Posted by Thunderclese on 12/3/2010 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bbqjason on 12/3/2010 1:26:00 PM (view original):
I don't think it's abusive.  I can see how someone would give up Castillo (older) for this bunch, especially considering that Bergen is only 23.  Castillo may have 3-4 very good seasons left, but Bergen is eleven years younger and is definitely a very good pitcher.  He's almost tripling the seasons that he would have a good SP in his rotation while sacrificing a little quality in the next few years.

Depends on franchise depth, and the noob's chances of contending this year and next.  If he didn't shop Castillo, that his fault. 

I'd approve it.

Agreed.

It's not a terrible trade.  Besides, in my opinion, just because many of you (who are posting and reading this) would "never" do this trade for whatever the reason, does not make it veto worthy.  Also, we are all unaware of or if any trade chats were made during the process.  It amazes me how some owners throw a fit about a trade they would never do.  It's obvious that tanking or moving money or collusion is not the issue in this trade so why waste the energy to be the trade police?  Let the noob learn from his mistakes.  Or, maybe think outside the box and look at both teams more and see why this is going on.  Unless it obviously affects world integrity for the three reasons I mentioned above, get over it and let it go through.  Stop worrying about how you would do it and focus on your own team.  Not all trades can be "fair".  Most times there is a team who is getting a better deal, but that's just plain and simple part of the game.  Unfair doesn't mean veto, it just means unfair.

It is a terrible trade.  However, if this was a trade between two experienced owners, then fine, its their funeral.  Involving a newbie, it gets a veto from me.

I believe that every owner has the right to do whatever they want with their vetos. That is why it takes 10 to nix a trade. But if you want to veto all trades involving players with facial hair, go ahead - it wont affect anything because if the trades are not veto-worthy they will get thruogh in any decent league.

(note that my opinion differs if it comes to this issue of trying to get other people to join your veto -- that becomes illegal collusion to stop a fair trade)

Posted by mlhutch on 12/3/2010 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Thunderclese on 12/3/2010 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bbqjason on 12/3/2010 1:26:00 PM (view original):
I don't think it's abusive.  I can see how someone would give up Castillo (older) for this bunch, especially considering that Bergen is only 23.  Castillo may have 3-4 very good seasons left, but Bergen is eleven years younger and is definitely a very good pitcher.  He's almost tripling the seasons that he would have a good SP in his rotation while sacrificing a little quality in the next few years.

Depends on franchise depth, and the noob's chances of contending this year and next.  If he didn't shop Castillo, that his fault. 

I'd approve it.

Agreed.

It's not a terrible trade.  Besides, in my opinion, just because many of you (who are posting and reading this) would "never" do this trade for whatever the reason, does not make it veto worthy.  Also, we are all unaware of or if any trade chats were made during the process.  It amazes me how some owners throw a fit about a trade they would never do.  It's obvious that tanking or moving money or collusion is not the issue in this trade so why waste the energy to be the trade police?  Let the noob learn from his mistakes.  Or, maybe think outside the box and look at both teams more and see why this is going on.  Unless it obviously affects world integrity for the three reasons I mentioned above, get over it and let it go through.  Stop worrying about how you would do it and focus on your own team.  Not all trades can be "fair".  Most times there is a team who is getting a better deal, but that's just plain and simple part of the game.  Unfair doesn't mean veto, it just means unfair.

It is a terrible trade.  However, if this was a trade between two experienced owners, then fine, its their funeral.  Involving a newbie, it gets a veto from me.

Bingo!  We have a winner.

I hate playing in worlds with n00bs.  They really are retarded. 

"Why do you smell like urine?"
"I vetoed a trade because the guy has facial hair."

Looks like pretty much every trade offer I get.

Well I wasn't called a jerk, but the veteran owner did trot out the "you just don't want me to get this player because our franchises are competing for the NL pennant" argument, which was cute.  Never mind that I haven't publicly commented on a trade in probably four or five seasons.  Of course, thinking back, I am nearly certain that the last time I did comment on a trade it involved this same owner, though that time it was a sweetheart deal between him and his friend who had recruited him into the world...anyway, maybe I do have it in for him.

I hate it when guys take it personally and respond with and attacking defense.

If a trade can't withstand some discussion in the world chat, there's something wrong with the trade to begin with.