Martin Jones + for Quick +

[cunningham19]

Sorry to waste your time with yet another hilarious league veto but

Martin Jones + 10th round

For

Quick + 4th round

Was just vetoed bc the league feels Jones is less than Quick, picks should be switched due to grubauer "having the starters contract" and Jones only playing while he was injured. The league also feels this is a sell high scenario.

[This Guy]

It's not a good trade but it shouldn't have been vetoed. Your league sounds ridiculously trigger-happy over vetoes and is micro-managed.

[stevegamer]

Sorry to waste your time with yet another hilarious league veto but

Martin Jones + 10th round

For

Quick + 4th round

Was just vetoed bc the league feels Jones is less than Quick, picks should be switched due to grubauer "having the starters contract" and Jones only playing while he was injured. The league also feels this is a sell high scenario.

I don't agree with the veto. I do agree with the bolded part of the explanation, though. Technically we'll see about the only while injured part. I'm guessing there's little chance that this is collusive.

It's not even close to the worst veto I've ever seen, where people voting for a veto couldn't even agree on which side was better. Having seen this both as a takeover commish in a league with a veto rule and as a player. I think veto votes shouldn't be just yes/no. I liked to found out why people voted to veto things - sometimes it was just because it makes two other teams better. We had one guy who put up almost every trade made to a veto vote in a football league, unless it was something like a kicker for a team defense, and neither team was playing him that week. As the interim commish, I decided that once he did that for 3 weeks, every trade was getting a veto vote - we had a (very dumb) rule that it took one ask for a veto vote to get consideration, and it was secret as to who did it. So I submitted on every one he didn't - of which all but one or two involved him or his best buddy or both. I hated that job.

[horrorfan]

Vetoes should never been required if you trust the people in your league to manage their own teams. Yes there will be unbalanced trades, but that's part of the game. We don't know what's going to happen so my view is that if you trust your managers then let them manage as they see fit. If you feel something doesn't look right or a deal is really unbalanced (it must be obvious), as the commissioner, do you want these managers in your league or not? Choosing to veto (or at least enabling others to vote that way) is simply a bandaid solution that doesn't address bigger issues. If I were in a league that had a deal like that vetoed and other managers suggesting it needed re-worked so it's acceptable to them, I would simply say let the deal go through or I'm leaving the league. I would no interest in being in a league with such petty managers who should focus on their own teams rather than trying to manage others.

[Survivor]

Sure Martin Jones has played really well and Quick not so much. I think that is the first thing the members in your league should be looking at. Yes, Grubauer is a factor in all of this, but he is not lights out. I think your league was wrong to veto this trade.

[senryu]

This shouldn't be a vetoed trade. Both Jones and Quick's recent histories have been wildly variant, so no one can say that either one has a certain, undeniable value. Two lottery tickets that could both be great, bust, or anywhere in between.

[Wonko]

Another horrible veto with no merit.