Is this trade veteo-able?

[killakaronic]

Keep in mind that this is a money league where everyone involved should have some sense of what they are doing.

I give up

Josh Smith
LaMarcus Aldridge

Receive

Kevin Garnett
Dwight Howard

Damn commish vetoed it on me.....

[Maniak]

...Thats a terrible deal for the other guy. If a commish didnt veto it youd be lucky as hell

[nicknamefrank]

well if you only looks at ranks, it's a fair deal.

but from a basketball fan point of view, it's like 2 franchise players for 2 upcoming stars. nevertheless, its gonna feel strange to say this but it's probably more or less fair.

So not veteo-able

[KeylessEntry]

Honestly that trade isnt that bad. If Howard doesnt improve FT shooting, and Garnett's numbers continue to go down, it could be a pretty even trade.

[anditsrew]

yea...i agree that this trade is veto-worthy

[kumquat]

meh it's borderline. Dwight is so overrated.

[bigkingsfan]

It isn't that bad, but for a money league I could see why people would be so uptight.

[RapsFan]

It shouldn't have been veteod. The only reason it was because of the bigs names of KG and Dwight. What if the Dwight owner is trying to improve in FT%? Who knows.....but it's not a veto trade.

[AmazingWade]

I would Veto that trade... Aldridge is still to inconsistent and you know what you will get from Garnett and Howard

[RapsFan]

Originally Posted by AmazingWade

I would Veto that trade... Aldridge is still to inconsistent and you know what you will get from Garnett and Howard

It doesn't matter if you know what you're going to get. You know you're going to get punished in FT% and TOs with Howard, and you know that KG in Boston is declining. Aldridge is without Oden right now, and is an improving big man who is a C. Josh Smith will probably be the highest ranked player this deal.

I would lose my mind if I did this deal and it got vetoed. Another example of why I will not participate in Veto leagues .

[benJAMin]

Its a perfectly fine trade. There is no case for collusion in that deal. Each team stands to gain something.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about which of those players are going to be the most elite by the end of the year, and everyone would have a point.

The real question is, since this is a money league between friends/aquaintances (or even if it were between strangers), why are your chances of winning that money dependent on one commissioner? He obviously has a vested interest in seeing other teams remain more weak as he probably owns a team as well, and could or could not have more significant relationships with other owners that give them distinct advantages in these kinds of situations over you or others. How does this possibly seem like a good investment to you? I'd be pissed to be in this circumstance.

If you really want to have a fair chance at winning your league and the pot, you should change the veto policies to distribute the "power" more evenly, creating a more fair environment for everyone. Just my two cents on the matter.