Hudson for Sizemore - WHIR

[oxhammer]

I was trying to low ball to start negotiations for an upgrade in the OF. I really didn't think Orlando Hudson for Grady Sizemore would go through. I thought I'd end up with a different OF in the deal. The trade was accepted though. I can see where it makes some sense, just not enough. He could use an upgrade at 2B and has some OF depth. His team has been jumping between 1st and 2nd place all season, so it's not like he's throwing his team away. I'm also the commissioner of the league. Puts me in a tight spot. What do you guys think?


Twelve Team, Standard 5x5 Roto, No Keepers

My team:
C - Joe Mauer
1B - Lance Berkman
2B - Brandon Phillips
SS - J.J. Hardy
3B - David Wright
OF - Matt Kemp
OF - Coco Crisp
OF - Brandon Inge
DH - Orlando Hudson
BN - Asdrubal Cabrera - 2B/SS, Eric Byrnes - OF

SP - Jake Peavy, Chad Billingsley, Erik Bedard, Jon Lester, Félix Hernández, Barry Zito
RP - Joe Nathan, Mike González, Chad Qualls, Jason Motte
DL - Justin Duchscherer

His team:
C - Víctor Martínez
1B - Prince Fielder
2B - Howie Kendrick
SS - Derek Jeter
3B - Jorge Cantú
OF - Grady Sizemore
OF - Adam Dunn
OF - Jacoby Ellsbury
DH - Elvis Andrus
BN - Willy Taveras - OF, Michael Bourn - OF

SP - Ubaldo Jiménez, Gil Meche, Ted Lilly, Javier Vázquez, Ryan Dempster, Roy Oswalt, Tim Wakefield, Jered Weaver
RP - Troy Percival, Joel Hanrahan
DL - José Valverde

[murphysxm]

i am a firm believer that collusion is the only reason to veto a trade. If somebody makes a bad choice and accepts a trade that isn't good, shame on them. I see no problems with the trade standing. For the record I hate when people low ball me like that!

help me if you can
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=386071

[METS 24]

Deleted

[lilfrier]

I don't think collusion should be the only reason to veto. If the trade hurts the competitiveness of the league, it should be vetoed. This doesn't necessarily do that, but I think it should be vetoed regardless because the talent exchange is tremendous to where it could hurt it over the whole year.

[mac-unit]

In any league I'm commish and I was part of the trade I'd put it up to a league vote for 24 hours. It worked better then me just putting the trade through and risking losing league members.

[reverend]

Um thats not even. I'd have the league vote though.

[lilfrier]

I have only one issue with votes though. It's that I found a couple of years back that a couple of owners in an old league would reject EVERY trade. Sometimes, it can also be that teams may vote against a trade just because it may help a team their battling with for a points title, a division lead, or a playoff spot. I think it's good to ask opinions, but not leave it solely up to a league vote.

[Dan Lambskin]

no veto

[shawngee03]

if youare commish, you should have a way set up so that you are not the only vetoing person on your trades...like designate someone else to do it on trades you are involved in...or league vote. something besides you having to decide on your own trade

i would say you might have to veto this one...set something up...then maybe try it again

[MrDaveyHavoc]

If there's one thing you NEVER do, it's change league rules mid-season without unanimous consent. Your league uses Commish Vote, there is no collusion, he legitimately thinks he is improving his team, as do you. Allow the trade.