teaparty, I really was not trying to offend any one personally. I like much of what antoncreston posts and have not had any interaction with him otherwise, and don't recall any previous knowledge of redsox1966, so I was not trying to call anyone out as a person.
I meant my comments in the same spirit as as chargingryno and rbow923 have commented - and I thank them both and admit that they were both more diplomatic and much more right on target than my comments were: hate the sin, not the sinner. I hope those who don't like my perspective will take the same attitude. But yes, if a trade warrants vetoing in one's opinion, it should be the trade, not the owner that one vetoes. I have not even vetoed trades by owners that have vetoed mine, nor that have been rude or abusive in sitemail exchanges over trades. Still doesn't seem right.
Cricket - luckily it's out of our jurisdiction, though the best book EVER on a sport in my view remains CLR James' Beyond A Boundary about Cricket in the West Indies, and, well, everything else.
crazystengel, I have ever only seen one trade vetoed that I can remember: I was in maybe my second OL ever, a few weeks into playing at WIS, and like any newby, did not know what I was doing, so someone had pity on my team and offered me a good deadball pitcher in exchange for a not great iteration of Vida Blue. It got vetoed, including by some major Hall of Famers who have been interviewed by WIS etc. I think my team had won 20 games by mid-season.
It sucked and I don't know to this day what the reasoning was: my team was no threat in any way, the guy trading me a pitcher ended up winning the WS so he was not a newby getting ripped off - everyone there knew him, etc. Left a bad taste in my mouth.
Nevertheless, the team after some major WW moves ended up playing .500 ball the second half of the season. No moral to the story.