Just wanted people's thoughts on this because there are no guidelines here on voting for trades.
In my opinion, the best trades help both teams but there are cases in which one team "wins" a trade another team "loses" the trade. This a lot of times is a matter of opinion but sometimes it's fairly clear cut. I don't think that type of situation calls for a veto necessarily unless it's an undisputed and completely lopsided trade. I think all of us have a mental scorecard we look at when we gauge a trade.
One thing I think is certain though, any trade that is vetoed needs to have actual reasons backed up with facts for that veto. Statistics, contract status, age, injury history, talent level, organizational makeup can all be reasons for a trade to be vetoed. Perhaps there are others as well but just because or that's not fair aren't valid reasons. I want this to become a less bitter process and a more factual one. I think everyone benefits from that. Thoughts?