Trade up for Review

[Cardinals]

That part is part of Vacek's reasoning as to why it should be vetoed. He made it into two arguments. One of them was titled the trade itself. So that is Vacek's opinion.

The opinions should not just come from the teams in the trade, otherwise that would mean there's no reason to veto the deal?? I'm confused myself as to what you're getting at here.

[Orioles]

If there's no comments or opinions, why was the first paragraph of "The trade itself" packed with opinion.

Certainly doesn't seem like unbiased announcement calling for a vote.

This should have had a poll, and comments from the two teams.....then let the league decide.

That was part of a post not written specifically for this purpose, but as a response to other posts in a different thread. Seeing how the vote has gone, I don't think the first paragraph of "the deal itself" had much of an effect (if anyone even read it), so I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm sure Bren could delete the first paragraph and hold a re-vote if you'd like though.

As I said earlier, that was MY opinion. I am not a member of the TC. See above.

[Guardians]

OK....I'm following you guys now. I thought the opinion came from Bren.

My apologies...my misunderstanding.

[Royals]

I wasn't saying there shouldn't be two sides to the argument. I'm saying there should ONLY be two....the Reds and Indians. Not the Reds, Indians, and the Red Sox.

Congratulations, you topped your last comment. The Reds and Indians hold the same opinion... Pass the trade! That's not two sides, that's two opinions on the same side.
My opinion wasn't presented in this review, the viewpoint opposed to the trade was prepared by Dan Vacek.

Listen up brainiac. Here's what I'm referring to:

2. The Trade itself

This is an objectively terrible trade, so a lot of the above doesn't even really matter. New GM, old GM, whatever. If this deal were between JB and Bren I'd still call for a veto. I thought this was an awful deal even before I was told that Thome would be the Indians 3rd DH (w/ Giambi and Thomas), so the individual approach to roster-building is irrelevant here (to me at least).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is the OPINION of a trade committee member posting the poll?? The opinions should come from the teams involved in the trade. If a trade committee member wanted to post some facts about the trade review process, then that's fine. What you posted was not facts, but opinion. Are you really having trouble comprehending what I'm saying??

1. Vacek isn't on the TRC. He's just an average GM who holds an opinion opposed to the trade. I'm not a TRC member either. Get your facts straight.

2. I know exactly what you're saying. The opinions of the GM's doing the trade matter and should be presented. The opinions of those opposed to the trade don't matter and should not be presented, right?

You're not only wrong, you're cracked out of your mind if you actually believe that. That's what's called a 'one-sided argument' and there's nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it. In fact, it's downright repressive an authoritarian. One might even say it's similar to being fascist.

[Guardians]

Refer to my post above

[Royals]

Refer to my post above

Referenced and considered. So are you now saying that BOTH sides of the argument have a right to present their opinions for consideration?

[Guardians]

Refer to my post above

Referenced and considered. So are you now saying that BOTH sides of the argument have a right to present their opinions for consideration?

Yes.............and AGAIN, I apologize for MY misunderstanding. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. I WAS WRONG.

As a man, apologies come very easy when I'm wrong, with absolutely no impacts on my manhood. Now please simply accept the apology like a man.

[Athletics]

Is this league ending?

Why is there an apology on the forum?

Where has the IBC we all know and love gone to?

[Royals]

Refer to my post above

Referenced and considered. So are you now saying that BOTH sides of the argument have a right to present their opinions for consideration?

Yes.............and AGAIN, I apologize for MY misunderstanding. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. I WAS WRONG.

As a man, apologies come very easy when I'm wrong, with absolutely no impacts on my manhood. Now please simply accept the apology like a man.

I'm not asking for an apology, i just wanted to make sure I understood you clearly. I'd hate to think you were a jerk because I thought you held one opinion when you really held another. Personally, I don't mind if people think I'm a dick, just think I'm a dick for the opinions I hold and things I've done rather than opinions you think I hold but which I might not actually hold. That's basically what the whole thing is about, misunderstandings. Nate changed his tune in the AA thread too after he realized he misunderstood JP. I change (or at least try) my opinion when I realize I've misunderstood someone as well.