KGdaBom wrote:Wolveswin wrote:KGdaBom wrote:I know exactly what I'm saying and I think you realize that you shouldn't have called it an all in trade, but since I've backed you into a corner you're doubling and tripling down. Can we just agree you want to see us make a big trade to get a bonafide 2nd star? You don't see Randle or Jaden to be a good enough Robin to Ant's Batman.
It is an all-in trade. In no shape or form - other than your silly world - does an all-in trade mean the entire 15 man roster needs to be involved. Implying even close to that is beyond laughable.
An all-in trade is exactly how I defined it twice. And twice defined what the trade components would entail. “Well, that isn’t an all-in trade, that is a big trade.” - KGdaBom.
Give me a break - not worth derailing this thread as you have.
I never once said an all in trade is trading all 15 players. Don't misrepresent/straw man me. I understood you meaning to pair with Ant as a given. However, you were simply talking about making a big trade. All in is more than just a big trade. Sure it's semantics, but I really thought you meant all in at first. Later you described what you meant and it was a big trade. I'm done on this. If you can't acknowledge your use of all in was not the appropriate wording OK. Continue to call every big trade an all in trade.
If you are going to preach semantics, be consistent at least. Poker all-in doesn’t necessary mean all your chips are in play. But I will let you look that up to prove how you are wrong. I didn’t correct you when you used that reference because playing the semantics game is a waste of time. But yet you choose to do play that game. Waste of time!
One more time, it is all-in trade for Wolves. Round up remaining assets (no not all 15 players lol) and get that one player who will make a difference and push wolves through that WCF glass ceiling. I know you can understand that concept. Stop playing the semantics game. Waste of time!