Veto: 5 player deal WHIR

[tah161]

2 guys in my league are trying to make a deal:

Team one gets
Soriano
Kinsler

Team 2 gets
Abreu
Prado
Posednik

Is this deal fair? Talking to a guy another guy in the league he says it dosent make team one any better, and that is a really fair deal. I dont feel the same way, despite Kinsler coming on the DL

Secondly the team losing Kinsler and Soriano is not very active. I have a feeling he just logged on, to help a friend. He has half his pitching staff on the DL.

I sent a note to the commish saying if team 2 stays active I will let this trade slide even though I think its dumb, but if team 2 goes inactive again then players should be re-instated to original teams.

Thanks for the help

[bigmck]

You can't veto it just because you "think" a friend might be helping a friend. You can't veto it just because you personally would not make the deal. Unless it is VERY uneven, don't even consider a veto. Vetoing trades is the best way to get people to quit your league.

[tah161]

You can't veto it just because you "think" a friend might be helping a friend. You can't veto it just because you personally would not make the deal. Unless it is VERY uneven, don't even consider a veto. Vetoing trades is the best way to get people to quit your league.

Did you even read what I posted?

[JonSamuelson]

tah161,

I think your solution is pretty reasonable if it's true that the team who appears to be selling off good parts has a history of that sort of thing, and/or they're REALLY inactive. The thing is that that's a pretty dicey situation to put your Commissioner in. If it were my league, and I was pretty much positive that this was some sort of collusion, I'd put it to a league vote, and ask them if they were okay with reverting the players to the original teams if the bad team remained inactive afterwards. No way would I feel comfortable, as a Commish, just unilaterally deciding to undo the trade by myself.

[RowdyRed]

The deal isn't that lopsided. I wouldn't do the deal, but this is not vetoable....I don't like your solution either, because I would be really uncomfortable as the commish making that decision, one way or the other.

[mkultra]

The problem with your suggested solution is twofold:

- Who defines "inactive"?
- What kind of timeframe is involved in deciding whether a team is inactive or not? You're talking about undoing a trade after at least a week, which is all kinds of trouble.

[Kimbos Beard]

The deal on its face is not too bad. I dont think you have much of a chance at vetoing unless this inactive thing is really extreme.

If he logged in made the trade and left half his pitching staff on the DL, then I begin to question whether there is some collusion involved or not.

Sometimes people are clever with collusion, it doesnt always have to be Lincecum for Louis castillo.