Should this trade be vetoed?

Just saw one in a league where one guy is trading Bonds for Shawn Green and
Colon. I don't think the two of them add up to Bonds' worth, but the guy
giving up Bonds has some lousy pitching. (6x6 league, 5x5 plus K's for batters
and holds for pitchers)

His starters are Webb, Thomson, Victor Zambrano, Miguel Batista, Ramon Ortiz
and Nate Robertson.

Does the lousy pitching mitigate the difference in value?

If Colon was a better pitcher, maybe I could see this deal. But he's gotten
smacked around a couple of times recently.

In my humble opinion, this may not be a fair trade, but not one that
needs to be vetoed. Vetoed trades should be reserved for those that
are so grossly unfair that you have to wonder what the guy is
thinking. Trading Bonds for an upgrade in pitcher and potential
upside of Green, if he returns to form of a few years back, may not be
a bad trade. Someone, incuding yourself, may be saying, "Heck, I
would give him more for just Bonds." But that in and of itself should
not constitute whether the trade should be upheld or not.

I say, let it stand.

Agreed. Besides, if one is to believe the 'roid hype Bond's body should
fall apart any second now from prolonged use. Personally, I don't, but many
are discounting him this year. And if someone is using the argument of
"Heck, I would give him more for just Bonds." maybe they should have.

in article 4091d0ef.748774410@supernews.cablespeed.com, Mitch at

IMO, the guy getting Bonds is getting a hell of a deal. Not a good trade,
but you can't veto bad trades. Only unfair ones, and this just looks bad.

No. The trade isn't designed to create one super-team through collusion,
it's just a gamble for the guy picking up Colon and Green. Imagine if the
Red Sox were allowed to veto all of the Yankees' trades....nothing would
ever get done in the MLB.

--
Remove ****az to Reply

No way. At face it may not look good but the potential is there for Green
AND Colon to help a team more than just Bonds.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode test 33Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2 10th March 22:14 trijcomm External User Posts: 1	Should this trade be vetoed? If Colon was a better pitcher, maybe I could see this deal. But he's gotten smacked around a couple of times recently.

4 10th March 22:14 pete benson External User Posts: 1	Should this trade be vetoed? Agreed. Besides, if one is to believe the 'roid hype Bond's body should fall apart any second now from prolonged use. Personally, I don't, but many are discounting him this year. And if someone is using the argument of "Heck, I would give him more for just Bonds." maybe they should have. in article 4091d0ef.748774410@supernews.cablespeed.com, Mitch at

5 10th March 22:14 jumping jack flash External User Posts: 1	Should this trade be vetoed? IMO, the guy getting Bonds is getting a hell of a deal. Not a good trade, but you can't veto bad trades. Only unfair ones, and this just looks bad.

6 10th March 22:14 jdiddy External User Posts: 1	Should this trade be vetoed? No. The trade isn't designed to create one super-team through collusion, it's just a gamble for the guy picking up Colon and Green. Imagine if the Red Sox were allowed to veto all of the Yankees' trades....nothing would ever get done in the MLB. -- Remove ****az to Reply

7 10th March 22:14 jim tiberio External User Posts: 1	Should this trade be vetoed? No way. At face it may not look good but the potential is there for Green AND Colon to help a team more than just Bonds.