Is this vetoable...?

[bzborow1]

Team A gets: Aramis Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins
Team B gets: Ike Davis, Nate McLouth, Drew Stubbs


Is this vetoable or just horribly one-sided? Non-keeper league.

[RowdyRed]

What do the two teams rosters look like?

It looks bad, but if someone is sucked into the Davis hype, and then thinks that McLouth will turn it around, and that Stubbs is an interesting possibility, then maybe this isn't so bad. The problem is that ARam and Rollins play scarce positions, while none of the other players do. But if the guy trading away ARam and Rollins has nice back-ups at 3B and SS, then maybe this deal makes some sense.

[bzborow1]

The team trading Rollins and Ramirez now has Jose Bautista at 3rd and Asdrubal Cabrera at SS.

[RowdyRed]

Then it is a bad deal. I have no idea if there was collusion or not, so I have a hard time commenting on the vetoability of the deal or not. But it is horrendously one-sided for sure.

[Captain Furtah]

I will almost always say no to this question, but this is pretty bad. Is there a chance of collusion in this case? Either way I would probably still say no, maybe the other owner thinks A Ram is still hurt from last year and Rollins is further away then we think. If both players weren't injury risks It wouldl look even worse, so maybe thats what this beggining owner thinks...

[Kimbos Beard]

If this is a keeper, you could probably make a serious argument for it. (Rollins and ramirez are both aging and have injury issues)

But this is not a keeper. Is there any signs of collusion? Even if there aren't, this may result in league integrity issues as well.

[mkultra]

Really dumb deal from I'm assuming a panicking owner, but the point of a veto is not to overrule poor judgment.