0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I feel like this is the same issue that wound up causing all of the drama with the previous Trade Committee. If you don't feel that a deal is an example of collusion or is extremely lopsided, it should not be vetoable. The idea behind these committees is not to say whether or not you would have done the deal, the purpose is to prevent deals that are either collusional or extremely lopsided. This was a deal that was put in place because Daniel wants to collect prospects for a role player. Role players with limited upside can draw a package of middle tier talent. If any of these three live up to their potential, it will be a good deal for his team, and if none of them do, he's only out a low-ceiling role player. That's not an example of an unfair trade in my estimation.