You have to put yourself in the other guys shoes when "Vetoing" a trade. Say a trade is going down in your league where one person is trading A-Rod to another for Furcal and Finley. Granted this is a lopsided trade, but before you veto it, what if it was you getting A-Rod for Furcal and Finley. You would not want anybody to veto the trade if it was in your favor. And who's to say it is not a fair trade, a-Rod could go down in the first game of the season. The guy who got Furcal just shafted the guy who got A-Rod.
Yes Mr. Cocky, anybody could get injured on opening day and have no value. That's not the point, nor is it the point that I'd rather have Manny on my team than Kent and Hunter. The point is trades should be fair, not just to the two teams involved, but to everyone else too. That's why they have the veto option. It's not JUST for collusion. Otherwise why bother with it in public leagues? Yahoo makes it pretty much impossible to get into a public league twice or with a friend.
I think that vetoing a trade has a lot to do with who proposed the trade. Granted, that is hard to figure out, but if you do know, here's why: if a player proposes that he give up a star for two decent players, maybe its because he wants those two players to plug holes in his team. However, if someone dupes another player into making a lopsided trade, then that should be vetoed.
For example, just recently, some one (in a private league, and who goes to my high school) proposed that I give him Schmidt for Tejada and Mussina. His argument was that he really wanted Schmidt. I myself do not see why he would do such a thing, but I did not hesitate to accept. But then, probably becuase our league only requires 3 out of 12 player's votes to veto a trade, my trade got vetoed. I argued that if the idiot proposed the trade to me really believed that he was getting a fine deal, then the rest of the league should let him be an idiot. (and who knows, maybe Schmidt will post outrageous numbers, completely blowing away every other FBB player)
My point is that when one player wants a certain set of players, and is willing to give up a better set of players for them, and then proposes a trade doing so, the rest of the league should let that player get what he wants.
PS. I am trying to rework that deal so that it does not get vetoed, and it looks as if Im gonna half to give up somebody else.
I had a similar situation. I needed SP badly, he needed a 3Bman in a bad way. His starting 3Bman was Tony Batista, I had Rolen and Blalock, so I offered Blalock for Vazquez and it was vetoed.
He also had Schilling and Pedro...I dunno why it was vetoed, when he has Batista as a starting 3Bman it makes Blalock more valuable to his team.
I feel the word "valuable" has the abitlity to waver depending on the situation. To me Blalock isn't as valuable because I have Rolen and I also have Teixeira at 1B who can move to 3B if needed to. On his team Blalock is very valuable.
Well the problem is alot of owners veto trades just because its not in the best intrest of their teams. I think that you should just post something to the league asking why it was vetoed and what you need to do like i said before its a close call i probably would have vetoed the deal as it is right now.
No way I'd have ever vetoed that trade, Hunter had a bad year last year, but he still puts up 25-30 HR, ~100 RBI, 10 SB, even if he has a bad average, so calling him a scrub is a bit of a joke, he's a 3rd or 4th OF at worst.
Though that's not really the point, the fact is that the trade would benefit both teams, the team losing Manny would go from no 2B spot to one of the clear-cut top 3 at probably the scarcist position.
The problem is that too many people, especially in public leagues just look at the names and not what effect it would have on the teams involved.