I just read a string about "Should I veto this trade". This brought to mind the veto debate.
Should the veto be used whenever someone wants to?
It seems some veto trades because of their jeolosy or they want the players involved and think if they stop the trade they might be able to trade for that player.
Yes they have the "Right" to veto, but is that what the veto for?
Should the veto only be used to stop collusion?
If two stupid owners want to make a stupid trade, why should it be stopped?
Earlier this year I made this trade offer:
Thome, Maddux, M.Giles
Giambi, Beltran, Abreu
This addressed needs for both owners irreguardless of what you think of the individual players. I had Sexson so was willing to deal Thome even though Giambi is an injury risk. He had Polonco at 2nd and wanted Giles. I had Soriano so I didn't need him. At the time Maddux had no team.
The trade was shot down on the owners perceptions that it was one-sided even though both of us were happy with it and it wouldn't have made either of us a powerhouse.
In retrospect I'm glad it got shot down because I still have Giles as trade bait and Maddux looks to have landed in a very favorable position. I did work a deal involving Giambi for Thome and shipped him off for Kerry Wood.
All that said: The other owners didn't know Thome would break a finger or that Maddux would sign with Chicago. Why should they have the right to knock down that trade? We both thought it would help our teams and it wasn't collusion.
One last thing is that it was in a CBS H2H points league not roto so the points involved in the swap were close.
I hate owners who veto for selfish reasons! One guy admitted to me lated that he his valuation was based on three year averages even though Giles had a breakout year last year, so he vetoed.
Another said he vetoed it because it was too quick and he didn't have an opportunity to offer a trade first!
Post your opinions please.