should this trade be vetoed? WHIR

[fierro33]

crawford for mccutchn/mccann/big papi


argument here is that its not enough for crawford


its a 10 team non keepr h2h 5x5

c
1b
2b
3b
ss
of
of
of
util
6 bench

[Jenken]

its not enough for crawford? If anything, it's the team giving Cutch thats not getting enough, lol.

To answer the question, no, its not vetoable

[fierro33]

thanks..anyone else?

[RyeWhiskey]

No that trade should not be vetoed. In general, trades should only be vetoed if there is reason to suspect collusion or foulplay.

[Bonger]

Looks pretty fair to me.

[angry sammich]

Looks fine to me. I think trades should only be vetoed if there's collusion.

[miracles716]

although i would agree there does not appear to be collusion involved, the fact that he traded the best outfielder in baseball for a over the hill washed up DH, a struggling catcher, and a good, not great outfielder and i would have to say for the competitive balance of the league this trade must be vetoed.

[Santana4Cy]

Not veto-able.

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=414440

[thannay]

I think that's a pretty good haul for Crawford.

[Singles]

Definitely not Veto-able. Very fair. Personally I think I prefer the McCann side. McCann is have eye/contact problems and once they figure it out he will be fine. I do not consider Crawford the best OF in the game and McCutch thus far has very similiar stats to Crawford.




viewtopic.php?t=414452