Yoda wrote:Bloody Sox wrote:I've never really understood the "helped both teams" argument, at least when it comes to lopsided trades. The bottom line is that all things being equal, the guy trading Oswalt could have gotten a LOT more than Markakis and still filled his needs. If this is a standard, non-keeper league where the last place team has nothing to gain, then its an ugly trade no matter what - but barely close enough to not be vetoable.
True but an owner making a stupid trade should not be basis for a veto. It happens in MLB all the time.
Really depends on the league I'd say. We go out of our way to try to keep our league stocked with expert players but we still do have a couple new/bad owners who accept some pretty terrible trades. We as a league have agreed that we don't want the league champion to be the team that did the best job of fleecing the newer managers with bad trades so we have given a lot of veto power to the league.