It is really hard to get a trade through on Yahoo public teams. Most of the trades that I have ever done do not go through. I never veto trades because of this. Even if I think the trade is unfair, it is none of my business. It is between the owners doing the trade. I hate the "veto" function on Yahoo. The reason people are shooting down your trade is because Hunter's wrist is injured, and Kent had a bad year by Kent standards, so what. The trade is between you and the other owner, and is none of the other guys business.
I tend to stay away from the veto button unless it's collusion.
I've played yahoo public teams for five years. In the begining of the season most of the trades get vetoed. My theory is that they think that if that trade goes thru it helps the two teams but not theirs so screw them or they like to be a pain in the a**.
Unfortunately, every trade in a Yahoo public league is a "vetoable" trade. You could post a message asking the veto boys to speak up about why the vetoed the trade, but if anybody answers at all, they'll just refer to the Yahoo rankings
In my opinion, the only good reason to play in Yahoo public leagues is to get the names of the one or two guys in each league that actually know how to play and stay around for a whole season. When you get enough players together, you can create a private league.
i dont know about yahoo, but if this trade was made in my cbs pay league, I WOULD DEFINITELY VETO. when i got money on the line, i dont like unfair deals. i pretty much agree with the post calling hunter a late-round scrub and analyzing the deal as kent for manny. im willing to guess that the guy wanting manny made the initial offer, not the other way around. when i get a deal like this, i first look at the overall talent. it seems to be quite one-sided here. then i will look at the teams. of course, if the deal somehow helps my team out, that is, manny is being traded from a team more dangerous to me to a lesser team, then i MIGHT approve. but most likely, a trade like this involves a better fantasy owner trying to take advantage of an owner who isnt as good. and more likely that not, the guy who would be getting manny has a good team to begin with since he is tryin to pull off the coup. with the money on the line, i would no doubt VETO this trade.
btw, i dont veto them all. earlier this month, cameron santana and mota were traded for lee gordon and r. soriano. i had no problems approving this deal.
its often the 2 for 1 deals that you are most suspicious about. decent player + plus scrub = great player??? i dont think so.
I think Fantasyballer is onto something. I disagree with him having some sort of partiality based on who's team is more dangerous, but he's making the same point I am.
Vetos are necessary when one owner's lack of judgment affects the competitive balance of the league and this trade is potentially exactly that.
It is my experience that most people on this site tend to ignore the fact that elite players are a rare commodity and have no hesitations as long as it's a two for one where there's some justification. I'm not saying I WOULD veto, but it's definitely a justifiable decision.
Decent player + Scrub = Great Player is the most common kind of trade in yahoo public, and it's pretty easy to build an all star team in yahoo if you find the fish willing to bite and the other owners don't stop you.
That being said, I'm guity of just such trades, but when I have pulled them off in the past, I felt guilty about what I've done to the league.
Like last year I traded Geoff Jenkins and Rocky Biddle for Manny. It was a coup that I didn't deserve, and I would have won the league anyway.
I will concede this, however. Once the games start to be played, the numbers play a HUGE role in what becomes acceptable. If Kent is hitting 350 at the end of April with 10 home runs and 25 RBI then this trade is definitely fair.
But right after the draft, givent the offseason stock of the players involved, it's still a veto in a lot of people's books, maybe even mine.
Oh and by the way, those of you who think that a trade between two other managers is none of your business, you're fooling yourselves, any trade that happens in a league is everybody's business, especially if one owner is taking another for a ride and gaining an unfair advantage on everyone else.