Opinon on Vetoed Trade

[friedrich15]

im looking for an opinon on this trade from guys outside our league ...our league is very veto happy and all people do is complain about trades....we are all friends and this is the 5th year of our 14 team keeper league 5x5..so heres the trade that was vetoed

this guys gives up

A Gonzo
Kurt Suzuki
Ryan Doumit

and in return gets

Pedoria
McCann
Ryan Franklin

this trade get vetoed the first night so the guy trading A Gonz adds Randy Wells to the mix and the trade is accepted by the league and gets 4 vetos.

what do you guys think ..everyone is our pretty much says if 2 owners agree on a deal it should be allowed..i also agree...my problem is the guy take 2 catchers one who is on the DL and says he doesnt like having closers so he pretty much give franklin away

Good Trade ? Bad Trade? thanks fellas

[Tenacious D-Store]

I don't understand why someone would deal for two catchers (unless your league starts two as some of mine do). I see more value in the Pedoria side, but as I have always said there is no winner and losers in a trade. If the trade benefits both teams then both sides win even if one person had to give up more value to fill his needs. I only veto the trades of teams that are beating me... lol. That's a joke people relax. Just as I don't feel it's right to dictate to others what is best for their team by voting against trades, I don't think it's right to say that others aren't free to voice their own opinions. If I trade gets voted down, I usually don't sweat it. I would have left you guys alone personally. I think for a lot of people they see a trade and think to themselves "I wouldn't do that trade" so they vote against it. I wouldn't own a dog, but if you want a dog that's really none of my business, if you catch my drift.

[RHobbs]

Every manager has his own strategy. I doubt I'd do this trade, but I don't see why it should be vetoed. The teams casting the vetoes should have to state their reasons why it shouldn't happen, or the commish should let it go through. It's too easy to hide behind an annonymous veto.

[friedrich15]

yop

[RDD15]

Not at all a vetoable trade. Not even close.

The fact that people probably think the Pedroia/McCann side of the deal wins out is what is funny here. When you consider the fact that Pedroia is nothing more than a big name that produces Polanco-esque numbers, the deal being vetoed becomes laughable.

[friedrich15]

up top

[jake_twothousandfive]

That shouldn't have been vetoed. Vetoes really should only occur when collusion is involved. And since you are all friends, that shouldn't be an issue.

I've always thought the commish should be the only one with the ability to veto a deal...and they should only exercise that authority in extreme circumstances.