Is this a fair trade? I'm getting blasted...WHIR

[joshc]

I pulled off this deal in my league and some of the other owners don't think it is fair. Is this trade one sided enough to be vetoed?

I gave David Wright and got Dan Haren and Mark Reynolds.

Happy New Year.

[tjb072003]

I WOULD HAVE TO SAY YES HAREN IS AN ACE AND REYNOLDS HIT 44 HRs LAST YEAR WHILE WRIGHT HAD A DOWN YEAR FOR HIM I CAN SEE WHY OWNERS HAVE A PROB WITH IT TRY AND THROW IN A DRAFT PIK MAYBE THAT WILL HELP

[ayebatter]

Just goes to show ya, don't make trades with your little sister, the rest of the family might get mad.

[pacotaco27]

I don't think it's unfair, depending on your league settings.

Wright had a terrible year, but we all know he will improve, except I don't see him hitting 30 HR's.

Haren was extremely hot to start the year but his numbers in the last 1/2 of the year weren't really that great.

Depending on your league setup, Reynolds' value will really change. If strikeouts are a category, his value plummets. He also doesn't help BA at all.

Wright is potentially a 5 Category guy. Reynolds is only a 3-4 category guy.

[kidsilk]

I think it is actually vetoable depending on who is voting. Reynolds for Wright might be even but you are getting an ace as well. I see both Wright and Reynolds improving so I would say that you are definitely winning out with this deal. And whether it is vetoable depends on who is voting. I would personally veto it.

please help

viewtopic.php?t=398785

[fast dogs]

Almost everyone agrees Reynolds won't have anywhere near the year he had & Wright should bounce back some. Wright was a top 5 pick last year & a top 15 this, how much someone has to overpay to get a 1st rounder is always up for debate. Depending on your leagues settings & setup (which you really should include to get the best answers) this could be a fairly even deal in the end

[B-Chad]

Unless there is colusion, I usually fall in the camp that believe a deal shouldn't be vetoed. While I think you likely got the better of them, especially given the seasons all parties had, but unless there was colusion (which isn't the case) I say it shouldn't be vetoed.

[tantrix1969]

Unless there is colusion, I usually fall in the camp that believe a deal shouldn't be vetoed. While I think you likely got the better of them, especially given the seasons all parties had, but unless there was colusion (which isn't the case) I say it shouldn't be vetoed.

same here,I definitely wouldn't want to be on the other side of the deal but as long as collusion isn't involved I wouldn't veto this

[garf112]

looks fine to me.

[Fantasy Star]

I pulled off this deal in my league and some of the other owners don't think it is fair. Is this trade one sided enough to be vetoed?

I gave David Wright and got Dan Haren and Mark Reynolds.

Happy New Year.

If this were pre-2009 this deal looks great for both sides. Now, however, after Reynolds ridiculous 2009 season, it looks horrible. On paper it does look heavily onesided but I'm not so sure I would veto it. I am not putting Mark Reynolds anywhere near the level of David Wright. I wouldn't veto it.