huh? whats their advantage?

I've only vetoed and asked for a trade to be reversed once ever, and it was an owner who was leaving the league who traded away multiple starting players in a single season progressive for a 3rd round pick specifically to mess up the competitive advantage of the team.

Other than that, aside from truly bad deals (owners of teams intentionally tanking and trading away picks at the same time) or deals that are collusive (ie between aliases), I never hit the veto button in a progressive league. I figure that 2 grown people who work out a deal are agreeing to the terms of that deal, and who am I to dictate to them what they can do with their players/picks.

That said, I'm not always 100% happy with some of the deals I see, but the deal is agreed upon by both parties.

Posted by pfattkatt on 7/10/2012 8:43:00 AM (view original):
I would say that knowing you are brothers making trades, there is an advantage in negotiating that comes from having a face to face partner. I would think that for that reason, any trade this domestic advantage gives, by definition, is unfair, is it not? Certainly, for the purpose of good relationships and permanence among managers, it might be wise to hold this advantage in check. It is much easier to negotiate face to face, than to go back and forth trying to read one another's mind, and convey your thoughts in the 2 or 3 sentences the comments block allows when we submit a trade. There is an absence of opportunity for other managers, who may have desired players that they didn't know would be available, or what you might be looking for to get them. So, while the trades themselves aren't so bad, the fact that you frequently take advantage of a domestic advantage creates bad feelings that detract from the enjoyment other managers have with the league. The majority of managers who are disgruntled will simply finish out the season silently, and not return. I would not go so far as to say you two shouldn't trade at all, but you should not trade when you have advantages in negotiating ability, as in proximity and convenience, coupled with knowledge that other managers in the league would not be able to act on. Fair is Fair, after all.

I don't see how it would change things that much... I've gotten on FB chat, IM, and skype with other owners to make trades when sitemail wasn't communicating well. However, in any case, this trade was conducted entirely by sitemail, as most of my trades are (however, if anyone wants to trade with me via one of these methods, or something else, just shoot me a sitemail, I'm game).


The trade negotiations:

Message:

chargingryno

just4me

6/3/2012 2:02:00 AM

RE: Aaron trade

how about my 2nd in 65 and your 2nd either in this draft or 66. 65 has a really deep draft, guys like Don Kessinger are still available mid-2nd round

-----Original Message-----
From: just4me
To: chargingryno
Sent: 6/3/2012 1:45:00 AM
Subject: RE: Aaron trade

you want to also throw in your 2nd and my 3rd and call it even?

-----Original Message-----
From: chargingryno
To: just4me
Sent: 6/1/2012 5:11:00 PM
Subject: Aaron trade

Tony Conigliaro, the better of my 1st round picks in 65 (mine or busterglen) for Aaron -:

 

I then ignored him for a little while because I didn't really want to give up my 2nd in '64 before he sent me this sitemail:

-----Original Message-----
From: just4me
To: chargingryno
Sent: 6/3/2012 11:50:00 AM
Subject: RE: Aaron trade

Yeah, I'll trade it to you.

-----Original Message-----
From: chargingryno
To: just4me
Sent: 6/3/2012 11:21:00 AM
Subject: RE: Aaron trade

you're up in the SSSP, unless you trade it to me in the aaron deal :)

I also then had a question for him later on when he was making another trade that involved the other 1st rounder (not the one he sent me)"

From:

chargingryno

To:

just4me

Received:

6/5/2012 3:09:00 AM

Subject:

RE: Aaron trade

Message:

he would just get the later pick

-----Original Message-----
From: just4me
To: chargingryno
Sent: 6/5/2012 2:27:00 AM
Subject: RE: Aaron trade

So, how does that Torre trade work out if I end up with your '65 pick? (Since the Aaron trade was for the better of your two picks: yours or busterglen's?)

 

I am not saying you did anything wrong, but appearances affect perceptions, right or wrong. Some guys just like to squawk, maybe you got hooked up with one of them. I don't see anything really bad in any of the trades, but I do try to see both sides of a disagreement.

Posted by daveymac on 7/10/2012 3:17:00 AM (view original):
He forgets to mention that two of these trades are with his rl brother whom has had his account previously. Also the Pete Rose trade was done AFTER they knew where they were picking so it was Pete Rose for Dave McNally and Don McMahon. There was never any question who the people would be.

Also in the Hank Aaron trade the fist rounder will be bottom 4 and the 2nd rounder is a huge trade up for him probably 10+ spots.

as j4m mentioned - only the Aaron trade was with my brother - two were with another respected owner cardsfan, and the last was with byeags25, also a respected owner.  

As a lot of people know already, j4m has been on this site a long time and when he needed a spot filled in the original j4m progressive he recruited me.  Instead creating a new name he gave me his chargingryno account.  So yes, he did use it, but as j4m mentioned, he hasn't for over 6 years!  :)  

And while there was a general idea of who was picked - you can never know for sure - below are the first 4 picks of the 1963 draft from the prog draft database:

ROUND ONE

01 XXXXXXXXX                   PETE ROSE 2B
02XXXXXXXXXX                MICKEY LOLICH P
03 XXXXXXXXX                   DAVE McNALLY P
04 XXXXXXXXX                WILLIE STARGELL OF

------

1.XXXXXXX  - Pete Rose - 2b
2.XXXXXXX - Mickey Lolich - P
3.XXXXXXX - Gary Peters - P
4.XXXXXXX - Dave McNally - P

------

Round One --- Tuesday, November 1
1. St. Peter (XXXXX)                Pete Rose, 2b
2. Washington (XXXX)              Mickey Lolich, p
3. Milwaukee (XXXX)         Willie Stargell, of
4. Los Angeles (XXXX)          Bill Freehan, c

------

Round 1

1. 8:00am XXXX                             Willie Stargell OF
2. 8:30am XXXX                     Pete Rose 2B
3. 9:00am XXXX                       Mickey Lolich P
4. 9:30am XXXX                   Dave McNally P

----

Round 1

10:00AM Philadelphia (XXXX) 2B Pete Rose
10:30AM NY (XXXX) P Gary Peters
11:00AM Boston (XXXX) P Mickey Lolich
11:30AM Cincinnati (XXXX) P Dave McNally

Posted by pfattkatt on 7/10/2012 8:43:00 AM (view original):
I would say that knowing you are brothers making trades, there is an advantage in negotiating that comes from having a face to face partner. I would think that for that reason, any trade this domestic advantage gives, by definition, is unfair, is it not? Certainly, for the purpose of good relationships and permanence among managers, it might be wise to hold this advantage in check. It is much easier to negotiate face to face, than to go back and forth trying to read one another's mind, and convey your thoughts in the 2 or 3 sentences the comments block allows when we submit a trade. There is an absence of opportunity for other managers, who may have desired players that they didn't know would be available, or what you might be looking for to get them. So, while the trades themselves aren't so bad, the fact that you frequently take advantage of a domestic advantage creates bad feelings that detract from the enjoyment other managers have with the league. The majority of managers who are disgruntled will simply finish out the season silently, and not return. I would not go so far as to say you two shouldn't trade at all, but you should not trade when you have advantages in negotiating ability, as in proximity and convenience, coupled with knowledge that other managers in the league would not be able to act on. Fair is Fair, after all.

I don't really see how this plays a roll - I communicate my trades opening and frequently in all leagues I am in.  I only look at the owner of a team so I can sitemail that owner, not for any advantages.  Regardless, if I am able to bypass trying to read someone else's thoughts to make for a better trade, I think that is in both of our rights, and in the leagues best interest as I am a firm believer that trades are the lifeblood of a good progressive, so wouldn't making better, more communicative trades, be better for the league? 

 "There is an absence of opportunity for other managers, who may have desired players that they didn't know would be available"

If you know me as a manager at all, you know that I don't wait for a player to be "available" to make an offer.   In fact, ONLY Roger Maris in the above trades was listed as being available.  the 1st overall pick, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, and even Joe Torre, were never listed as being available, yet I took the initiative because I knew what I wanted.   

J4m and I have been in leagues together for 6 years, ask any of the respected owners if we take advantage of our relationship? or if we've created bad feeling that detract from the owners enjoyment.  

Posted by boogerlips on 7/10/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Man, we have a lot of candidates for the 'really-freaking-long-post-of-the-week-award'.

now if we could get italyprof over here we could have a clear cut winner!! ;-) 

That was gratuitous, and unprovoked. But - oh rats, I wanted to keep it monosyllabic to not prove ryno's point. Sigh, I take time off from family funerals and translating a book on Immanual Kant from the language of Dante to that of Shakespeare to argue with people named boogerlips, chargingryno and pfattkatt...are you sure Tommy Lasorda and Joe Torre started this way ?

What was the question again ? 

Ok, more seriously, boogerlips and pfattkatt, two people for whom I in reality have very high regard, have a point: it is important to be sensitive to how things are seen in a progressive league, because today's rivals are tomorrow potential trade partners. This cuts both ways in this argument (I wish I could call it a debate, but it is an argument at this point). 

A league, as I wrote in our league forum, consists on the one hand of individual teams and owners that want to win, and on the other is itself sui generis - a thing in itself, a common good to be nurtured and protected. It can be damaged, and the relationships within it, by accusations, by over-doing a strong hand, by the appearance of impropriety or favoritism, by not knowing when to let go something you are unhappy about as frazzman80, another person for whom I have great respect here, points out. 

Let's let it go please. The league is a wonderful one. We aren't sure how the games will play out, and advantages don't last forever. My team currently sucks but I love it as no other I have had in WIS so far (the SF Fishermen in SSSP). When they lose I am sad because this unusual cast of characters deserves better, when they win I am overjoyed because usually the odds are agin' 'em. 

Let's let it go and play ball, but let's also try to be aware that when we build up an overwhelming advantage, or what seems to be one (have to play the games to see for sure) there will be some hard feelings. Otherwise I expect you all to start rooting for the Yankees ! yeah, right. 

How did I do boogerlips? Still in the running ? 

Well...I can sort of see where len is coming from here, but I think this opens a can of worms.  Do we expect all owners on this site to disclose all family ties with other owners?  Cousins?  In-laws?  What about close friends?  What about owners you've never met with whom you've had long WIS associations?  Maybe they helped you out a lot in the forums when you were a newbie, or donated you a free team, or whatever.  There could be any number of reasons - conscious or subconscious - why an owner might tip the balance to one owner or another in a trade.  Ultimately I think each trade stands on its own merits, regardless of any relationship that may exist between the participating owners.