Trade Veto - Need Your Thoughts Please - WHIR

[Hoyas1]

Hello all,

I had a trade vetoed recently and wondered if it was that out of line. This is a 16 team auction keeper league. Players get incremental salary increase each year and owners can keep any number of players totaling $100 or less and the total cap is $260.

I am far out of the playoff race this year and have David Wright who will cost me $45 next year. Last week I was approached by an owner who wanted him. I came back with an offer of Wright for James Loney ($16) and Starlin Castro ($1) - and that was rejected by the other owner.

I looked to see what other teams had a fit for Wright and players a wanted for the future. I made an offer of Wright for Gordon Beckham ($6) and Jennry Mejia (Free if I keep on Minors Roster or $1 to call up). The offer was to the 8th place team - still a little way out of the playoff race.

The offer was accepted, but, caused a slight uproar from a few owners. Subsequently it was vetoed. Briefly here are some of their (mainly one owners) arguments.

* The values of Beckham/Mejia are not the same as Wrights on Baseball HQ
* Wright should be made available for all owners to bid on
* The trade doesn't help me so I will veto all trades

After the trade was vetoed the main opponent to this trade offered me Kelly Johnson ($7) and Ian Stewart ($11) for Wright.

Was this trade that unfair that it should have been vetoed?

HELP

[Singles]

I can't say that I know much about leagues with salaries and increments but from a player to player standpoint I think Wright should be able to pull in alot more. Maybe Beckham and a better pitcher. Granted Wright isn't worth $45 but he still is a top 20 player and possibly top 3 at his position. Try moving him to a playoff contender who could use a 3b or IF upgrade.

As far as veto-ing. I tend to only veto if their is some sort of collusion (and it is obvious or provable). If owners want to make a bad trade then let them. It sucks but part of the game. I usually don't have to worry about it because my fellow owners don't have the same philosophy and veto any unfair trades.

When they say Wright should be available for all owners what does that mean for you? Isn't he on your team and you should be free to deal him as you will?

Good Luck.

[mpieco]

I do not think the trade should have been vetoed. Mejia's stuff is electric, and will certainly find his way into the Mets' starting rotation in the next year or two (hopefully after Minaya is gone, so a good team can be placed around him by then).

And I love Beckham. He's still young, and I think he has the same tools that Wright has--maybe better. It's just a matter of him putting it all together. Will he? Who knows. But I'd rather have Beckham/Mejia in a keeper league, considering their upside and potential, rather than Kelly Johnson and Stewart. With those 2 guys, you already know what you're going to get. With the other 2, the ceiling is quite high.

You were unfairly ruled against by people who know little-to-no baseball, and I absolutely hate the "I'm going to veto any trade that I don't like!" argument. You're basically proving how big of a moron you are.

Sorry your league is filled with jerks. :(

[RotoChamp]

I would be angry if I had my trade vetoed when I was trying to get players for the future. Wright can't help you this year, so you are trying to build for the future. All of those trades seem fair.

The complaints that the owner(s) had are stupid. You are trading production now for the future. Nobody willingly trades away keepers, so you provide the incentive for that by trading them more value now. Vetoing a trade because it doesn't help the owner NOT involved in the trade is wrong. A trade should ONLY be vetoed if there is collusion involved. That is a legit trade proposal. It should not be vetoed. You should somewhat publicize that you are looking to trade Wright, but you certainly don't need to do so.

http://www.rotoballguru.com/the-nathan- ... -equation/
That should help you determine what you can get in return for your players now.

I would be very angry with your leaguemates. I would raise hell over that.

[Irish Drunk]

I think this veto was wrong. Beckham is still only 23 and although he's regressed this season, his future is bright. Mejia made the Mets roster out of spring training at the age of 19, that is very impressive. He hasn't looked out of place at all in his MLB career, just needs to work on control and pitch selection. He was ranked 56th top prospect in baseball before season started.

No one should have veto rights, the trade should go to a committee of 5 and majority rules.

[Hoyas1]

Thanks guys for the thoughts! I may try to get this through next week with some of these points.

Any other ideas?