Vetoable?

[lilfrier]

I see that these last few topics have been about vetoes aren't right unless there is proved collusion. I somewhat agree, but there are times in which one team's getting so much more than the other that it's just asinine. But that's not really this case. Here's the trade (12-team CBS points H2H with 4 keepers; start C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, MI, CI, 3 OF, DH, 2 Util, 5 SP, 3 RP):

Team A receives: Adrian Gonzalez (243.5 pts.) and Matt Holliday (181 pts.)---Total 424.5 pts.

Team B receives: Curtis Granderson (197 pts.), Dan Uggla (173 pts.), Pablo Sandoval (136 pts.; 1B/3B; no C-eligibility)---Total 506 pts.

Here is the reasoning behind it: Team B has Willie Aybar (TB Rays) as his only 2B. Aybar figures to be the backup starting Friday, when Bartlett returns, moving Zobrist to 2B. By doing this, he doesn't really get better talent, but he gets volume talent to fill out his roster better. The commish calls this vetoable, and at least one owner agrees. I'm the co-commish and say that the talent alone makes it non-vetoable, and the team circumstances just further back that up. To make matters worse, the commish didn't even bother to hear the owners out before going off to other owners about the trade. It hasn't been vetoed yet, but the 2 teams are pretty mad about the circumstance. What are your thoughts?

[Dan Lambskin]

no veto

[lilfrier]

He vetoed it anyway. I was the team getting Gonzo, but it's ok cuz I then traded Granderson and Beltran for Hanley and McLouth.