What is the cost of PUJOLS & A-ROD with out a veto...?

[Clevelander]

VETO's are ridiculous if you ask me, unless collusion is involved i think that if both needs are met between the 2 owners on a trade it should nearly always go thru...not because you dont do something to get that player or you dont like the deal yourself which is the case in most leagues...

take a PUJOLS or A-ROD...what is fair without a league uproaring over a veto...

in our league a trade for pujols went thru... surprising, i disregarded the veto chance, it was fair in my opinion but there are 2 teams in an uproar and crying relentlessly on the message board...it was pujols for sosa & percival...nothing wrong with that right...

i'd love to hear what others are seeing in their leagues as well as your opniion on the all so might word...'VETO' and when you do it...

[Arlo]

In general, I only use vetos in cases of collusion or other rules infractions. In one of my leagues, however, we also overrule trades that clearly take advantage of folks just learning the game.

In any case, Sosa and Percival for Pujols doesn't sound veto-worthy...

[Apex]

I don't think vetoes should be used that often, and I don't think the trade you mentioned should have been vetoed, but I'd sure love to be on the side that gets Pujols.

I guess an example of a trade that would merit a veto would be Pujols for Brandon Inge or A-Rod for Prior, Gagne and Sheffield. Both are ridiculous of course, but I guess that's the point. If someone just gets TOO much value in the trade, I think a veto would be warranted.

[Zito is God]

I just "quit" a league cause out commisioner was inexperienced and let the trade

Pujols

for

Sheffield
G.Anderson
Loiza


go through.

[TheRawDAWG]

Yeah vetoing trades in leagues where everyone knows what they are doing should be very rare. But I don't shy away from a veto. If I believe the trade is one sided and it will shift the balance of power too much in one way then I'll veto. I don't care how much an owner thinks of Corey Patterson's potential, he's not worth a V. Wells.

Also, I'd have a hard time with the Pujols trade, I'd probably let it go but I'd have to think about it. And the only reason is because I think Sosa can bounce back. I don't however believe Percy can bounce back and with a degenerative hip he'll be out before the break. Thats a close deal leaning towards a veto but not so much so that it deserves a veto. And if the trade was put through in a league I'm in then I wouldn't veto but I'd voice my displeasure on the boards.

[Pedantic]

I just "quit" a league cause out commisioner was inexperienced and let the trade

Pujols

for

Sheffield
G.Anderson
Loiza


go through.

Hmmm...that doesn't seem that bad to me...if you're referring to the Sheffield, et al. side getting the better deal.

[hayseed]

Yeah i was gonna say, i dont that trades all that un-even.. no reason to quit a league over...

[Guest]

I'm about to drop my public Yahoo league because all my trades are getting vetoed. I don't know how to find out who is voting against the trades or why either. It is so frustrating. How can you agree to a trade with so many different commisioners and still get a veto?

[bleach168]

I think everyone here will agree that the side getting Pujols is getting the better end of the deal.

I personally have a distaste for 2 for 1 trades. While this particular one isn't horrible, it certainly opens the door for more similar trades that will unbalance the league.

[CBMGreatOne]

Pujols

for

Sheffield
G.Anderson
Loiza

Actually this is a little bit too much to give up for Pujols, but I don't think it deserves a veto BECAUSE of the legitimate concerns one of the owners might have about Sheffield's health, and as people who are in the cafe league with me know, I am conservative when it comes to what trades I consider passable.

In the case of Pujols for Sosa and Percival, it's very close, but I think it IS worth a veto, although a lot of people are taking Sosa as early as the second round in fantasy drafts, so with it being that close, I probably would refrain from voting to veto myself.

I will say though that the above trade is an example of a classic fantasy sucker play. Find the owner without a closer and trade him a markedly inferior bat plus a middle tier closer for a super stud. I've seen it too many times to count, and while it follows the "Both teams improve" rule, because a guy is better off losing a point in four or five hitting categories not to come in last place in saves, it's still one that ought to be vetoed a lot of the time.

I'd rather see something like Pujols for Sammy and Rivera. That would be a lot more even value wise and it wouldn't so blatantly scream the sucker play I mentioned above.

As for the last guest, I would be curious as to which trades you have made are getting vetoed. Some public leagues will veto just about anything, but a lot of times people have philosophies like mine, and if give me some for instances, I can give you my take on whether a veto is justified, for what it's worth.