I did not call you names, I called the behavior, which I did not attribute per se to you or anyone else, but in general to those who hold to that policy, names. Fair ones I think. I want to win too, but not by unsportsmanlike, cut-throat tactics. As for the "smart" this seems defensive - I wasn't saying my approach was smarter, though there are a few people who have acted badly in trade offers with whom I won't trade in the leagues we are in together, which in progressives is a big deal - so I think despite the obvious short-term advantages, in the long term as a "member" of the WIS "community" of player-owners, mine is the approach I prefer. 

You were the one who said you veto any trades by any owner in your division as if your own self-interest were a good enough reason. I would suggest all owners that find themselves in a division with you petition the commissioners and the administration for a realignment. Of course, if everyone did that, because they know you will automatically veto all their trades, then you will find it difficult to be in leagues, since eventually no one wanting to be in the same division with you will be a problem. 

Golden rule. Competition can take place within its borders. The British make a big deal of this sportsmanlike conduct stuff "It's not cricket" is a severe put-down there. 

Yes,  we Americans gloat and do touchdown dances, and actually use our own self-interest as a justification for what we do as if it were a good reason (to others !) but back when we had a sense of anything, Mickey Mantle put his head down as he rounded the bases to not offend the pitcher he hit it off of. I guess the Barry Bonds/Mark McGwire  America is preferred by some. Not by me. 

I agree with italyprof here.  And there was a time I was vocal about it, too.  But after making hundreds of trades at WIS and never having one vetoed, I figure it's not worth it to make a stink about the one or two owners in a league who think this way.  Although sometimes I do note WHO voted against my deals, and I make it a point to ensure those teams always face my best pitchers/lineups.  *** for tat.  And nothing personal, as I like some of the owners who have voted against my deals on the "division rival" principle.

veto the trade not the owner. when evaluating a trade I often dont bother to notice who the traders are, just look to see if it's too unbalanced. Vetoing the owner not the trade is unsportsmanlike in my book.

agree with italy and rbow -  I veto if the trade is unfair...which is the only reason why any trade should be vetoed.  

in a progressive league I am in there is an owner in my division that vetos EVERY trade I make.  Like italy said, its petty, unsportsmanlike, and just childish the more I think about it.  I've been mad that an owner made a trade because A) I didn't make it first or, B) it makes their team better than mine, but I've never used that as an excuse to veto. 

 

Golden rule. Competition can take place within its borders. The British make a big deal of this sportsmanlike conduct stuff "It's not cricket" is a severe put-down there. 

It should be noted that cricket (nor really commonwealth sports in general) isn't as sportsmanlike as the saying suggests, given the plethora of match-fixing issues in recent history, sledging/racism, occasional drug issues, walking vs. not walking, etc.. Not to mention more historic things like bodyline (wherein England's solution to Don Bradman was to aim for the body; fortunately he wasn't injured and such tactics were quickly made illegal).

Posted by italyprof on 8/19/2012 6:23:00 PM (view original):
A number of you have said you veto trades involving owners in your division: why ? Just because anything they want a) must be to their advantage and so b) must be to your disadvantage ? 

So you assume that they should have the same policy no ? That is if they are also "rational actors". Except you build bad will that way, and might even want to trade with them sometime to both your advantages. Also, it is of course possible that some of the trades are not in their interest. 

Besides which, if we are talking about OLs and AAA only trades, what big difference does it really make, except if it is a question of an experienced owner using the difference in quality between position AAA (good) and pitcher AAA (bad) to rip off a newby ? Other than that one, how do you know the results ? Often it is a question of covering PA or IP. Do you really want to win because you don't have a better team, just because you prevented your rival from having enough PA at 3B or catcher or whatever ? 

Mean-spirited, poor sportsmanship and petty. 

While not specifically calling redsox1966 (or antoncreston) out by name for being mean spirited, petty and engaging in poor sportsmanship, it appears to me that you called out redsox1966 (and antoncreston) for being mean spirited, petty and engaging in poor sportsmanship.

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. 

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. 

It could be the veto voters figured the other owner was fleecing you (if he was much more experienced than you) and/or you had some "division rival" votes against the deal.  Most owners will tell you why they cast a veto vote, so if it happens again you've got nothing to lose by asking. 

As for me, I don't even look up who the rookies are in pending AAA for AAA trades.  I look up my own players, of course, and if I need to make a deal I'll check a few teams out to see if anyone has a player who fits my needs.  But I'm never going to vote against an AAA for AAA deal (assuming it's a league where everyone's got the same level of AAA) so why bother looking them up if they're in a trade that doesn't involve me.

One other thing about OL trades.  In the past, when there were no PA/IP minimums, it was harder to have a lopsided deal.  Owners who seriously under-drafted PA (and there were owners like this in every OL) could find uses for weak-hitting A stamina rookies.  But with the 4800 PA rule -- that's 600 PA per position -- it's rare that you'd ever need more than 150 or so PA at a position.  Which means the better-hitting low stamina rookies (F's are usually in the 200-299 PA range) are almost always going to be more valuable than the weaker-hitting A or B stamina rookies (B is 450-499 PA, A 500 PA and over).

I also miss the unpredictability of the old OLs.  Entering a team was like walking into a saloon in the Wild West.  You never knew what the hell you were in for.  Once in a while you'd find yourself in a league with someone who'd drafted 6 200K scrub pitchers and 78.8M worth of hitting -- in Coors, of course!  Oh, it wasn't "realistic" but I'll take that over being in an OL with 12 Josses and the usual combinations of Carter, Bip, Coleman, Raines, Dilone, etc. 

I miss the old OL days, too... One of my favorite teams was this one (AFC was home stadium):

Name	B	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	IBB	SO	SH	SF	HBP	DP	E	PB	PH	AVG	OBP	SLG
B. Ruth '20	L	162	522	244	194	28	7	124	217	11	6	185	0	125	0	0	2	4	16	0	0/0	0.372	0.537	1.165
J. Foxx '35	R	162	562	179	202	39	11	73	191	5	2	125	0	124	0	1	2	8	1	3	0/0	0.359	0.477	0.858
B. Brito '93	R	78	73	20	24	3	1	11	28	0	0	1	0	21	0	1	1	0	4	0	0/2	0.329	0.342	0.849
M. McGwire '86	R	63	64	12	21	4	0	7	14	0	1	5	0	10	0	1	0	1	4	0	0/2	0.328	0.371	0.719
L. Medina '88	R	74	83	20	25	0	0	14	27	0	0	1	0	16	0	0	0	0	0	0	14-Mar	0.301	0.31	0.807
C. Williams '23	L	162	588	171	174	24	7	92	196	5	7	86	0	72	0	2	12	7	9	0	0/0	0.296	0.395	0.83
F. Lynn '88	L	104	99	24	29	5	1	15	29	0	0	6	0	16	0	1	0	1	0	0	Oct-42	0.293	0.33	0.818
J. Gonzalez '93	R	162	665	128	189	42	2	78	173	1	2	39	0	131	0	5	7	13	5	0	0/0	0.284	0.328	0.705
C. Fielder '90	R	162	571	145	154	38	0	63	150	0	0	88	0	170	0	4	4	3	6	0	0/0	0.27	0.369	0.667
M. Williams '94	R	162	563	102	144	32	5	70	146	1	0	58	0	93	0	1	2	7	16	0	0/0	0.256	0.327	0.703
G. Myers '01	L	118	92	27	23	1	3	11	19	0	0	22	0	28	0	0	1	1	1	0	Jul-35	0.25	0.4	0.685
A. Rodriguez '99	R	162	727	153	168	37	2	63	108	14	7	79	0	146	0	1	7	5	23	0	0/0	0.231	0.312	0.547
D. Johnson '73	R	162	684	167	146	24	0	61	93	3	4	104	0	137	1	1	11	12	12	0	0/0	0.213	0.326	0.516

We hit 699 HRs, while giving up 526. Finished 80-82.

I don't ever veto AAA for AAA trades. I have vetoed $200k scrubs for AAA players when it's been a newbie trading away the AAA for the $200k scrub. I've also sitemailed the newbie in question explaining the value of AAA and posted in the league.

Years ago when AAA pitching was very valuable, I used to veto any AAA hitter for AAA pitcher trades, but under the current system, I don't really veto anything...

IN RL, teams make WW claims to prevent players from clearing waivers and being trade-eligible, and claim players in the Rule V draft to force other teams to keep said players on their rosters.  It's not mean-spirited, poor sportsmanship, and petty; it's playing by the rules.  If an owner automatically vetoes a trade that he perceives will improve a competitior, go for it - if WIS doesn't want vetoes, they'd disable the feature.  I don't do it, but I'll admit I look at trades involving teams in my division a tad more closely than I do other trades.

Where I think there may be a gray area is in the Fair Play guidelines:

"IMPEDING OTHER OWNERS

"Certain transactions made solely to impede other owners are not allowed. For example, protesting a trade merely to help someone else is strictly prohibited."

If you want to interpret this loosely, you could make the argument that vetoing a trade simply to keep an opponent from improving is impeding them (but then again, so is drafting '08 Joss...).  I don't interpret it that way, and seeing as this wording has existed as long as I've been on the site if it was meant to be interpreted as suggested I think it would have been applied by now to un-veto trades.



Also, I can easily see why redsox1966 thought he was being insulted:

Person A:  "I perform such actions for such reasons."

Person B:  "I find performance of such actions for said reasons is mean-spirited, poor sportsmanship, and petty."

Person A: "Are you calling me mean-spirited etc.?"

Person B: "No, I'm saying the actions you say you do for the reasons you say you do them are mean-spirited, etc."

Parsing a political spin doctor would love ...

pinotfan, I'm not sure how you can interpret that Impeding Other Owners rule any other way.  If it doesn't refer to protesting fair trades, what else could it refer to?

I agree that I've never seen it enforced, but I think that's more because it would be difficult to prove the owner's motives (barring the owner explicitly stating that he voted against a fair deal just to screw another owner).

One thing that confuses me is why an owner would only veto a division rival's deals.  Most leagues have wild cards, so why not vote against everyone in your league (AL or NL) who could be a potential wild card rival?  For that matter, why not vote against owners' deals in the opposite league, since you might face one of those owners' trade-improved rosters in the World Series?

Basically I think this: If you sign up for a league that allows trades, it's wrong to vote against a trade for any reason other than a trade being very lopsided.  I'm not saying you're a bad human being if you do it (I don't think italyprof is saying that either), just that you're thinking is wrong in this matter.  And even counter-productive.  Fair trades will almost never get vetoed, so considering you're not getting anything out of vetoing except a bad rep, why do it?

I guess my interpretation of the impeding clause is based on time spent in the SIM - as a matter of fact, I cited the very clause a number of years ago as evidence that vetoing for any other reason than lopsided trades is not allowed!  I was debating the point with johnGPF, that 'someone else' in the clause meant any owner not involved in the trade, including yourself.  Therefore, vetoing a trade in which you are not involved solely to protect your interests is in fact a veto to benefit another owner (i.e. you, since you're not involved in the trade). 

Also, as I said, I very rarely veto; when it's a scrub for a AAA player, a AAA player and cash for a AAA player; etc.  I just don't think the rules prohibit someone from exercising their veto right even if I don't agree with them.

Vetoes are dumb unless you believe collusion is going on.  If you beat me on a trade, you beat me on a trade.  They shouldn't have to be even.