gfantasy wrote:BronXBombers51 wrote:Ok, here's a hypothetical for you.
Team A is heavy in steals but low in power. They agree to a trade in which they trade one of their only power threats, Miguel Cabrera for Team B's Carl Crawford.
A team trading for more steals when they severely lack in power could hardly be considered a beneficial trade. So by your logic, this is veto-worthy? Since Team A isn't benefiting from this deal, that means that it's a bad trade? BS.
The owner decides what benefits his team, not you. You decide whether you think collusion was involved, because that's the only legitimate reason to veto a trade.
I think that you would agree that Lidge for Ortiz is a little different than Crawford for Miggy.
That isn't the point. The point was, he said that he judges trades based on whether or not they benefit each team. That trade doesn't benefit Team A, so would he consider it veto-worthy?