Is this vetoable?

[uhhhjboy]

Our league just spazzed out and vetoed a trade of

Team A Gets: Ryan Howard
Team B Gets: Justin Verlander and Kris Medlen

And seems to have no qualms with this trade (between the 8th and 7th place teams):

Team C Gets: Albert Pujols
Team D Gets: Ubaldo Jimenez and Paul Konerko

Granted, the second trade is a little less lopsided (debatable), but still. Vetoable? Not in my book. Team B definitely "loses" but they still have a team left. Everyone who was throwing a fit about the trade are in positions 1,4, and 5 in the league because team A is ranked #3 (I'm 2).

[mpieco]

I actually find the 2nd trade to be more veto-able.

Pujols is the best fantasy player. Jimenez/Konerko is not as good a package as Verlander/Medlen (in my opinion). I think people are holding Jimenez's first half way too highly, and are blinded by it.

Howard is a great player, but let's look at it this way--he's a late 1st/early 2nd round pick. When was Verlander taken? 3rd? 4th? Point is, Verlander is on the same exact level as Jimenez, whereas Howard does not quite hit Pujols' level. And, Medlen is a great prospect. If this is a keeper league, the first trade getting vetoed is even more silly.

Your league is filled with rookies.

[uhhhjboy]

Sadly, it IS a keeper league. I'm pissed right now and I'm not even involved in the trade

[Darth Danielus]

Neither are even close to vetoable, unless there's evidence of cheating...

[daswah]

I personally HATE vetoes. But I understand why they exist.

However, I don't know if either trade should be vetoed. I see the value in both...and if it's a keeper league and depending on the rules for keepers, the value changes even more.

Sounds like your other managers are merely using the veto as a tool to keep teams within reach and not allowing the competition to get better.

[NKent]

Neither are vetoable IMO.

What do you think of my dilemma? viewtopic.php?f=26&t=416667