11-13-2010, 02:32 PM
Alright, I'm chiming in now because I'm pissed over my last trade getting veto'd. I think there is no consistancy and people are getting WAY to involved in trades involving new GM's. I just had a trade veto'd not because it wasn't fair, but it was because a few people didn't like the new GM's reasoning behind the trade.
He was trading for a player that was considered a "rental", but crazy thing it that a "rental" can be resigned, and Brantley would resign for around the same amount he was under contract for. So our trade was veto'd because the player (along with $12M cash) I sent was on the last year of his contract. This honestly makes me think that other GM's need to take a step back and only veto trades if they are grossly unfair... not pick apart deals that they just don't like, or trades they wouldn't have done themselves.
Yes, we need to protect our new younger GM's, but we don't need to hold their hand and decide what they can or cannot trade in the process.
He was trading for a player that was considered a "rental", but crazy thing it that a "rental" can be resigned, and Brantley would resign for around the same amount he was under contract for. So our trade was veto'd because the player (along with $12M cash) I sent was on the last year of his contract. This honestly makes me think that other GM's need to take a step back and only veto trades if they are grossly unfair... not pick apart deals that they just don't like, or trades they wouldn't have done themselves.
Yes, we need to protect our new younger GM's, but we don't need to hold their hand and decide what they can or cannot trade in the process.