At first, you said it flies in the face of the numbers. But then, you argued that Basa obviously won and that's why it's a fucked up trade... but, if looking at it from *purely* a numbers perspective, Magilla came up. A lot. Like, a LOT a lot.

So why are the numbers what should allegedly matter in a trade when you just argued that Basa won despite the numbers indicating on paper how much he gave up? You could argue those numbers are a mirage... but what if they aren't? Magilla just won big and Basa just lost a lot if those numbers stick. And if you don't think they'll stick... that's individual evaluation, not numbers.

By the numbers, Magilla "won" because he significantly increased his depth and Basa "won" because he fortified his starting lineup. He took a risk on ditching serious depth, Magilla took a risk on ditching a 1.2+ star. On paper, this seems like a totally understandable trade from both sides.

If the issue is a good team getting an asset dealing depth to a bad team... what good is having depth on a good team if you can't trade it to your advantage, and what good is having a high round pick on a bad team if you're losing all the time?

As someone trying to deal CP3 in exchange for real depth, I'm never getting a 1.6+ guy back... or even a first rounder. But I'd be getting serious depth enhancements in all of the deals I'm negotiating. What's wrong with that? Or is there nothing wrong with that, it's just this individual deal you don't like? I seriously need to know before I make a deal, as I'd rather avoid this whole rigmarole if I go through with one.

And these are serious, non-devil's-advocate questions I'm posing. This isn't posturing or individual defense of either guy. I seriously need to know what the rules say I should or shouldn't do in a trade. Right now, it just feels like they discourage trading in general.