LogFAQs > #924476051

Well, at the very least, thank you for explaining your perspective on the matter. I'm not sure I agree that the only avenue to eliminate the rich getting richer (by which we seem to mostly mean the Dolphins apparently) is to eliminate sign-and-trades, but I do agree with getting rid of them altogether as opposed to having some limited form of them assuming I'm understanding your goal correctly.

That said, you really need to define what you consider to be a sign-and-trade so teams aren't making plans that involve trading certain players years down the line only to find out then that they can't trade them.

If it's as simple as players can't be traded the year they are signed, then the examples I posed earlier in the thread aren't an issue and that's clear enough. Otherwise, it needs to be made clear what exactly we are and are not allowed to do.

You have a tendency imo, to impute nefarious motives to users where there is none. That's what I was referring to by "witch hunt" earlier in the thread. If it's clear where we all stand under the rules, then there won't be an issue with that in the future which is what I was/still am looking to avoid.