Tim,

You have a couple of valid points; the tenor and subject line of my first post in this thread were beyond what was warrented; again, I apologize to Arizona. My intent was to add some clarity to several threads concerning this particular team, and trades that had been made by him. I was having a bad day and poorly choose my words and tone in the message. Again, I apologize. I think that there are several facets of the situation that needed clarification.

1) I do think new owners should carefully evaluate trades from this gentleman. Making the trade as proposed dismantles the team that defeated him in the World Series last year, and would make him the odds-on favorite to repeat in 2001. Is that something that a rookie owner ought to watch out for? I certainly think so....

2) I do think the offer that I received was poor; had the trade been made in the rotiserrie league that I've been in for 15 years, the owner giving away Aurilia, Cirillo, Schilling, Clemens, Mantei, et al for Pote, Fetters, Grebeck, Paquette, Radke and Elarton would have to explain why he gave so much future value if he was trading for the future. Colon is a great value; but you are overpaying for him, substantially, IMHO.

3) If anything, I've actually defended the gentleman somewhat, in that I don't think Collusion is at play here, which others have pointedly alluded to. Shark like behavior, quite possibly. Certainly, being a shark is not the ethical concern that collusion is. But it is something that new owners should be aware of. If one reviews the trades that were made in the past in this league, this owner did rebuild a franchise into an extremely powerful one via some trades that to me look questionable. Maybe this forum is not the place for this. The threads had been started by others; I merely attempted to add my experiences to what was being discussed. Yes, I did it poorly. Again I apologize to Arizona for the tone and tenor. And, again, I don't think that he colluded and had shadow teams, as some have speculated here.

4) We all evaluate talent differently; Mike overruled a trade of mine several posts back that 5 owners said was acceptable, and two agreed with mike that was unfair (although one of those thought I was getting fleeced!). I perhaps overreacted in posting as I did. In the light of another day, I still think my evaluation was reasonable, Tim, as you do with your evaluation. That's part of the charm of the game. Since the actions of this owner had been the topic of discussion, I felt my addition was warrented.

5) I was too pointed in my negativity towards the owner; I probably should'nt have vented in such a manor. I'm trying to rebuild a couple of teams, and am still amazed at how talent is given away in this sim in the name of rebuilding. In M6, Mark McGwire couldn't draw more than 1 prospect offers from several teams. St. Louis would never trade him for as little as I was offered. I settled on a fair offer in Mark Sweeney. But I have looked at lots of trades where rebuilding clubs give too much away; the trades made by this gentleman appear to be examples of this. I overreacted to this; I apologize. Doesn't mean that the trades were, in fact, balanced.

For everything that I have said, that offended, I apologize to Arizona. I am surprised that he has offered no defense of his own of these. I don't think he used farm teams to his advantage. But, as a community who enjoys this game, we need to protect new players to the game. New owners will come from the ranks of baseball fans who play roto or other fantasy games and may be new to Sim. We should hold owners to higher standards of behavior, to protect the new owners. Tim, you were probably correct in calling me on this. (In my mind, the post was merely sarcastic. I guess I should reread before I post.) The question remains, is thi