I proposed Ricky Weeks (giving up) for BJ Upton (getting) and it got accepted but my league voted it down...I was pissed and yelled at my league asking why they would do that? I have weeks sitting on the bench because I have Utley on 2B and A-Rod playing my U position because Even Longoria is playing 3B. I have Dunn, Victorino and Matsui in the OF and could really use some outfield help. I know Upton is ice cold but he will heat up and weeks is on fire but he is gonna slow up soon. I think it was a fair trade, what do you think? I mean it may not be completely even but definitely not bad enough to veto, is it? One guy answered me back saying that it was unfair for the guy trading away weeks This is the kind of incompetance that costs people championships...Any thoughts anyone?
Last edited by raiders_umpire on Thu May 14, 2009 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
thats a terrible veto. I was involved in a similar situation, i confronted the league on it and one owner said "i was envious that you were able to pull off such a deal so i had to vote no" Vetoes should be reserved for game manipulation only not shrewd management
MemphisTigerFan10 wrote:Yeah sorry to hear that man. I will say nice job on the sell high/buy low work.
Another example of terrible veto work. Sold high (at a scarce position) for a guy doing terrible (possibly still hurt). I like your side of the deal, as I don't believe in weeks, but this should not come into consideration when voting on trades. The only thing that should is sheer stoopidity, and collusion, neither of which appears to be the case. Sorry, join a league with competant owners, I guess (not calling you league junk, just the decision that was made).