triple3play wrote:This is a H2H points dynasty league.....i had a trade in place to send Rollins and Javier Vasquez for Jared Weaver. The comish vetoed it and im not too happy about that. With that being said would you trade Alexi Ramirez and Vasquez for Jared Weaver.....that would leave me with Rollins as my starting SS....i have Aviles and Theriot as backups
Frankly, that second deal deserves the veto more than the first. Javier Vazquez?????? A back of rocks is worth more lol. And if Rollins gets the veto, what makes you think Al. Ramirez will not? Seriously, while you could argue that Rollins for Weaver is an OK deal based on SS scarcity, Rollins' ADP and reputation, it is still a really bad deal for the guy losing Weaver imo. Veto worthy..probably not but it pushes close to the line of common sense so you really should not be upset if your Commish vetos it. He is a hard liner and I would have no problem with that as long as he is consistent with it. Just because you throw in a barely fantasy worthy late round SP pick does not make it a good deal.
And from a purely philosophical point of view, I have never agreed with the theory that some subscribe to that trades are laisse-faire and as long as no collusion can be proven anything goes. That is utter nonsense imo. If you have a league where someone is a fool and deals Pujols for James Loney and Sergio Mitre, then it should be vetoed. Trades are supposed to be essentially fair. They do not need to be equal, but they should be reasonable. It is not fair to the other members of a league if one fool can ruin it for everyone else. Fantasy baseball is not a competition to see who can find the league fool and cut a lopsided deal with him to gain a decisive edge. Any league that allows that is a bad league imo. It upsets the balance of power unfairly and no one wants to play with idiots. And winning a league that way proves what?