Of course, that's a "cash in trade" argument.    But my point is that an owner can't say "He had no value.  I put him on waivers and he didn't get claimed" when someone says "That's a bullshit trade."   Cash inclusion changes values of players. 

To be fair, there wasn't cash in the trade i made - we managed to move 40 million in salary without the inclusion of that.

And i am sure i got carried away. I'm a passionate, stubborn douche who won't admit he is wrong - because i am usually not. It just irks me the way that went down, because all absolutely wasn't as it seemed. But it looks like it will work out for the best, SP got a good owner in there, and i don't have to see Brian anymore, LOL

This thread again shows that discussions about trades and vetoes are useless. Most if not all discussions on that topics I have seen on league boards or threads  went from philosophical (some didn't even reach that starting level) to annoying. Each of us values players, trade packages etc. differently, and if you see a deal that will be good for your franchise you do it, regardless if you have vetoed a 'similar' deal the other day or not. So trying to install guidelines, stability or how ever you will name it on trades/vetoes, it is a honorable, but sure to fail try. The only thing that is sure concerning this topic in my view is, if there are 10 vetoes from the league, then there's something wrong with this deal, if you agree or not. 

Incorrect on many levels.

Yeah, that reeks of jackassery

A world without Brian? How could that be a bad thing? Think of it like Shawshank Redemption...isn't crawling thru the last 400 yards of **** worth it to start anew? Sign me up!