Brewers/Padres Trade

[padresgm]

Like I said in the e-mail, I'm calling the vote on this.

If you think the trade is unfair, that it jeapordizes the integrity of the league, or you just don't like one of us and want to spite us, vote no.

If you think that San Diego did a good job maximizing the value for his prospects, and that you agree with the building for next year philosophy that the Brewers are clearly incorporating here, vote yes.

We have a policy setup for this, and we should take action on issues like this one.

[cardinals]

"building for next year"

Inman isn't involved in that.

[Administrator]

To be fair I am going to amend the rules to state:

Any GM may ask that a poll be made for any approved trade to be voted on for veto consideration. It will STILL take a minimum of 70% responding opposing the deal for it to go an official vote and 75% in that vote to overturn it.

These high percentages are in place so that nearly all deals will be approved and only the most lopsided are vetoed.

I think this mechanism makes it more likely that GM's will review and respond to trades.

[oakland]

Please tell me you have to be logged in to vote or that you cant vote more then once

[VOTE CHECK FOR GUEST]

oakland said:

Please tell me you have to be logged in to vote or that you cant vote more then once

Answered my own question

[Administrator]

I can see the list of voters.

Note: I cannot see how you voted, just that you did.

[Mets GM]

is that 70% of all GM's, or 70% of people who actually visit the board a couple of times a week.

[Administrator]

If you can't vote on a trade you can't be in the league. I'm not asking for alot of participation but I think that would be the bare minimum.

[Washington Nationals]

In my opinion this trade should definately be approved and I think it's silly to put it to a vote, this is setting a precedent that will mean we will start voting on every trade that gets made. We are all big boys and if someone makes a trade it should be approved period, unless there are accusations of collusion, which i haven't seen. I don't see why this trade has been called into question, this is my first year in a sim league so forgive me if I'm wrong but if you have a team that appears to be out of it at any point the way to rebuild is to trade a star for prospects, it's done in the majors all the time. I don't think this is a terribly lopsided deal, trades affect different teams differently a rebuilding team such as the brewers get a guy in ethier who's up now but young and three prospects that is good for him. The padres get halladay which is good for them, it seems to me that i saw a few messages about Halladay being available so we all had a chance to make a deal for him and the padres did, it is not fair to put a trade to vote based on jealousy or laziness that you weren't the one to make the deal.
This is a sure-fire way to frustrate owners and end up with managers leaving.

[Administrator]

Again, please do not argue the merits of the trade at this time. I appreciate the input but its unnecessary unless there is enough opposition in the poll.

[Washington Nationals]

I was not so much arguing the merits of the trade, my point is that we should not be voting on this at all.

I did vote, (against my better judgement) I would've liked to voice my opinion by obstaining from the vote altogether but I also did not want the trade to get voted down based on not voting.

[cardinals]

wow.

[Administrator]

I'm shutting down this poll.

There is clearly not enough opposition.