Astros and Diamondbacks

Correct, I haven't been in the league long and haven't seen big time deals in the past. I'll let it play out, but i'm ok with the deal either way. I tend to use mlb.com as my source for prospect rankings. I know these lists are subjective in nature, but is baseball america considered the gold standard as far as prospect rankings go?

I accepted because I wanted players closer to the majors to infuse some talent sooner rather than later. I had ZERO top 100 prospects according to the list I use due to the absolute abomination of a job the previous owner did with signing and drafting. I'm attempting to fix that for the long haul. I admit the deal is probably a little light on my end, but I didn't receive a whole lot of offers either. Just saying.

i think what Astros' are drawing attention to is that without any discussion of "why" a trade is deemed collusion or grossly disproportionate and going straight to a poll opens the door for owners to vote the trade down because they don't like it. For example, I might say in my own mind that I don't like the trade because I am a divisional opponent and it puts my team further behind. I can then vote "no" and without any discussion, if the majority vote the same way, we have a case of collusion or gross disproportionality according to the constitution. It seems as though it could become a way to veto (or even slow down, if the trade took place in mid-season and i was playing one of the teams involved) any trade that I didn't like. Of course, this hasn't happened before, but seeing the process in practice might be motivation to object to any trade I don't like. Collusion and GD, it would seem to me, need to have some objective standard through which to be determined.

At minimum each owner who offers an objection should have to list a reason to accompany the objection. The reasons can be reproduced in the poll so as to maintain the anonymity of the objectors. For instance, are we looking at a situation where a much better offer from someone else was turned down by one of the owners only to take a lesser one? To be honest, in this particular circumstance with Astros/Dbacks, the objection doesn't even let us know whether someone thinks we are dealing with collusion or gross disproportion, which are entirely different. We don't know the basis of the objection.

Just my 2 cents on what i think is a healthy dialogue about how the constitution works in practice so that the two (constitution & practice) can be as seamless as possible and maintain the vitality of a great league.

I understand where you're coming from but this league requires 12 votes......12!!! That's way more than just 1 division or someone you're up against often or have a rivalry with. The reason I don't want discourse is being proven right here. There will be people for it, people against it ect... And it puts some people in the "he was for it group" and others in the "he was against it group" and then builds up animosity. No. I don't want relationships in this league ruined over something that is completely based on a personal opinion. People should not need to be convinced for this to pass one way or the other. Because trust me, if 12 owners agree that a trade should not go through, that means it was truly a deal that should not go through and should be re-worked. As I mentioned to Ryan and Brandon, just because this deal could possibly get vetoed, it doesn't mean they can't tweak it and add something on one side or the other to make it work. It just would indicate that as constructed, it's too lopsided to authorize.

This is a particularly contentious issue. I think everyone here will agree that I'm usually ALL about the chit-chat. But in this case, I've seen it ruin too many leagues. Consider the players seriously, weigh your vote, and vote. That's it, and it will continue to be it every time there's a trade under review. This, politics, and religion are the only real Taboos in this league. I don't think it's asking much.

It's more than 10 cents, but there you go.