So My Bruce Trade Was Vetoed

[The Jury]

I would think that is a bad trade for the other guy - but certainly no reason to veto. Looking at trades in terms of were players were drafted and what they have done in the years past is ridiculous.

I completely agree here. The only "absolutely ludicrous" thing is your Commish looking at trades based on draft position.

[jswede]

This thread should have ended with this, the first response.

Were you guys colluding? No? Then the deal should stand.

I don't get leagues that veto trades b/c other managers don't like them. None of their business.

[brock middlebrook]

Commish veto sounds like sour grapes to me.

This guy does not belong on that position.

[ROC AllStars]

This thread should have ended with this, the first response.

Were you guys colluding? No? Then the deal should stand.

I don't get leagues that veto trades b/c other managers don't like them. None of their business.

Amen. Every manager has their reasons for accepting a trade, even if they are based on overly optimistic projections about a player's performance. Hell, even if they are based on sheer stupidity or irrationality, there is absolutely no reason a trade should be vetoed unless it can be proven that the owners were colluding. No one has a problem when a stupid manager drops a player that shouldn't be dropped (probably because they have the possibility of benefiting from that owners stupidity). They only have a problem with stupid moves when they don't serve their own self-interests. Absolutely ridiculous. You should have your commish read all the posts here.

[bravelaker]

bad commish... blah blah blah... no veto except for collusion... blah blah blah... weak league.... blah blah blah... find somewhere else to play next year... blah blah blah... you're such the victim here... blah blah blah... i can't believe this.... blah blah blah....

i think that about covers it.