Bell for Fielder. Should it be vetoed?

[jweb2244]

This trade was made. Should it be vetoed?

[dubstar]

yes, i would.

[jweb2244]

anyone else?

[coma]

I would definitely veto. Insane value for Bell.

[Benoit]

Prince for Heath?
WOW, this is robbery haha... definitely vetoable.

Help?
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=382702

[yanks0826]

If the guy really needs a closer, then no, it should not be vetoed. People have certain needs, and sometimes may have to deal away a good player to get one. But, if the dude has three good closers, then yes, it needs to be vetoed.

[espnsportsfan]

veto for sure....bell is off to a nice start but come on

[KoopaTroopa211]

I would veto

[vykeengfan]

if you feel collusion is involved, then yes.
if the guy getting bell already has capable rp's, then yes.
otherwise, no.

[RowdyRed]

If they need a closer, then why not let it go? I guess I'm just not a huge Fielder fan and Fielder is worth more than Bell, but if a guy has one closer and desperately wants another, then what's the problem? I mean, for all we know, this guy has Pujols at 1B and is feeling pretty good about having ARod coming off the DL to fill his Util spot. He could have Chipper Jones at 3B. Then why not deal Fielder to get an upgrade at RP? I don't think we know enough to say that this is vetoable.

If there is collusion, then I certainly agree that it is vetoable, but otherwise, people should generally stay out of trades.