5/5/2013 9:03 PM
I feel pretty strongly about this one.

Everyone's had that great trade vetoed because the World doesn't seem to understand where both sides are coming from. I think it'd be beneficial to allow owners a place to explain their reasoning for a trade. 

After a trade has been agreed upon there should be a place for both owners to explain their reasoning. Sometimes it'd certainly be self-explanatory, but sometimes it could be the difference between a sensible trade being validated of vetoed. 
5/5/2013 9:37 PM
What's wrong with the world chat?
5/5/2013 9:48 PM
Yes, that is the spot for it.
5/6/2013 12:49 AM
I doubt there's a whole lot of cross-checking world chat with trades. Could be wrong on that one. This would make it simpler: have the info and the trade in the same place so nothing would get lost in the shuffle. 
5/6/2013 6:01 AM
If you feel that you have to explain your side of a trade, there's probably something wrong with it.  Trades should be able to stand on their own merit.
5/6/2013 10:51 AM
There's also not a whole lot of need to x-ref world chat with trade.
"$5M cash with that trade? Veto"
"Why? There's nothing wrong with it"

etc etc, and so on. I don't think you lose track when people are having a trade veto meltdown, trust me.
5/6/2013 12:00 PM
"I have a perfectly legitimate reason why I'm trading a perennial all-star and $5m for two training camp pitchers and a backup middle infielder, if you'll just allow me to explain . . . ."
5/6/2013 12:24 PM
While the suggestion sounds like "wahhh my trade got vetoed", I get the point.  I had vetoed a trade and then later regretted vetoing it once I had more information (appeared to be unnecessary cash, but was covering future arb money).  
5/6/2013 12:39 PM
Perhaps you shouldn't have been so quick on the draw.

FWIW, I seldom veto so, when I do, it has to be amazingly craptastic.   Therefore, no explanation is going to change my mind.   I'd suggest explaining your deal in the WC if you think it looks veto-worthy.   Or, if it looks veto-worthy, don't do it.   That said, I see no reason to crap on this idea.
5/6/2013 1:06 PM
You are correct, I shouldn't have been.  But if his suggestion was in place, I likely wouldn't have vetoed.
5/6/2013 1:11 PM
Here's the reason to crap on it;
World chat. Trade chat. A chat box under the trade (oh yea! that). Trade Needs. Trade block. I don't want one more thing to reference/keep track.
5/6/2013 1:18 PM
"A chat box under the trade (oh yea! that)"

I know that exists between the 2 trade partners.  But that doesn't become public, does it?

Overall, yes, its yet another thing that's probably unnecessary.  But you aren't really "keeping track" of something new.  It's there, in your face, when you look at the trade.  It's really no extra work for you.
5/6/2013 1:22 PM
It does become public.
5/6/2013 1:23 PM
No, the chat box below the trade does not become public info. 
5/6/2013 1:28 PM
Well, that clears it up.

I'm about 95% sure it doesn't.  I've never seen it in a trade that wasn't mine.

of 2

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.