Should this trade be vetoed? WHIR

[Yahtzeee]

I'm co-commissioner in a 12 team mixed KEEPER auction league. We are all about teams at the bottom of the league making trades to acquire young keepers and prospects to build their team for the future, but is there any way that the following trade is even close to fair? I appreciate any input that you all can provide.

Team 1 (in contention) receives:
active: Ethier ($7), Cain ($16), B.Wilson ($7) and reserves: Wieters ($3), Porcello ($3), and Posey ($5)

Team 2 (not in contention) receives:
active: Crisp ($7), Brett Anderson ($5), Percival ($6) and reserves: Cecil ($1), Samarzjia ($1), Holland ($3), Stanton ($3), Dan Murphy ($1), and M.Byrd ($5)

I feel that Team 1 clearly gains a major advantage for this year, and one could argue that he also gains the advantage when you look at future keepers and prospects. Is there any way to justify that Team 2 improves his team with this trade? Should we veto this trade? What do you think?

[cws5887]

VETO! Pretty bad when Crisp is the key part of the trade!

[JBagKY]

Its hard to see why team 2 thought this was a good deal. Are these owners that have been in the league for years or are they fairly new?

Regardless, it seems a little shaky. Espeically with Wieters and Posey going to team 1. If the reserves were reversed, this deal makes much more sense. But, as commissioner of my league, I would serious question this one.

[Yahtzeee]

Thanks a lot for the input...I was thinking the same thing with the reserves involved. There was no logical reason to have to include Wieters, Porcello, and Posey in this trade. I would like to gather as much input as possible on this matter, so I would appreciate even more replies to the original post. Thanks. WHIR

[Dan Lambskin]

i think the first thing you should do is ask for an explanation and if you dont get a good one Veto

[RDD15]

Mighty fishy. Like Lambskin said, ask for explanation. It doesn't even have to be a good one, just a plausible one.

[Yahtzeee]

Well I took your advice and got an explanation from the owner who is clearly at the short end of this trade. His response was basically: "I feel that the trade helps my team for the future, and since I pay money to be in the league, I should be able to make my own decisions to manage my team how I stay fit." Does this explanation validate this trade? Or, if us co-commissioners (along with probably everyone else in the league) still see it as lopsided, are we justified in vetoing this trade?

[cws5887]

Guess that's why his team is not in contention! I would not let this trade go through.

[shawngee03]

ask him again to explain how this makes his team better. not just say it makes it better...that is not good enough...that is a canned response...not an explanation

i dont see how this can go through...and i would kick that owner out of the league next year for being retarded

[cws5887]

Are these two guys father and son? Ask the guy doing the pillaging about who propossed the trade and what convinced the other owner to make the trade?