being an idiot.

[flloyd]

As an owner of both I've been following both of their injuries. It was clear since Sunday's start that there was a very good chance that Smoltz would be back on the DL. Quiote frankly if the person who traded for him didn't know the "extent" of his injury then I think that that is his fault. I think the only time it might be fair to veto a trade like this is if it were a case like Tulowitski last night; that is someone with no injury history, you're watching the game see he's been pretty hurt, propose a trade to someone who doesn't see any news on the injury and then quickly accepts. At least in that instance there was kind of an unfair balance in information, however everyone should have known about both Smoltz's and Kazmir's status.

In the end both before and after injury I think there are good arguments for each player and it was in no way vetoable.