Aren't we allowed to trade during drafts? Your 2nd point is therefore invalid Your 1st point comes back to subjectivity - you believe everyone should values players and picks roughly the same - by your value system - if you see perceived inequality in a trade then you ask for a Veto. I and others see things very differently
"Regardless of if a draft pick is no longer owned once delistment cut off has passed is really a secondary point" Its actually one of the main points. Like I said - different rules for different coaches. You're effectively saying that your trades where you did exactly what I did but didn't get as good a deal are fine but my trade is not
Based on the current rules, trading is allowed, I just stated a point of when the trade was completed. Yes, we all hold different values on players/picks hence why the veto system is in place and has to have more than one disgruntled coach to exercise their right to veto a trade. This is why I was such an advocate of not trading through the draft because of exactly this issue.
I think all coaches need to have a serious re-think about what is going on here and put forth their opinion or vote.
The trade was a valid trade. We can trade during drafts. There is currently no rule saying that picks we wouldn't be using can't be on-traded (if we want such a rule then this will need to be introduced for later drafts - definitely not this one). The trade has however seen more than five vetos, so will be over-ruled and reversed. Lets restart the draft, with pick 14 undone, and Mason Redman a free agent.
Now that the dust has settled I thought i would give my reason for the veto. In my opinion the trade was not within the spirit of the game, @TigersTooTough missed the cut of for delistment his own fault my admission, therefore he had no other chance than to accept the offer @Mick had proposed. I applaud @Mick for having the foresight but with no other option @TigersTooTough took the deal. @Mick has suggested their is a clique here, that is not the case. Some of us can respond to messages very quickly and as @insider said that was his first veto and has been on the end a veto , whereas @YAD69 and I seem to regularly have the same opinion on veto trades but this is the first one to get traction. @TigersTooTough had no intention of trading MSD 14 for PSD R4 whether it is lop sided or not is not the issue a forced trade based on circumstances is not within the spirit of the game. As i stated before an auction for dead picks would be a fair outcome.
So Mick’s “forced trade” (your words) which resulted in TTT obtaining a PSD R4, is unfair to TTT, but exercising the veto, which actually forces TTT to receive nothing, is within the spirit of the game?
TTT was not forced to trade to Mick, he could have asked for other offers as YAD did. The fact that he didn't is totally his right as coach. God knows I've seen countless trades on here where I would have paid a coach more for a player than what they got if only I'd known he was going that cheap.
TTT has now been punished for accepting the first offer he got rather than be greedy and try for more. How's that for spirit of the game?!
Tylo and Damo are spot on. Auction for dead picks isn’t a good idea at all IMO I really don’t think this dead pick isssue is that complicated, I’m confused with why it’s that hard to understand.