Should this trade be vetoed??

[Bonzai Baseball]

I agree with oddman out. I only veto when collusion is almost certain. I vetoed a trade between brothers where an e-mail was accidentally leaked to the league basically outing their trade as collusion. This is the only time I have vetoed since I started playing fantasy sports 19 years ago.

Sometimes the trades that look the worst end up being gold.

[Skimo77]

I agree with what most people seem to be saying in here... On paper this looks like a terribly one sided trade for whoever is getting Adrian Gonzalez, but it is not veto worthy. The veto should only be used if there is intentional collusion, or some other form of cheating going on that will hurt the rest of the league. In this case it seems to not be the case, let the trade stand, then try to make a similar deal with that manager ASAP!

[footballisbetter.com]

I don't veto unless I suspect collusion. Can't veto a trade because 1 of the owners is "stupid".

[yanks0826]

I wouldn't veto a trade unless there is some evidence of collusion.

Help me?

viewtopic.php?t=442728

[Goatrider]

Veto if collusion is widely agreed upon. I am in the smaller camp where I do in fact believe vetoes can be used for trades that GROSSLY effect competitive balance. But these guys are correct, sometimes the bad trades become good trades. We had an owner a couple years ago that was pushing for first place and then traded for Dan Haren when he was having that terrible second half with the D-backs and a couple other huge name guys having similar years for seemingly nobodies. There was an uproar but the trade survived a veto vote by one. That owner's team imploded afterwards and the guy that got 'ripped off' actually used two of the playes for keepers. You just never know.

And this deal is lopsided, but not too far of an extreme.

Let it ride.