Personally I think the lines are far too blurred when it comes to voting on trades.
I thought the process was designed to protect new GMs from lopsided deals, likely as a result of being new to the rules or not understanding the ratings systems. Instead it seems to be far more of a jury panel that nitpicks any aspect of the trade they deem to be weighted in favour of the veteran GM. I've read quite a few posts over the past season or two that say something along the lines of "It's not bad but I think he could get more, so I voted no.", which is not how I think any trade should be viewed in a voting process.
The voting process should be as impartial as possible, If you think he could get more that's fine, and feel free to voice that opinion but it isn't your team, isn't your trade. The difference here became essentially and 2nd+Josh Jooris instead of a 2nd... That is a far too specific line in the sand IMO
|