What to make of this trade? WHIR

[CubsFan4Life23]

So I am the league commish and do allow players to voice their opinions before deciding if a trade should pass or be vetoed...

Just want an opinion...

Team A trades Kinsler / J Zimmerman
Team B trades Espinosa / Nolasco

I personally think it is completely lopsided, but wanted other opinions...

The team that traded away Kinlser said he was drunk last night when he accepted, so does that make a difference in how I handle whether or not to allow or veto it?

[SumG]

I don't think it's vetoable in a vacuum. That said, if one of the owners made an honest mistake and wants to back out of a trade, I could see myself voting to veto it at his request. If it were a relaxed, casual, friendly league, I would probably vote to veto. If it were a intense, competitive league or a league with significant money on the line, then I think you reap what you sow.

[WaCougMBS]

This is an obvious no veto, no matter what kind of league. That deal's pretty close to as even as you can get considering Espinosa has been as good or better than Kinsler and Nolasco isn't on a pitch count and could easily outproduce Zimmermann in the counting stats as a result. If anything, I'd say the side you're over-favoring (IK/Zimm) is actually the weaker side of the deal ...

And honestly, drunk or not the deal got made. Intoxication is/has never been an acceptable excuse for any fantasy league in which I've played, and on top of the fact that stories stemming from this reason are hard to prove, what's the point? This isn't a court of law - you don't have to prove the difference between involuntary or voluntary - he made a decision, and his state of mind should have nothing to do with anything in terms of a fantasy league.

Just my $0.02

[lane_anasazi2]

This is an obvious no veto, no matter what kind of league. That deal's pretty close to as even as you can get considering Espinosa has been as good or better than Kinsler and Nolasco isn't on a pitch count and could easily outproduce Zimmermann in the counting stats as a result. If anything, I'd say the side you're over-favoring (IK/Zimm) is actually the weaker side of the deal ...

And honestly, drunk or not the deal got made. Intoxication is/has never been an acceptable excuse for any fantasy league in which I've played, and on top of the fact that stories stemming from this reason are hard to prove, what's the point? This isn't a court of law - you don't have to prove the difference between involuntary or voluntary - he made a decision, and his state of mind should have nothing to do with anything in terms of a fantasy league.

Just my $0.02

100% Agreed. J-Zim is pretty much done being a factor this season, and Kinsler hasn't been particularly good whereas Espinosa has been very, very good. Honestly in a redraft I'd probably take the Espinosa/Nolasco side. Kinsler might have a better 2nd half, but Nolasco's going to be pitching all year.

Just the fact that you can make a reasonable case for the other side means this isn't a lopsided trade. "Lopsided" means it's not even a question, like Adrian Gonzalez for Brett Wallace. That's "lopsided."

[DattKemp27]

I only like to veto a trade if their is obviously something wrong(I.E. Robinson Cano for John Jaso,I acctually saw that one). If i think one person is making a bad move (like Howie Kendrick for Fausto Carmona) i let that person deal with it themselves.

[converge241]

Done see any problems with this one, theres risk and upside all around