Is this trade better, worse, or the same than this trade from last draft that we allowed?
To Kenora: 2nd (#64) and 6th (#231)
To Minnesota: 2nd (#75) and 5th (#166)
This is definitely not veto worthy. I would do that trade if I was targetting a player that I believe was important to the building of my team and the last of his tier. We could argue that the difference between 166 and 231 can be minimal at time.
This is definitely not veto worthy. I would do that trade if I was targetting a player that I believe was important to the building of my team and the last of his tier. We could argue that the difference between 166 and 231 can be minimal at time.
Oh, I agree with you. I brought it up because it caused a controversy last time. I think we were a bit too vigilant last time because of how the draft started.
My problem is that I don't feel I'm getting enough of a gain there, hence the additional bump of seventeen in the #134 vs #151 portion. Yes, 100 versus 36 is more, but you all know that I'm giving up the opportunity to have a top-40 player on my roster if I do this trade.
My problem is that I don't feel I'm getting enough of a gain there, hence the additional bump of seventeen in the #134 vs #151 portion. Yes, 100 versus 36 is more, but you all know that I'm giving up the opportunity to have a top-40 player on my roster if I do this trade.
As I said, the last trade proposal I wrote down is a 50-50 one. However, if you look at the group of players available at 70 and the group of players available at 170, the difference is just as big if not bigger than the difference between 23 and 59. But that's one man opinion.
I would personally tell you to stuff it with that kind of offer, but I don't think it's vetoable as is. It's unbalanced, but not unacceptable so. Better than the one you slipped by last draft, Bugg. It's really up to paper, though.
Before I say any comments, I just want to let it be known that I did inquire about the 23rd overall pick, so if that changes perspective on what I have to say, it is better that I be open and honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg
My problem is that I don't feel I'm getting enough of a gain there, hence the additional bump of seventeen in the #134 vs #151 portion. Yes, 100 versus 36 is more, but you all know that I'm giving up the opportunity to have a top-40 player on my roster if I do this trade.
As someone who has traded out of the 1st round many times before. You are choosing to not have a top 40 pick. You don't have to. And for better or for worse, there is only so much you can get for making that choice. We can't have teams willingly throw themself under a bus to get their guy, it's why allowing trades is always such a hotly disputed topic.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Better than the one you slipped by last draft, Bugg.
Every ATD, someone tells me that, and yet the next one somebody agrees to a deal with similar parameters that offend certain people. I'm beginning to think it's not me that's the problem with trading in the ATD, but that's for another thread.
Sure, but I better be compensated for it. And it just so happens a GM- an experienced GM- agreed. Free market and all that.
I dont disagree. But just because a team is volunteering to hurt themself doesn't make it in the best interest of the ATD to let them. This isn't a free market though, we said from the get go that it's controlled. And while you are obviously entitled to compensation, you are entitled to fair compensation.
Eh I guess I'm okay with the most recent submission although I prefer it without 151 and 134 being involved. I still think it's an advantage to you, but I don't think it's THAT BAD that it can be vetoed.
