Veto-able? Fielder for Young

[Bobbleheadrusty]

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.

This is why I hate Vetos altogether. No offense to you, but your initial reaction to this trade was a veto consideration, based partially on the fact that he turned down what you felt was a better deal from you. While I dont think you were motivated by any sense of jealousy in considering a veto, there is little doubt your own needs/values played a part in your reaction.

[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.

This is why I hate Vetos altogether. No offense to you, but your initial reaction to this trade was a veto consideration, based partially on the fact that he turned down what you felt was a better deal from you. While I dont think you were motivated by any sense of jealousy in considering a veto, there is little doubt your own needs/values played a part in your reaction.

Actually there is no problem with vetoes, if used properly, as I believe they are necessary to stop any funny business in a league. If a trade is outrageously lopsided or there is collusion involved there needs to be a way to rectify that. If someone in your league traded Bonifacio off his hot start straight up for Pujols, would you just say 'oh well he's dumb' and leave it at that? Notice I said 'if used properly' which I did. I saw at a trade that I thought might be lopsided, and as commissioner, decided it was my job to look at it more closely to see if it was legit. I asked for opinions here as well as other people outside the league before I decided I would not ask the rest league to weigh in on it (notice I was not going to outright stop it which I could have as commissioner). If you had read my post correctly you'd have noticed that I was the one who did not have an open spot for Fielder so I turned him down. My own personal needs or the fact that we did not get a trade done, because I rejected it, held no bearing in debating if the trade should be vetoed or not.