there was never a smart deal that fit that parameter...not because that was what the rule WAS. lol

So i was there when the rule was in effect(didn't remember), but again the rule has been modified and is pretty specific now. My opinion is that it isn't fair or realistic to try to use a rule from 6 years ago when it has been modified multiple times for a reason.

It feels like you're trying to micromanage it now. For whatever reason it wasn't written into the rule, it shouldn't be the main reason for wanting to veto it. IF the numbers were skewed in shawn's favor and it violated the rule we have in that sense, using the 1st rounder bit would provide more evidence to show that the trade was unfair and should be vetoed.

I think we agree tho going forward, that whatever trade rule we have should try to eliminate any grey areas.