ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Cross-Court Dynasty => NBA DYNASTY GM HOME => Cross-Court Dynasty: Archives => Topic started by: Interpaga on December 08, 2021, 03:45:38 AM
-
Spurs trade:
- Spurs first round pick 2024
- Nets second round pick 2023
- Austin Reaves $0.5m 2023 (G-league)
- Blake Griffin $1.2m 2024
Clippers trade:
- Derozan $22m 2025 ($19m paid 2022, $11m paid 2023)
Spurs are looking to improve the team. We use a package of picks/players to add a very good player to our team
-
Clippers have decided to go ahead and start doing a rebuild and this trade i add picks that will help me with this down the road
-
:veto: A precedent was set in the veto of the trade below. Los Angeles is trading a star player currently ranked #36 overall who is more than two-thirds paid for what will probably be one of the last picks in the first round of 2024 and a middle of the 2nd round pick in 2023. The two players in this trade are throw-ins.
76ers trade (the blessed bounty of):
1st rd pick 2020
2nd rd pick 2020
2nd rd pick 2021
2nd rd pick 2022
F Furkan Korkmaz $1.8m
Warriors trade:
PG Stephen Curry $30m (2022) *paid 2021
Curry is greater than DeRozan, but the trades are on par as far as being vetoable when you consider the following, which are all more lopsided in the DeRozan trade when compared to the Curry trade.
1) Both trades have $30m paid, but DeRozan will only cost the team getting him $14m more over the two years vs. $30m for Curry.
2) The draft picks being traded for Curry are twice as good as the draft picks being traded for DeRozan as there are twice as many picks and the 1st round pick offered for Curry is more valuable than the 1st round pick being traded for DeRozan.
3) Furkan Korkmaz is better than Griffin & Reaves. Korkmaz was #158 overall last year and is currently #162 overall this year, while Griffin & Reaves are not even rotation players. So if everyone was drafting to win this year, Korkmaz would be a 6th round value, which would make him a starter in the active lineup.
I think if we vetoed the Curry trade above we have to also veto this trade as it is on par or worse than the Curry trade.
-
We will accept any decision but just a quick note from our side.
Derozan is playing very well this year but last 2 years was ranked 67 and 85 in Fantrax. Moreover he is 32 years old and has an expensive 4 years contract.
Curry is a top 5 player and, at the time of the trade, had just 2 years of contract. So it not easy to compare the two trades.
We agree that the package of picks/players is probably not superappealing at the moment but Blake still maintains some upside from the current low level as shown last year during playoffs and his contract is almost for free, Reaves is a young rotational player and the trade removes most of an expensive contract for a rebuilding team.
We also have the example of Anthony Davis trade:
Lakers trade -
- Anthony Davis *contract extended ($30m/year)
Pelicans trade -
- #57 2021 draft
- 2022 1st rounder
- 2023 2nd rounder
In that case, the package was very similar to the one offered for Derozan but the trade was approved, correctly in our opinion, because the seller could not/did not want to resign Davis.
Anyway we will accept any decision
-
I think it is also important to note that San Antonio Spurs traded DeRozan to Los Angeles about a year ago on December 7th.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=374717.0
Spurs trade -
Derozan $27m (2021)
Rozier $18.4m (2022, Hornets pay 12.5m and Spurs pay 1.5m just of 2021 salary)
Clippers trade -
Paul George $30m (2022, Clippers pay 8m just of 2022 salary)
2023 first round pick
Then on March 12, 2021 got Rozier back too in this trade.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=380282.0
Spurs trade:
- Lonnie Walker $3.7m 2022
- Lyles $0.5m 2022, recently acquired in free agency but still pending
- Nowell $1.1m 2023
- Spurs second round pick 2022
Clippers trade:
- Rozier $18.4m 2022 ($14m paid 2021 from previous trades of which $1.5m Spurs and $12.5m Hornets, Clippers agree to pay $9.2m in 2022)
Combining the three trades gets you:
Los Angeles Clippers trades:
Paul George $30m (2022, Clippers pay 8m just of 2022 salary)
Los Angeles Clippers 2023 1st Round Pick
Derozan $22m 2025 ($19m paid 2022, $11m paid 2023)
Rozier $18.4m 2022 ($14m paid 2021 from previous trades of which $1.5m Spurs and $12.5m Hornets, Clippers agree to pay $9.2m in 2022)
San Antonio Spurs trades:
Derozan $27m (2021)
Rozier $18.4m (2022, Hornets pay 12.5m and Spurs pay 1.5m just of 2021 salary)
Spurs first round pick 2024
Nets second round pick 2023
Austin Reaves $0.5m 2023 (G-league)
Blake Griffin $1.2m 2024
Lonnie Walker $3.7m 2022
Lyles $0.5m 2022, recently acquired in free agency but still pending
Nowell $1.1m 2023
Spurs second round pick 2022
Once you take away Rozier and DeRozan as they both went back to San Antonio Spurs you are left with:
Los Angeles Clippers trades:
Paul George
Los Angeles 1st Round Draft Pick in 2023
$47.2m paid in 2022 & 2023 across George, DeRozan, Rozier (The equivalent of paying all of Paul George's $30m due in 2022 plus $17.2m)
San Antonio Spurs trades:
Spurs first round pick 2024
Nets second round pick 2023
Austin Reaves $0.5m 2023 (G-league)
Blake Griffin $1.2m 2024
Lonnie Walker $3.7m 2022
Lyles $0.5m 2022, recently acquired in free agency but still pending
Nowell $1.1m 2023
Spurs second round pick 2022
That's the best player in Paul George for free, plus $17.2m additional paid, plus a sure lottery pick in the 1st round of the 2023 draft for Lonnie Walker, probably the last pick in the 2024 draft, and two 2nd round picks, and a bunch of worthless players. All within one year of trading from December 7, 2020 until now back and forth with the same primary players.
There is also this suspicious trade:
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=395158.0
Spurs trade:
- Frank Ntilikina $0.5m 2023
- Isaiah Roby $1.8m 2023 (fully paid 2022, $0.9m paid 2023)
Clippers trade:
- Tony Bradley $2.3 2023 (fully paid)
Spurs need a backup C with some playing time
to which Indiansnation responded "I trade for a player I like in Bradley and this trade does it"
It's not my call, but I think the two should probably be banned from trading with each other. Rozier was later traded from San Antonio to Brooklyn (whom indiansnation also manages) for Lonzo Ball. There are several other trades between the two teams that mostly favor the San Antonio Spurs. These trades are a large reason that San Antonio sits at the top of the standings at 27-1. The two of them trading repeatedly back and forth for the same players with indiansnation consistently paying on them is highly suspicious along with the comment made above, which was corrected, but initially confused who was trading away and for whom, which was quoted before it was corrected. I also saw the above quote before it was changed. I believe a ban of trading between the two could help league parity, which their trading has severely damaged.
Lonzo Ball also had $11m paid each year across two years when traded to the Spurs from Brooklyn (indiansnation). Brooklyn also traded Lebron James to Spurs ($16m paid) thus resulting in indiansnation paying a total of $85.2m on trades to San Antonio across two teams for 2022 & 2023. There could be even more paid, but I didn't dive too deeply into all their trades.
-
We are totally astonished by the allegations of "conspiracy" and all the other serious allegations against us.
We play this league with passion and we always tried to improve our roster. Is it something to be culpable of? Not really.
We like being active on the trade market and, as everyone knows, we engaged several discussions with all member of the league. If some trades went down with indiansnation, this was just because he is often available to trade negotiations; of course, in the process many ideas were exchanged and offers declined.
Again, all trades between us were approved without any sort of veto, so frankly accusing us of unfair trading or even conspiracy is totally ungrounded. DynastyDeacon, why did not veto the previous trades if you thought they were biased? We will be happy to run through each of them.
We also strongly reject the concept that we are 27-1 because we traded with indiansnation. We were 69-3 last year and probably just 2 totally fair trades were finalized last year between Spurs and Clippers. Spurs is a good team because we spend a lot of time, probably too much, on this game, we trade a lot with strong attention to other teams needs and we made some good and cheap acquisitions in free agency. Insinuating that we are good because we finalized various, often minor, trades with Clippers/Nets is probably the most annoying thing for us. Also because the other allegation (conspirancy) should not even deserve a reply.
Regarding one of the minor trades mentioned (Roby/Ntikilina for Bradley), we let indiansnation explain why he made that confusing comment, we simply proposed to indiansnation a fair trade that at that time seemed good for our team, but then proved to be in favour of Clippers (a clear demonstration that there are several instances of trades not in favour of Spurs).
If the members of the league think we deserve a ban from trading with another team, we would prefer that you directly ban us from the league. So you can dismantle Spurs and restore a league which was "severely damaged" by us. We enjoy a lot this league but frankly, after the recent allegations from a key member of the league for which we had a lot of respect, at the moment we are not sure if we are still in the mood of continuing playing this league. Putting doubts on our fairness and our team, after all our efforts in building it, is simply too much for us
-
Just an additional consideration. All the allegations are based on a confusing comment of indiansnation where he seemed to be on the other side of the trade.
We want to clarify that we (interpaga) are two guys from Italy co-managing Spurs, big NBA fans, we do not know indiansnation, we have no other relationship with him apart from playing the same NBA fantasy league. Please note that we were the first to ask indiansnation, through a private message, a clarification about that confusing post. We are open to share all the relevant messages we sent if needed.
We hope that also indiansnation could clarify his position
-
We are totally astonished by the allegations of "conspiracy" and all the other serious allegations against us.
We play this league with passion and we always tried to improve our roster. Is it something to be culpable of? Not really.
We like being active on the trade market and, as everyone knows, we engaged several discussions with all member of the league. If some trades went down with indiansnation, this was just because he is often available to trade negotiations; of course, in the process many ideas were exchanged and offers declined.
Again, all trades between us were approved without any sort of veto, so frankly accusing us of unfair trading or even conspiracy is totally ungrounded. DynastyDeacon, why did not veto the previous trades if you thought they were biased? We will be happy to run through each of them.
We also strongly reject the concept that we are 27-1 because we traded with indiansnation. We were 69-3 last year and probably just 2 totally fair trades were finalized last year between Spurs and Clippers. Spurs is a good team because we spend a lot of time, probably too much, on this game, we trade a lot with strong attention to other teams needs and we made some good and cheap acquisitions in free agency. Insinuating that we are good because we finalized various, often minor, trades with Clippers/Nets is probably the most annoying thing for us. Also because the other allegation (conspirancy) should not even deserve a reply.
Regarding one of the minor trades mentioned (Roby/Ntikilina for Bradley), we let indiansnation explain why he made that confusing comment, we simply proposed to indiansnation a fair trade that at that time seemed good for our team, but then proved to be in favour of Clippers (a clear demonstration that there are several instances of trades not in favour of Spurs).
If the members of the league think we deserve a ban from trading with another team, we would prefer that you directly ban us from the league. So you can dismantle Spurs and restore a league which was "severely damaged" by us. We enjoy a lot this league but frankly, after the recent allegations from a key member of the league for which we had a lot of respect, at the moment we are not sure if we are still in the mood of continuing playing this league. Putting doubts on our fairness and our team, after all our efforts in building it, is simply too much for us
My quote was " I am not one for conspiracies, but at the very least a ban of trading between the two could help league parity, which their trading has severely damaged." I have revised that sentence. I don't believe it is a conspiracy and I apologize for giving the impression that I thought that. I do believe that several trades between two teams involving many of the same players that are consistently favoring one team over the other should be stopped and the trades vetoed. Reviewed individually they are lopsided trades, but not veto worthy. Once you look at the big picture of how they all fit together and the overall result of the many trades, plus the high frequency, and the same players going back and forth, it does at the very least raise a great deal of concern.
Currently your trades have netted you the best player in Paul George, the best draft pick in an LA Clippers 1st round pick, and an enormous $47.2m savings in salary cap across 2 years in exchange for Lonnie Walker, a late 1st round draft pick, and two 2nd round draft picks.
1. $47.2m in savings over two years is worth Lonnie Walker, your 1st round pick, and 2 2nd round picks as that can get you an OG Anunoby ($21m per year signed in 2021 free agency) or better in free agency.
2. Paul George is worth Lonnie Walker, your 1st round pick, and 2 2nd round picks.
3. The Los Angeles Clippers 1st round pick is worth Lonnie Walker, your 1st round pick, and 2 2nd round picks as it will most likely be a top #5 pick.
You didn't just get one of those things, but you got all 3, which is an enormous advantage. Again, none of the trades up until this one were vetoable on their own, but I believe this one is. There is also the ongoing issue of two teams trading back and forth until one team has nothing left and the other builds a super team.
I know you don't want Huerter as he will need to be extended at a high price, but I have no doubt that you will in time, if allowed to continue, soon trade DeRozan and some 2nd round draft picks to Brooklyn for a mostly paid Kevin Durant and continue to improve your team at the cost of league parity by trading with Brooklyn (indiansnation's 2nd team) as there is nothing left of value on Los Angeles Clippers. This isn't all on you, rather, I believe you are consistently exploiting another manager that doesn't have the same skill level that you do to the detriment of his team and to the league.
League parity has always been important to me and I have played in other leagues that have died because teams were allowed to continue with trades like this. People don't typically want to play in a league where they are playing for 2nd best or 3rd best because of a super-team. I know because I was the commissioner in a league in the past and created my own super team through trades. It became unenjoyable for me and unenjoyable for the rest of the league and everyone called it quits.
Also, a veto vote for this deal only hurts me as I have Los Angeles Clippers 1st round pick and 2nd round pick in 2024, which I obtained in a deal centered around Kevin Huerter. I will gladly also accept a ban in trading with indiansnation if it proves that I am vetoing in the interest of the league and not for my own self interest. I really enjoy and care about this league, like you do. Unfortunately, I believe you care about winning more than you care about the league, which is why you carry healthy guys on the IL and consistently make these lopsided trades with the same person.
-
Why cant the deal just be vetoed and they can be given the option to re-work the deal? Leaving it as simple as that.
I think the public talk of a trade ban is unwarranted and just causes more harm that good in this case.
-
I don't have the power to implement a trade ban, but wanted to bring that up as I think that's the only way to prevent veto worthy trades in this scenario. Since they trade back and forth so often they end up in the same place with a veto worthy trade, but broken into several lopsided trades. The culmination of the three trades involving George, DeRozan, Rozier is definitely veto worthy and this deal is veto worthy. The reason I mentioned a trade ban is regarding the question of whether Spurs should be allowed to make veto worthy trades because they are broken down into smaller lopsided, but not veto worthy trades. I hope that makes sense. If they rework the deal all it takes is another deal in a month and we have allowed a veto worthy trade because it was done in 2 or 3 parts. Thus my thinking of a trade ban as the only way to prevent a veto worthy trade between Spurs and indiansnation. That's not my call, but I thought it needs to be mentioned.
I don't mean to cause a scene, but it's important to take the many transactions into consideration as well as this current trade due to the frequency of back and forth trading of the same players and the payments on those players when they go back to the Spurs. I have honestly never seen this scenario in all my years of playing fantasy sports where the same players were traded back and forth so many times between the same manager (3 trades in a year including Rozier, 2 involving DeRozan).
I am fine with whatever Billy, and the league decides. I have my opinion of what should be done based on what I believe is best for the league, but others are certainly allowed to and encouraged to disagree with me. I will accept whatever is decided without threat of leaving the league.
-
My quote was " I am not one for conspiracies, but at the very least a ban of trading between the two could help league parity, which their trading has severely damaged." I have revised that sentence. I don't believe it is a conspiracy and I apologize for giving the impression that I thought that. I do believe that several trades between two teams involving many of the same players that are consistently favoring one team over the other should be stopped and the trades vetoed. Reviewed individually they are lopsided trades, but not veto worthy. Once you look at the big picture of how they all fit together and the overall result of the many trades, plus the high frequency, and the same players going back and forth, it does at the very least raise a great deal of concern.
Currently your trades have netted you the best player in Paul George, the best draft pick in an LA Clippers 1st round pick, and an enormous $47.2m savings in salary cap across 2 years in exchange for Lonnie Walker, a late 1st round draft pick, and two 2nd round draft picks.
1. $47.2m in savings over two years is worth Lonnie Walker, your 1st round pick, and 2 2nd round picks as that can get you an OG Anunoby ($21m per year signed in 2021 free agency) or better in free agency.
2. Paul George is worth Lonnie Walker, your 1st round pick, and 2 2nd round picks.
3. The Los Angeles Clippers 1st round pick is worth Lonnie Walker, your 1st round pick, and 2 2nd round picks as it will most likely be a top #5 pick.
You didn't just get one of those things, but you got all 3, which is an enormous advantage. Again, none of the trades up until this one were vetoable on their own, but I believe this one is. There is also the ongoing issue of two teams trading back and forth until one team has nothing left and the other builds a super team.
I know you don't want Huerter as he will need to be extended at a high price, but I have no doubt that you will in time, if allowed to continue, soon trade DeRozan and some 2nd round draft picks to Brooklyn for a mostly paid Kevin Durant and continue to improve your team at the cost of league parity by trading with Brooklyn (indiansnation's 2nd team) as there is nothing left of value on Los Angeles Clippers. This isn't all on you, rather, I believe you are consistently exploiting another manager that doesn't have the same skill level that you do to the detriment of his team and to the league.
League parity has always been important to me and I have played in other leagues that have died because teams were allowed to continue with trades like this. People don't typically want to play in a league where they are playing for 2nd best or 3rd best because of a super-team. I know because I was the commissioner in a league in the past and created my own super team through trades. It became unenjoyable for me and unenjoyable for the rest of the league and everyone called it quits.
Also, a veto vote for this deal only hurts me as I have Los Angeles Clippers 1st round pick and 2nd round pick in 2024, which I obtained in a deal centered around Kevin Huerter. I will gladly also accept a ban in trading with indiansnation if it proves that I am vetoing in the interest of the league and not for my own self interest. I really enjoy and care about this league, like you do. Unfortunately, I believe you care about winning more than you care about the league, which is why you carry healthy guys on the IL and consistently make these lopsided trades with the same person.
Sorry but after dismissing some allegations, you are now adding new speculations about our goals and intentions. Now it has became a judgement of intentions.
First of all, please expand on the sentence that we carry healthy guys on the IL. In two years, we kept for just one playing day a healthy player in IR, then we immediately correct the roster releasing a player. Please let us know if you have different information.
You want to veto the trade above, fine, but we cannot accept that trades previously approved without any veto are now reevaluated ex-post. Just to give you a quick example, Clippers first round pick 2023 when traded 12 months ago had definitely not the same value of today, Lonnie Walker was a better prospect than now and Nowell too, considering that he was putting really strong numbers when traded. Most of trades in real and fantasy basketball, if valued after 1 years, have a winner and a loser.
We want to build a very good team but the league is very competitive and last year we did not even reach the finals.
Moreover, we strongly reject the concept that we are doing this at the expense of another team. Again, all trades between us were absolutely fair when finalized.
We cannot accept in principle to be banned from trading with another team when all the trades were done on a fair level. You want that we think twice before negotiating with a rebuilding team considering that our team is already very good, Clippers in particular? Ok it could be fine for us, we can do it for the benefit of the league, but please dismiss all the unfair allegations and ungrounded speculations that have been made today
-
Just a final consideration.
You do not like that we trade the same player several times, fine, we can understand. But you continue saying that our trade were lopsided, in favor of Spurs, and we cannot accept it. For the benefit of all other members, please let me post the 3 main trades finalized between Clippers and Spurs
1) Spurs trade -
Derozan $27m (2021)
Rozier $18.4m (2022, Hornets pay 12.5m and Spurs pay 1.5m just of 2021 salary)
Clippers trade -
Paul George $30m (2022, Clippers pay 8m just of 2022 salary)
2023 first round pick
Completely fair trade, also ex-post. One manager even commented "good value for George".
2) Spurs trade:
- Lonnie Walker $3.7m 2022
- Lyles $0.5m 2022
- Nowell $1.1m 2023
- Spurs second round pick 2022
Clippers trade:
- Rozier $18.4m 2022 ($14m paid 2021 from previous trades of which $1.5m Spurs and $12.5m Hornets, Clippers agree to pay $9.2m in 2022)
This proved to be in favor of Spurs ex-post
3) Spurs trade:
- Tate $0.4m 2022
- Cancar $1.7m 2022
- SAC second round pick 2022
Clippers trade:
- Roby $1.8m 2023 (fully paid 2022, $0.9m 2023)
It proved to be strongly in favor of Clippers, Roby is not even playing and Tate is a top-100
-
First of all, please expand on the sentence that we carry healthy guys on the IL. In two years, we kept for just one playing day a healthy player in IR, then we immediately correct the roster releasing a player. Please let us know if you have different information.
You had two healthy players on your IR that played in games on 11/24. I emailed you on the morning of 11/27 to correct that as they were both still on there at that time as you needed to clear a roster spot to add Blake Griffin. They would have been active for about 60 hours (2.5 days) before you fixed the issue. Only after I emailed you did you make a roster move and drop a player, adding another to the IR (who hit the IR after being injured in a game on 11/24) in order to make room for Blake Griffin.
I don't want to get in a big argument with you. I don't think you are doing anything that would be considered against the league rules. I am sorry for any allegations or speculation. I am only reporting the trends that I am observing and how it is influencing your team, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the league in general. You are very gifted managers. I don't believe this is collusion, but it is having the same effect as collusion and is being done in the same way that collusion is usually completed to not be detected. Collusion typically occurs with two teams trading with each other using lots of trades that typically favor one team, but not always. Collusion is against the rules as it benefits one team at the expense of another team (expense meaning the worsening of another team) and ultimately undermines the competitiveness of the league (by greatly increasing the abilities of a single team). I don't believe this is collusion as I believe the goal of indiansnation is not to benefit your team, but to benefit his team. However, since there are so many trades with the same players back and forth and the trades are primarily benefiting your team the trades between your two teams (third if you include Brooklyn) are having the same effect, in my opinion, of benefiting your team at the expense of Los Angeles Clippers, and is undermining the competitiveness of the league by greatly benefiting your team. That is just my opinion based on my own observations.
The moves you have both made back and forth with largely the same players is unprecedented. I have never seen two managers swap the same players back and forth so many times. I apologize if I implied that you weren't playing within the rules. I believe you have followed the rules aside from the IR issue, which didn't end up making a difference. I feel like this has been blown out of proportion. I think it is important to note the many trades between two managers when evaluating a current trade if they include a player that has already been traded between the teams, especially if the prior trade included a player that was involved in two other trades involving the same managers. It raises questions and concerns, which I believe are relevant in evaluating a current trade and the nature of the trades between the two managers. Not saying you did anything wrong, but I know you can see where I am coming from, even if you disagree with what I am saying in the name of further improving your team.
This is all just one persons opinion and I am fine with whatever the league decides.
-
I don't think this deal is vetoable by itself based on past deals that have gone through, but I also agree that the series of Spurs/Clippers+Nets trades seem to make no sense for LAC when looked at as a whole (now or at the time of some of the trades) and is an issue. Especially if no new owner takes over BKN (who OUDAN pointed out hasn't even been setting lineups, which also helps SAS).
I could be convinced either way for approve/veto with my reasons for considering veto are:
1. Series of trades lopsided in favor of SAS, with many looking to be clearly in SAS's favor when made imo and none clearly in LAC's favor.
2. The only real reasoning that this is reasonable is that DeRozan's contract may be bad in 3-4 years, but if LAC is worried about that he should only have extended DeRozan for 1-2 years instead of giving him away cheap.
3. DeRozan was not mentioned on the trade block first. There may not have been better offers, but it makes sense to see what offers are available before taking a low offer for a star player.
On a side note, one league I am in has a rule where if an owner trades away a star player (or potentially other bad trade) for what the commissioner thinks is ridiculously cheap without listing him on the trade block, the trade is held up and other teams have a couple days to make offers for the player. Then the star's owner picks the best offer. If it isn't the original deal, then the other initial owner gets one more chance to counter before a deal is finalized. Something like this might be helpful, but I think it can be annoying if it is used much and could be abused to unfairly help owners force the best offer from other teams after making a bad deal or hurt owners who buy low on players not on the block.
I also am in a league that has limited trades overall and a limit of one per each team, but I wouldn't want to implement a limit like that in this league. Especially since it basically kills small trades that there have been a lot of in this league.
-
We really would like to close the discussion that frankly went too far, with allegations and speculations on us, which proved to be wrong.
We believe that the 3 top trades posted above (we can post all of them) clearly show that trades finalized with Clippers were not lopsided.
If, as a result of all of this, the league decides, for all managers, that trading back players already traded, despite being within the rules, is not advisable, we will abide by such a rule accordingly
-
I would like to hear more thoughts from others on the subject. I'm ready to move on to with whatever the league decides.
I would also like to sincerely apologize to Interpaga and indiansnation for any implication that either team may have acted in a way to purposefully hurt their own team or the league for the benefit of themselves or another team. I know that is not the case. I do believe the current trade is worthy of a veto, but I could have more delicately expressed my thoughts on the reason it should be vetoed. I apologize for the way I made my case and the negative assessment of indiansnation's managing skills.
-
Ok enough. This escalated way too far.
There is no grounds to accuse these 2 of ?collusion? and banning them from trading with each other. Especially in a public post.
Vetoes need to be left at a simple explanation and nothing more. There is not to be this back and forth bullshit.
There will not be any overturning of already approved trades.
And there will never be a rule requiring a star player to be put on the trade block before they can be traded.
Regardless this discussion is closed.