Would You Veto This?

[MaudDib]

It's pretty bad, but I've seen a lot worse. This is not vetoable unless collusion is suspected.

x2

Not even close to vetoable.

[RocketsDWM]

It would depend on roster makeup too. Perhaps the owner trading Reyes has a steady SS in the wings ready to take over.

It is a tough sell for the owner trading Reyes as Reddick probably hit his ceiling last year and Sale has some injury concern. But Taveras and Miller are unknown commodities while Reddick and Sale have at least produced at the major league level. Also hard to equate the value of the 2nd rounder.

In sum, I don't see a veto as necessary. Unless you suspect collusion.

[ensanimal]

No veto for me based on the trade alone.

The whole question about a mulligan for the new guy/drunk guy is something your league needs to really discuss. It could set a dangerous precedent though for the future. There was an old cafe league that had something like this happen and I was on the receiving side of the steal. When I opened it up for discussion the resounding result was that it should stand. No excuses for bad trades.

[thedude]

The issue of whether the proposing owner should get a mulligan is a question for the league as a whole, and should have little to do with the relative values of the players.

[thedude]

The issue of whether the proposing owner should get a mulligan is a question for the league as a whole, and should have little to do with the relative values of the players.

[RedHopeful]

No veto for me based on the trade alone.

The whole question about a mulligan for the new guy/drunk guy is something your league needs to really discuss. It could set a dangerous precedent though for the future. There was an old cafe league that had something like this happen and I was on the receiving side of the steal. When I opened it up for discussion the resounding result was that it should stand. No excuses for bad trades.

Yep, this has been brought up and I agree. It's a very competitive league (it used to have a draft page here where guys like powerM and Aussiedodger were participants) where most of the managers are on the ball. Problem with this deal is that the guy who proposed the deal is a new guy and he's trying to partially use the novice excuse. IMO, either the trade stands, or if it's rescinded, the manager should be replaced. Like many cafe regulars who love a competitive league, it's important to keep the integrity of it intact.

[Grounded Polo]

I'd veto because how much worth is there in a 2nd round pick in this league? Looks like a top 25 player and 2 top 5 prospects for a pick w/ minimal value, a top 20ish starter, and a outfielder getting drafted in the 150s. The Sale side clearly loses in both today and tomorrow aspects.

I'm not sure I like your league where trades just get vetoed. Veto power should be for trades that can really damage a league or there is obvious collusion.

What if the Reyes owner wants to dump because he thinks Reyes is going to fall apart in the next year or two. He ended up with 24 yr old near ace and a solid 27 yr old OF'er. The prospects could make this deal look terrible (or great) in a couple of years.

As a comparison everyone thought I lost a big trade that involved can't miss prospects several years ago (probably after '09). I got Votto (before breakout) and DHolland for Billingsley (when he was good), JMontero and Drabek. This was a fairer deal but everyone obsessed about how great Montero was going to be while Votto was only going to be very good. They also thought I downgraded significantly at pitcher but I had wanted to pawn Billingsley off for some time. It's possible that this owner wants to do the same with Reyes. It's likely that this owner could have done better especially since he tossed 2 stud prospects into the deal but Sale is a young stud pitcher and those are really hard to find in deeper dynasties. Reddick obviously won't repeat last year but he's a pretty solid hitter imo and fairly young.

I haven't actually voted to veto a trade since like 2005. A basketball cafe league is having a heated discussion about doing just that right now and I'm intentionally staying out of it. Your trade is pretty fair if it's 2008 - Billingsley was 24 and racking up 200 k's per year. Votto wasn't a top 25 guy like Reyes yet, the prospects probably wash out at that point. Do you think it would really take two top 5 prospects with Reyes to unload him for Chris Sale? I don't see the argument from a guy trying to unload Reyes to get younger then trades away two of the very best prospects in the game along with him to do it.

[kab21]

I haven't actually voted to veto a trade since like 2005. A basketball cafe league is having a heated discussion about doing just that right now and I'm intentionally staying out of it. Your trade is pretty fair if it's 2008 - Billingsley was 24 and racking up 200 k's per year. Votto wasn't a top 25 guy like Reyes yet, the prospects probably wash out at that point. Do you think it would really take two top 5 prospects with Reyes to unload him for Chris Sale? I don't see the argument from a guy trying to unload Reyes to get younger then trades away two of the very best prospects in the game along with him to do it.

You have made no case regarding veto'ing this trade. it's not a great trade but different owners value players differently. Some will ding a guy like Reyes for being old while at the same time ding prospects for being unproven. In this case he got a 24 yr old near ace and solid 27 yr old OF'er. I wouldn't have made the trade but it's not vetoable.

FWIW - most of the criticism of my trade was that I had given up a future Miguel Cabrera. Holland vs Montero/Drabek was definitely not a wash. Holland and Drabek were closer to a wash but I really liked Holland and wanted to part with Bills and Drabek . Different owners and different valuations.

[AussieDodger]

Would You Veto This?

No, never.
Basically nothing is veto-able in my book.

Call me crazy, but I don't mind the Reddick/Sale side. They've "done it" and the prospects haven't. Also, S.Miller seems to be a fastball-only pitcher right now, and that never ends well.

[dmendro]

I don't think it's veto worthy. Like others said, vetos should only be used when it's obvious the owners are colluding.