Trade Appeal

Here you will find a history of approved trades.
Post Reply

Should this trade pass?

Yes, it should pass
20
74%
No, it should remain vetoed
7
26%
 
Total votes: 27

User avatar
Cardinals
Posts: 8041
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Manch Vegas, CT
Name: John Paul Starkey

Trade Appeal

Post by Cardinals »

Brandon and Dan are protesting the veto of the following trade:

Braves receive: Jason Kubel
Astros receive: Pirates first round draft choice

Says Brandon:
Reason the deal should pass is because it makes sense for both of our teams. My team is looking to start winning games this year and Kubel brings a much needed left handed bat to plug into my lineup in RF. Far as Dan's team hes trying to do a rebuilding job and adding a 1st round talent should help.
Says Dan:
After moving to the NL..a guy like Kubel has little value as he will be a poor OF. The pick is needed to rebuild. In all honesty..I am simply hoping to be respectable in 2011..my team is looking towards 2012 and mostly 2013. The pick is a wanted and needed part.
The trade will require a 2/3rds majority to overturn the TRC's decision.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
User avatar
Mets
Posts: 2339
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Name: John Anderson
Contact:

Post by Mets »

it would help if the overall # of the pick was listed.
2008-2023 Mets: 1,143-1,296...469%
2006-2008 Rockies: 242-244...498%

IBC Total: 1,385-1,540...474%
2022: lost WC
2023: lost WC
2024: 1st NL East; lost WC
User avatar
Cardinals
Posts: 8041
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Manch Vegas, CT
Name: John Paul Starkey

Post by Cardinals »

28
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
User avatar
Brewers
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: St. Johnsbury, VT
Name: Jared Cloutier

Post by Brewers »

I can't believe this is being turned down by people. I don't even understand which team is being ripped off so bad. This kind of deal being turned down would be very bad for league activity.
User avatar
Mets
Posts: 2339
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Name: John Anderson
Contact:

Post by Mets »

Brewers wrote:I can't believe this is being turned down by people. I don't even understand which team is being ripped off so bad. This kind of deal being turned down would be very bad for league activity.
Well, I would suppose that TRC would be required to turn it down and not reverse their votes.
2008-2023 Mets: 1,143-1,296...469%
2006-2008 Rockies: 242-244...498%

IBC Total: 1,385-1,540...474%
2022: lost WC
2023: lost WC
2024: 1st NL East; lost WC
User avatar
Marlins
Posts: 4060
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Congers, NY
Name: Nils

Post by Marlins »

Was this one of the last actions of the old TRC or first of the new TRC? Knowing how long it took for all of Dan's deals to go through, I am assuming this was a remnant of the old group?
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4540
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Post by Yankees »

Well this type of crap was EXACTLY the reason I wanted to be on the TRC in the 1st place. The IBC just won't stop shooting itself in the foot - and it really is hurting the league...great work again guys!
User avatar
Rangers
Site Admin
Posts: 4048
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Prosper, TX
Name: Brett Perryman

Post by Rangers »

Giants wrote:Was this one of the last actions of the old TRC or first of the new TRC? Knowing how long it took for all of Dan's deals to go through, I am assuming this was a remnant of the old group?
Yes, I believe old TRC.
User avatar
Padres
Site Admin
Posts: 4822
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Wells, Maine
Name: Jim Berger

Post by Padres »

Rangers wrote:
Giants wrote:Was this one of the last actions of the old TRC or first of the new TRC? Knowing how long it took for all of Dan's deals to go through, I am assuming this was a remnant of the old group?
Yes, I believe old TRC.
I am not so sure about that ...
User avatar
Rangers
Site Admin
Posts: 4048
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Prosper, TX
Name: Brett Perryman

Post by Rangers »

WhiteSox wrote:
Rangers wrote:
Giants wrote:Was this one of the last actions of the old TRC or first of the new TRC? Knowing how long it took for all of Dan's deals to go through, I am assuming this was a remnant of the old group?
Yes, I believe old TRC.
I am not so sure about that ...
I'm not sure, maybe it wound up being a mixture. Shawn can see that. At any rate, one thing that I would do if this were my trade is submit it to the new TRC. I'm pretty sure that it didn't get two vetoes from the current threesome.
User avatar
Dodgers
Site Admin
Posts: 5783
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Name: Shawn Walsh

Post by Dodgers »

Just to clarify, this was voted on by the old TRC entirely.
User avatar
Cardinals
Posts: 8041
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Manch Vegas, CT
Name: John Paul Starkey

Post by Cardinals »

With 20 votes allowing the trade to pass, it will pass since 20 votes satisfies the 2/3rd majority.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 4093
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

Nationals wrote:Well this type of crap was EXACTLY the reason I wanted to be on the TRC in the 1st place. The IBC just won't stop shooting itself in the foot - and it really is hurting the league...great work again guys!
A little late to the party, but you guys (not just Z) bitch WAY too much. When was the last time a trade was vetoed before this? This is why trying to run this league is a pain in the ass, every time something happens that someone doesn't like, people overreact and treat it like the end of the fucking world. The TRC vetoes one trade in, what, a year? And some idiot goes off talking about the league "shooting itself in the foot" instead of looking at the full situation. How is the league shooting itself in the foot by having a trade review process that includes a league-wide appeal system? It's not, the system works, so quit crying and shut the fuck up.

Happy New Year.
User avatar
Reds
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:00 am

Post by Reds »

Actually there were quite a few vetos leading up to this one. This was one of the few that were appealed is all. The appeal process worked as designed and got most of the league involved. It also gives the new TRC a pretty good idea of how the league as a whole feels about trades of this type, which I am sure will be helpful to them. As far as the bitching, it seems rather mild when compared to the old days.... remember them, yikes!
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 4093
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

Reds wrote:Actually there were quite a few vetos leading up to this one. This was one of the few that were appealed is all. The appeal process worked as designed and got most of the league involved. It also gives the new TRC a pretty good idea of how the league as a whole feels about trades of this type, which I am sure will be helpful to them. As far as the bitching, it seems rather mild when compared to the old days.... remember them, yikes!
I've blocked most of it out, it makes me a happier person :)
Post Reply

Return to “Trade Approvals”