Takas bilgisi
Geri alındı
| Bilgi | |
|---|---|
| Müzakere başlangıcı | 2023-06-04- 01:22 |
| Müzakere sonu | 2023-06-04- 13:32 |
| Restrictions' level | |
|
Iñigo Mayorga
|
|||
| Maaş: | 5544 Eu | |||
| Sözleşme: | 3 S | Yaş: | 22 y. | |
| GS: | 178 | Boy: | 213 cm. | |
| Potansiyel: | 8 | |||
|
Vladimirs Karlsons
|
|||
| Maaş: | 2500 Eu | |||
| Sözleşme: | 1 S | Yaş: | 27 y. | |
| GS: | 159 | Boy: | 210 cm. | |
| Potansiyel: | 7 | |||
|
Juris Bullītis | |||
| Maaş: | 2080 Eu | |||
| Sözleşme: | 1 S | Yaş: | 28 y. | |
| GS: | 156 | Boy: | 207 cm. | |
| Potansiyel: | 5 | |||
Takas/Kiralık oyuncular:
+0
2.1
1.1
jopencjusz
1.1
https://www.basketpulse.com/lt/Trade/information/1151398
Gizli cevapları göster: 17
Can't say with 100% certanity, cause I don't remember it, but I'm pretty sure I there also voted to revert trade, similar reasoning as here, I feel it was also a little too one sided.
--
93 S
34 g.
--
(tercüme et)
(tercüme et EN)
+1
1.1
I cannot speak on behalf of others; I can only explain the reasoning behind my personal ruling.
I vetoed this trade based on the principle of "salary drop, where one or more useful players are exchanged for useless player(s) with the sole goal of reducing salaries."
Furthermore, based on Rule - Trades, point four: a team is not allowed to give away players they do not need as gifts to other teams.
This trade took place within 28 days of the season. I have sufficient reasons to believe that the purpose of RCR Tartessos proposing the trade was solely to waive the contracts of the acquired players on the 35th day in order to reduce some salary, rather than actually needing the two players they received. Therefore, it violates the aforementioned clause. If both traders resubmit the trade today, I will change my decision to approve the trade, Because RCR Tartessos will be unable to waive the players he acquired during this season.
=====
Certainly, in this trade, the trading value of Iñigo Mayorga far exceeds that of Vladimirs Karlsons and Juris Bullītis. The former is a promising and below-market-average priced player, while the latter two are substitute-level players that can be acquired at a similar price at almost any time. However, personally, I would not judge this as cheating or providing unilateral assistance. The benefits obtained by BBBeverSSS from the trade are not significant enough to warrant vetoing the trade. The impact on fair competition is relatively limited.
=====
Finally, please don't take the warning regarding trade restoration too seriously. The system interface does not provide an option to restore trades without a warning. Therefore, restoring a trade does not imply that you did something wrong or violated any rules. Often, it simply means that the trade the trade is restricted by the rules or had an impact on the overall fairness of the competition. If you have experience playing fantasy ball games, you may know that many leagues require other players to vote on whether a trade should be approved because it affects the overall competitive environment. I believe the existence of the FPC in BP is based on similar reasons. -- 93 S 34 g.
I vetoed this trade based on the principle of "salary drop, where one or more useful players are exchanged for useless player(s) with the sole goal of reducing salaries."
Furthermore, based on Rule - Trades, point four: a team is not allowed to give away players they do not need as gifts to other teams.
This trade took place within 28 days of the season. I have sufficient reasons to believe that the purpose of RCR Tartessos proposing the trade was solely to waive the contracts of the acquired players on the 35th day in order to reduce some salary, rather than actually needing the two players they received. Therefore, it violates the aforementioned clause. If both traders resubmit the trade today, I will change my decision to approve the trade, Because RCR Tartessos will be unable to waive the players he acquired during this season.
=====
Certainly, in this trade, the trading value of Iñigo Mayorga far exceeds that of Vladimirs Karlsons and Juris Bullītis. The former is a promising and below-market-average priced player, while the latter two are substitute-level players that can be acquired at a similar price at almost any time. However, personally, I would not judge this as cheating or providing unilateral assistance. The benefits obtained by BBBeverSSS from the trade are not significant enough to warrant vetoing the trade. The impact on fair competition is relatively limited.
=====
Finally, please don't take the warning regarding trade restoration too seriously. The system interface does not provide an option to restore trades without a warning. Therefore, restoring a trade does not imply that you did something wrong or violated any rules. Often, it simply means that the trade the trade is restricted by the rules or had an impact on the overall fairness of the competition. If you have experience playing fantasy ball games, you may know that many leagues require other players to vote on whether a trade should be approved because it affects the overall competitive environment. I believe the existence of the FPC in BP is based on similar reasons. -- 93 S 34 g.
--
(tercüme et)
(tercüme et EN)
+4
