Deserving of a veto?

[AroundTheFur922]

12 team H2H categories, I proposed to a buddy of mine after he lost Stanton to knee surgery, that I give him Halladay/Dunn/Hart for his Stanton/CJ Wilson. He accepted. The next morning I get an email from the commish stating that I'm "lucky he's the commish" because otherwise it would have been shot down through a league-wide veto process. Now, granted, I definitely prefer my end of the deal, but I don't see how it would be veto-able as Dunn is on pace for 45/110 and Halladay is, well, Halladay. Just curious to hear some feedback from the forum.

[SAKIC_19]

I don't see anything wrong with it. You may have given up to much by including Hart. Both Stanton and Halladay are injured and assuming they both come back healthy it's a pretty fair deal.

[wazzeus]

I would tell the commish he's "lucky" you're not commish, because you'd be better at it.

Not even remotely vetoable.

[exm]

I dont see anything wrong with it either

[kidsilk]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that deal!

please help

viewtopic.php?t=450501

[k.k.]

Ditto here. Deal looks fine. Nothing really contentious.

[jnb125]

not even close to vetoable,... and besides the fact, no trade should be vetoable unless collusion may be involved. people value players differently, it shouldn't be for others to decide.


help! viewtopic.php?t=450491