Yes, but I won't veto a trade just because I think it's lopsided.

The only circumstances in which I would disallow a trade are if it is so one-sided as to indicate that there is collusion betwen the trading partners, and they are deliberately destroying one team to improve the other, or if one of the parties involved makes a case that they accidentally hit the "accept" button instead of the "reject" button.

In this particular case, while I feel the trade is one-sided, you could make a case for it from CC's POV:

"Contreras has been pitching over his head and Pettitte has been much worse than he usually is, and I believe that Contreras is about to get a lot worse and Pettitte is about to show considerable improvement, making that part of the trade an advantage for Pettitte, and by Replacing Wilson with Ibanez I've improved the team as much or more than I've hurt it by replacing Berkman with Drew.

In any case, even if the net result of the change in outfielders makes my team worse, that is offset by the fact that replacing Contreras with Pettitte makes my team better."

Now, I don't happen to agree with that analysis, but, theoretically, "What do I know"?

If that is CC's thinking, who am I to tell her she is wrong?

Suppose I disallow the trade and Pettitte goes 16-4 the rest of the season while Contreras goes 8-12 or something, and Ibanez or Drew hits .320 with 30-35 homers and 100 RBIs the last 115 games and Berkman hits .260 with 10 homers and 50 RBIs?

The main thing is that the two of them didn't sit down and decide together to purposely destroy CC's team while improving DB's.

If DB was able to out-trade her and talk her into this deal, more power to him.

I'm sorry it wasn't me getting Berkman for Brad Wilkerson and Pedro Feliz, or something like that.