Does this deserve to get Vetoed? WHIR!!!!

[pre1322]

I just made this deal in a 12 team keeper league (6x6 w/ HLDs and OPS, keep 10):

**EDIT: My roster in the 3rd post down.**

I give Ricky Romero, Chad Billingsley and Mike Leake
I get Clayton Kershaw and a 2nd round pick after keepers (12th round overall)

I talked to a couple people around and everyone said this was legit...but now we're going through a voting process and a couple guys chasing me in the standings are making a fuss over the deal, wanting to have it vetoed. There's no collusion involved whatsoever...the guy giving Kershaw has Joe Blanton rostered to tide his staff over and is in desperate need of depth. I have depth to deal him. In fact, I have never talked to the guy this year other than to negotiate this deal.

I checked out some numbers, and Billingsley hasn't been as bad as the numbers suggest (3.41 FIP, .333 BABIP). Take out the monstrosity against the Yankees a few weeks back and Romero has the same numbers as Kershaw minus a few K's. Leake is a good young pitcher who has a decent chance at being able to be kept for free this year (<30 appearances). I don't see this as incredibly lopsided...am I totally off the mark?

Leave a link, I will return the favour!

[MaudDib]

I don't see a problem with this. You could actually make a case that getting Romero and Billingsley is the better part of that deal. Have you asked the league for reasons behind the veto?

[Singles]

I wouldn't veto this. It wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.



viewtopic.php?t=417385

[pre1322]

I also thought I was giving up too much. I made the deal because I need a spot to activate Brett Anderson on Friday, purposely overpaying to open a spot and maybe get a pick for next year. I'll post my roster at the bottom of this post.

I did get reasons for the vetoes, but they are baffling. 2 people said I wasn't giving a top-end talent good enough to match Kersh, and that the pick is overkill. I suppose they are saying that I'm peddling junk for a top-ender and a high pick (which I disagree with totally, as Romero and Billingsley are solid young pitchers IMO.

The 3rd veto was because I was giving too MUCH for Kershaw. This I agree with, but planned for based on my roster. I am okay with giving up too much on the surface, because the roster spot I open up has an immense amount of value to my roster crunch.

I've never seen 2 reasons post that diverged so greatly...

Here's my roster: 12 team H2H, 6x6, keep 10
C Miguel Montero
1B Mark Teixeira
2B Ian Kinsler
3B Pablo Sandoval
SS Jimmy Rollins
OF Josh Hamilton
OF Adam Dunn
OF Carlos Gonzalez
UTIL Joey Votto
BN Curtis Granderson

SP Adam Wainwright
SP Josh Johnson
SP Ubaldo Jimenez
RP Jonathan Broxton
RP David Aardsma
P Bobby Jenks
P Matt Thornton
BN Yovani Gallardo
BN Ricky Romero
BN Chad Billingsley
BN Colby Lewis
BN Carl Pavano
DL Brett Anderson

[djfoss73]

people really seem way too eager to veto things...these threads pop up all the time, its really never a necessity IMO except in a case where one team is actively working to help another at their own expense. even if this deal were horrendously lopsided, its not vetoable unless you intentionally made it lopsided (and i dont mean because you need a roster spot). the veto isn't there to prevent idiocy, just collusion.

[mpieco]

absolutely should not get vetoed. the people are just trying to prevent you from getting immediate help.

[Goatrider]

We just got Kershaw and Seth Smith for Cody Ross, Brad Penny, and Barry Enright in an NL only league. Didn't create a stink. I'd fight the veto. Are you sure they are not vetoing the trade do to your overpayment? STOP VETOING LADIES!

[daswah]

Or they're using the veto as a way to control who gets better.

[Tony Micelli]

Yeah .. I really don't think it was that bad at all either.

[sinicalypse]

yeah i dont know about keeper league drafts as i've never done one, but that doesnt scream out egregiously veto-worthy.... usually i post a whole bunch more, but this doesn't necessitate it.

here's mine for excrements and giggles >>> viewtopic.php?f=26&t=417451