|
|
Post by theboss1 on Jan 29, 2011 14:09:29 GMT -5
veto
|
|
|
|
Post by cmill78 on Jan 29, 2011 14:10:03 GMT -5
The trade has already been vetoed but I must add my two cents here. We are talking about prospects. Not the Strasburg/Harper kind either. Since when do we veto deals based on stuff we haven't seen? You vote on a trade based on what you know. And no one knows how good these two will be in the majors. Craig may be MLB ready but where will they put him in that outfield?
Seriously guys, the only good that has come from expanding the TC has been quicker trade approvals/vetoes. There have been some silly vetoes. This may be veto worthy but certainly not for some of the reasons given. The TC votes to promote fairness and avoid collusion. What is so unfair about a AA prospect being dealt for a 4th outfielder?
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 29, 2011 15:25:20 GMT -5
this isnt a silly veto if 6 out of 7 people veto it astros
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Jan 29, 2011 16:33:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 29, 2011 16:46:33 GMT -5
wtf?
|
|
|
|
Post by cmill78 on Jan 29, 2011 17:14:03 GMT -5
Perfect fit Dodgers  |
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Jan 29, 2011 17:23:07 GMT -5
Perfect fit Dodgers I was thinking the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 29, 2011 20:40:34 GMT -5
I was the first one to veto so go look up your Wikipedia expressions, keep talking shit, I really don't see why u don't respect my opinions on votes  |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM (Michael) on Jan 29, 2011 21:41:09 GMT -5
He's just saying we're bandwagoning.
|
|
reds
New Member
Posts: 578
|
Post by reds on Jan 29, 2011 23:52:17 GMT -5
cmon guys....every time someone loses a trade we do not have to veto, if you are willing to do the trade then you must think that it helps your team......if the trade is not just awful than we should not interfer with it......but cmon, this trade is very small and will not efect much of anything......i think that this tc is vetoing just to veto.
|
|
|
|
Post by marlins (kevin) on Jan 29, 2011 23:59:23 GMT -5
Craig is the 5th outfielder for the Cardinals as of now. I am a Cardinals fan. Jay is ahead of him. I personally dont think Craig will ever start without at least one player being injured. I would rather have a pick and a prospect than him. I personally dont think a trade should be vetoed unless it is real bad. I wouldnt consider this bad at all.
|
|
reds
New Member
Posts: 578
|
Post by reds on Jan 30, 2011 0:03:25 GMT -5
Craig is the 5th outfielder for the Cardinals as of now. I am a Cardinals fan. Jay is ahead of him. I personally dont think Craig will ever start without at least one player being injured. I would rather have a pick and a prospect than him. I personally dont think a trade should be vetoed unless it is real bad. I wouldnt consider this bad at all. i agree, it is very debatable that cardinals won this trade....... (I think it was even....too small of a trade for clear cut winner) and it is being vetoed!!  We need to change this TC or the rules badly i say it has to be unanimous in the sense of a veto in order for a veto to occur. If the tc is split up then we should not veto it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Jan 30, 2011 0:10:51 GMT -5
I think we should have a revote for this trade.
|
|
reds
New Member
Posts: 578
|
Post by reds on Jan 30, 2011 0:13:07 GMT -5
I think we should have a revote for this trade. And by that you mean just approve this trade? |
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Jan 30, 2011 0:14:37 GMT -5
I think we should have a revote for this trade. And by that you mean just approve this trade? Basically. |
|
reds
New Member
Posts: 578
|
Post by reds on Jan 30, 2011 0:15:22 GMT -5
And by that you mean just approve this trade? Basically. I would be all for it, but in the midst of all of this has cardinals even accepted this trade yet lol. ? |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM (Michael) on Jan 30, 2011 9:04:21 GMT -5
Fine you win. I change my vote to approve if you guys revote. You're right because this trade is basically nothing. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 30, 2011 9:46:58 GMT -5
I thought the purpose of having multiple TC members was to let everyone speak their mind and have their own vote??
|
|
|
|
Post by cmill78 on Jan 30, 2011 10:09:30 GMT -5
No the point of having multiple TC members was to avoid collusion and promote fairness while speeding up the voting process. Opinions matter little as facts are what make trades approved or vetoed.
|
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM (Owen) on Jan 30, 2011 10:16:09 GMT -5
No the point of having multiple TC members was to avoid collusion and promote fairness while speeding up the voting process. Opinions matter little as facts are what make trades approved or vetoed. Well why if you think we're not trying to promote fairness when we vote what do u think we are trying to promote? |
|
