A few threads down there was a discussion about trading( Blockbusters,etc.). Someone mentioned that in some bigger trades it may look fair but one owner is giving up a player(s) on the "downslide" and getting "stars". I replied that if the trade is fair at the time,it should be OK'd because no one knows how players will do in the future and gave an example of picking up Bonds a few years ago when he was 35 years old coming off elbow surgery that cost him 40% of the year. That's the beauty & fun of trading: taking a chance on a young guy developing or an old player coming back and if you're wrong, that's life.
The reply was :

"You are inadvertantly making my point. Noone has a crystal ball. By limiting the scope of some of these trades it makes it easier to have their long range impact be less lopsided and therefore damaging to league balance."

I need to know if most PB owners agree with this thinking. I heard some similar sentiments a month oe so ago in another thread and I think it is terrible. People look back at trades and complain that it is an unfair trade because "everyone knew" that the player in question would blossom or rebound. BS !!! Try to trade an older player for fair value in PB and see what you get. Offer Larry Walker and there will be little or no interest and what there is will be of little value. However, if Walker does get traded for the best possible deal and then maintains his current health & production for 4 years then these complainers will whine that the owner who traded for Walker "stole" him in an "unfair" trade. Or like the guy quoted above they want to curtail trades that look fair because they might turn out imbalanced as one player involves does better than the others. This is ridiculous.

If this is the way people want to go then let me know because I think it'll be the end of PB in a hurry.