Chief Dick Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) Jeez people, this trade and tarde back may look "fair" for the two owners, BUT IT CHEATS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE. Collusion. Plain and simple. Repeat after me: IT CHEATS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE. IT CHEATS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE. IT CHEATS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE. Edited September 29, 2006 by Chief Dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Everyone seems to have decided to disregard my post, so I'll reiterate: This is NOT collusion. Whoever said it's the definition of collusion is way off base. This is a swap being made PURELY FOR MENTAL HEALTH. Watching games and rooting for players on the offense as well as the opposing defensive team makes the game difficult to watch. It's much more enjoyable to have another defense that week. It is not a disadvantage to have the defense that your skill position players are up against. It gives you more of a chance for a boom or bust type of week, but it doesn't give you an actual advantage (especially not when both defenses are top echelon scorers) The only effect it really has is on an owner's hopes. This is a more difficult area to judge the legitimacy of a move in, so people simply choose to ignore it. You've got to be kidding. The reasoning behind the swap ("mental health") does not change anything. If both owners announced to the league that they were swapping defenses this week and then swapping them back next week and the league was fine with that - then this would not be collusion. If, however, the two owners in question make the trade this week and do not announce to the league they intend to swap back next week then this is collusion. They will have made a secret agreement to cheat the other owners in their league. The secret agreement is that they will trade their defenses back after this week. How are they cheating the other owners you ask? If another owner in that league doesn't like his defensive matchup he has to make a roster move to get another defense; i.e. he has to drop a player he otherwise wouldn't have to drop. Either that or they have to carry 2 defenses. This is EXACTLY why leagues have rules that prohibit owners from getting players back that they have traded ... to prevent owners like you and the original poster of this thread from cheating. To me it is really sad to see you guys trying desperately to justify what is clearly cheating. And we haven't even discusses the precedent it would set and the door it would open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 To me this is like being against abortion but for the death penalty. A trade is a trade. If it is fair one week, its fair the next week. Honestly, isn't every trade technically collusion by two owners. I am not sure how you veto a trade like this if it is even. We do not have any trade back policies in the league that I have commished for 10 years and this has never been an issue. I think it is and should be a gentlemens agreement sort of thing but if you didn't really see it coming and the two teams do not have a history of this behavior, how do you veto it? Especially some of you that are so against the veto. Seems a little hypocritical......devil's advocate here Is every trade collusion? No. It is not the trade itself that is collusion. It is the secret agreement that they will trade the players back after this week ... that is the collusion. The trade of CHI for BAL can not be vetoed. It is the subsequent trade back next week that should be vetoed. No league allows lending of players ... and that is what these teams are attempting to do ... lend players to another owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Is every trade collusion? No. It is not the trade itself that is collusion. It is the secret agreement that they will trade the players back after this week ... that is the collusion. The trade of CHI for BAL can not be vetoed. It is the subsequent trade back next week that should be vetoed. No league allows lending of players ... and that is what these teams are attempting to do ... lend players to another owner. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Everyone seems to have decided to disregard my post, so I'll reiterate: This is NOT collusion. Whoever said it's the definition of collusion is way off base. This is a swap being made PURELY FOR MENTAL HEALTH. Watching games and rooting for players on the offense as well as the opposing defensive team makes the game difficult to watch. It's much more enjoyable to have another defense that week. I wrote that it was the definition of collusion...care to enlighten me on how it is not? Mental health? Key word being mental. In fact, it's single the poorest excuse I have EVER heard for a trade. If the games are "difficult to watch" because you're in the unique position of having players on an offense run up aginst your defense, here's a tip...don't play FF...get a new hobby like bird watching which should be MUCH easier on your eyes. Unbelievable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 The trade of CHI for BAL can not be vetoed. TOS... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo-J Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Repeat after me: IT CHEATS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE. IT CHEATS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE. IT CHEATS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 +1 Wasn't it really +3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Is every trade collusion? No. It is not the trade itself that is collusion. It is the secret agreement that they will trade the players back after this week ... that is the collusion. The trade of CHI for BAL can not be vetoed. It is the subsequent trade back next week that should be vetoed. No league allows lending of players ... and that is what these teams are attempting to do ... lend players to another owner. We can lend players, but it's for the season and it usually costs you serious cap money for next year. I wish we didn't but no big deal. But you can't swap for a week: repeat from above: Cheats other owners! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 booo...mularkey...shenanigans.....tom foolery.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I wrote that it was the definition of collusion...care to enlighten me on how it is not? Mental health? Key word being mental. In fact, it's single the poorest excuse I have EVER heard for a trade. If the games are "difficult to watch" because you're in the unique position of having players on an offense run up aginst your defense, here's a tip...don't play FF...get a new hobby like bird watching which should be MUCH easier on your eyes. Unbelievable... +1 It's called fantasy football...I am a Viking fan and I am playing against Losman this week...maybe I should petition the league to not let the owner start him because if he scores it will be double points against my psyche... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 +1 It's called fantasy football...I am a Viking fan and I am playing against Losman this week...maybe I should petition the league to not let the owner start him because if he scores it will be double points against my psyche... After Dr. Phil is finished in Dallas with TO (if he EVER finishes up there), we'll send him over to you...! Hey DMD and WW, maybe you should have a staff psychologist on hand so that those with "MENTAL HEALTH" issues can reach out for some assistance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Have you ever heard of two teams doing a one week swap like this? Is it legit? If you have to ask if it is legit... then you know it isn't. Collusion or not... it is still cheating the other owners in the league. One does not 'swap' players for a week. Were you to have said nothing... traded with your opponent... had that trade approved... then traded back the next week... that second trade would have been vetoed and you and your opponent would be looking for a new league next year were you to be in any league I am part of. And no... I have never heard of two teams doing a one week swap..... for the very reason that it is cheating. Just as all the honest FF players here have stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.