• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
SFG/LAA
#9
(11-08-2010, 02:49 PM)Jordan Wrote:
(11-08-2010, 01:38 AM)raysman1 Wrote: Accept.

Veto for the fact that LAA did not post reasoning which is necessary for any trade to be subject to being approved.

And for DJ's concern for this trade, LAA is not giving up too much except a mid level spec, SF is paying for most of the NTC. LAA is getting more out of the deal currently, but obviously Sandoval's declining vitals and his long term contract is the reason for your concern and the reason why scotty has been trying to move this guy.

Again I want reasoning from LAA before I accept this, but I am assuming it would be something like "I want him so we can win now, even if his contract might be burden in the future."

I don't see anything in the rules that says that I must give a reason of why I did the trade, but alright, I've been making dumb trades lately, so I'll hold off on this one.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)



Messages In This Thread
SFG/LAA - by Scott - 11-08-2010, 01:36 AM
RE: SFG/LAA - by raysman1 - 11-08-2010, 01:38 AM
RE: SFG/LAA - by AndyP - 11-08-2010, 02:05 AM
RE: SFG/LAA - by terrythek - 11-08-2010, 06:22 AM
RE: SFG/LAA - by dejota - 11-08-2010, 12:09 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by Jordan - 11-08-2010, 02:49 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by chrisveley - 11-08-2010, 03:08 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by dejota - 11-08-2010, 03:40 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by raysman1 - 11-08-2010, 04:51 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by Jordan - 11-08-2010, 06:30 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by AndyP - 11-08-2010, 05:40 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by Scott - 11-08-2010, 11:24 PM
RE: SFG/LAA - by hokeyrules - 11-09-2010, 12:05 AM

Forum Jump: