Veto-able? Fielder for Young

[rocky123]

I'm the commish of the league, standard 10 teams, 5x5 roto. This trade was done last night and I was like WTF? Prince Fielder for Michael Young straight up. I know for sure there was no collusion involved but I still think it is so one sided that it should possibly be vetoed. I have never ever blocked a trade or even voted against one and hate the thought of doing it but I am thinking of emailing the
other players in the league to see what they think. Should I even bother since there was no collusion or is this trade bad enough to merit a lot of scrutiny and a league vote.
Thanks for your opinions guys.

[Matthias]

As long as you know that there's no collusion, then let the boys play.

[tantrix1969]

as one-sided as that trade is if you know there's no collusion then I think you have to let it go through

[DaShiz23]

Agreed.

stoopid....yes
vetoworthy...nope

[rocky123]

Thanks for all the responses guys. Any more opinions would be appreciated even though I doubt they will differ from the ones already posted.

[Trojan Pony]

In most cases I agree with "No Collusion, No Veto" but the one exception I make is if the guy on the bad end is a complete amateur, doesn't know any better, doesn't care, etc. In my opinion, it's not fair for a lopsided trade to upset the competitive balance of the league just because of one bad manager. Does the guy getting Young fall under that category? If so, then I think a veto is warranted. If he's an established manager, has some credibility, has made generally smart moves in the past, then you have to let it pass.

[RDD15]

In my points league with no crazy scoring categories, Mike Young has scored 69 points so far this year. Fielder has scored 46. Fielder plays the loaded 1b. Young plays TWO positions, SS and 3B, which are less loaded.

I think that Fielder will probably end up having the better year, but at this point we are further than 10% into the season, and "small sample size" is starting to take less meaning than it did a couple of weeks ago.

You stated that you are certain that collusion is not a factor here. I think that regardless of either of these guys' experience levels with fantasy baseball, this is not vetoable.

I have a team where if I had Fielder, at this point I would have to at least consider an offer of Young for him. (16 team keeper with Minors and large rosters. Current SS is Barmes and I have Pujols, and Adrian Gonzalez on the team.)

[Bobbleheadrusty]

I think, depending of course on your categories, that this is a pretty even trade (within certain parameters of course).

You could, relatively easily, argue that Young is higher ranked at SS then Fielder is at 1B. Im not saying I would, but someone could. Factor in guys above Young underperforming, you could argue (Im not) that he is actually MORE valuable as a SS then Fielder is at a 1b.

[rocky123]

Thanks a lot for all the responses guys. While I feel the trade is terribly lopsided I took all the comments here into account and I'm gonna let it go through. I am positive about two things (well 3 if you count that I'm positive the trade is terrbile)1)there is 100% zero collusion involved and 2)the guy getting Young knows what he's doing or at least did until this point. I sent him an email saying that I was shocked that he made the deal and felt he could have gotten more for Fielder ( I was going to give him Hamels but had no room for Fielder so he had an idea of Fielder's value). He responded that in hindsight he thinks maybe he was too eager. It was just dumb all around on his side because the Young owner came to him first offering Atkins/Meche for Fielder and he countered asking for Young straight up, so his loss. Thanks again guys.

[Trojan Pony]

OK, so he was an otherwise competent manager and honestly thought at the time that it was a wise trade for him. Then yeah, it definitely should have been passed. Good job on your part.