Liverlips Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Second year in league and the guy is a fanatic. Always sending out these stupid trade offers over the MFL system. Sent an offer of this, his team trades-Betts and Toomer for the other teams- SA and Darrel Jackson. The kicker is that they freely admitted in the trade that a case of Victory was involved. The guy who gave up SA is the worst player in the league, drafted Dom Davis in round two, really has no clue. Do I have a basis for trying to get this deal reversed right. His rational was that SA isn't playing and either is Betts. Oppinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I don't see what your problem is with this trade. How does it affect you. I don't play in any leagues where trades can be vetoed. In my opinion trades are part of the skill in FFB. If someone knows how to work trades in their favor more power to them. If someone recognizes an easy mark before you do, then they're that much more than you on top of their game. The only way I would veto or complain about a trade is if I thought collusion was involved; other than that,any trade is fair game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxacha Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I don't see what your problem is with this trade. How does it affect you. I don't play in any leagues where trades can be vetoed. In my opinion trades are part of the skill in FFB. If someone knows how to work trades in their favor more power to them. If someone recognizes an easy mark before you do, then they're that much more than you on top of their game. The only way I would veto or complain about a trade is if I thought collusion was involved; other than that,any trade is fair game. Well, if you're serious about the case of beer, then it's kind of ridiculous. If we're talking about a money league, then obviously it affects him if one guy knows his season is shot so he gives away his team so he can get a case of beer out of it. I think that qualifies as collusion. On the other hand, if he's just a moron, then it's on you for not exploiting him first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Well, if you're serious about the case of beer, then it's kind of ridiculous. If we're talking about a money league, then obviously it affects him if one guy knows his season is shot so he gives away his team so he can get a case of beer out of it. I think that qualifies as collusion. On the other hand, if he's just a moron, then it's on you for not exploiting him first. What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primetime9287 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I dont veto trades often but Betts and Toomer for Alexander and DJ is definitely one I could see not getting passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I dont veto trades often but Betts and Toomer for Alexander and DJ is definitely one I could see not getting passed. I have to agree. I am, and have always been, one of the staunchest supporters that trades should not be vetoed unless they are collusion. But that trade is just flat bad, so bad that I don't see how it could be legitimate. When you add in the case of beer factor, it's almost like the guy is selling his best player (Alexander) for a case of beer, and that is simply not right. I would hate to do it, but if I were the commissioner in that league, I think I would have to overrule that deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrond Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 The trade is bad even without the $30 case of beer. Add in the beer and it is completely unacceptable. You most definitely have a case for getting this one overturned - it should have never been approved to begin with. Is there any chance these guys put it through as a joke? Because that's what it is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 whatever you do, I would not invite the guy who traded SA back next year. There's too much a chance of him ruining league balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverlips Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 whatever you do, I would not invite the guy who traded SA back next year. There's too much a chance of him ruining league balance. Very true. Turns out the guy that initiated the trade was the owner with Alexander. Of course the one reason I'm pissed is because I'm in the hunt with the new SA owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I have to agree. I am, and have always been, one of the staunchest supporters that trades should not be vetoed unless they are collusion. But that trade is just flat bad, so bad that I don't see how it could be legitimate. When you add in the case of beer factor, it's almost like the guy is selling his best player (Alexander) for a case of beer, and that is simply not right. I would hate to do it, but if I were the commissioner in that league, I think I would have to overrule that deal. Babe Ruth got swapped for money to stage a play (No,No Nanette, I believe) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Babe Ruth got swapped for money to stage a play (No,No Nanette, I believe) You are correct Atlas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 (edited) I have to agree. I am, and have always been, one of the staunchest supporters that trades should not be vetoed unless they are collusion. But that trade is just flat bad, so bad that I don't see how it could be legitimate. When you add in the case of beer factor, it's almost like the guy is selling his best player (Alexander) for a case of beer, and that is simply not right. I would hate to do it, but if I were the commissioner in that league, I think I would have to overrule that deal. Trades should never be vetoed unless there's collusion, agreed. You cannot police people from being stupid. However, like the others in this thread, as commissioner I'd not let this trade happen because of the beer. That is not a part of FF trades. Players, draft picks, auction dollars, etc, that is fine. NOT beer. I once overturned a trade (swapping draft picks) because one guy did not bring a cheat sheet and he traded down in exchange for one. Office league...what can I say... Edited October 20, 2006 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOne Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I'm normally one who argues for never vetoing trades, but that's when pure FF material is involved (draft picks, players etc.) When you bring outside material in (in this case beer), then I'd veto them all. Everything has to stay within the game or it just comes down to the richest player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Trades should never be vetoed unless there's collusion, agreed. You cannot police people from being stupid. This notion has been discussed at great lengths on these boards, and I do not agree. I do think a trade like this can and should be overturned collusion or not. You can and should police people from being stupid. F-ucked up league if you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Well, I guess I'll chime in. If you read these threads, you know I'm virtually always on the side of allowing a trade to pass through, and that almost no trade should be negated unless there is collusion going on. That said, this is the exception. One guy traded his players for material goods. That's the same thing as trading for a $20 bill (or whatever a case of Victory costs). That's wrong (and black & white wrong, I might add), and that puts both guys involved in the trade in a position where they should immediately be kicked to the curb - if your league has the cajones to do it. Guys like these are not welcome in a legit FF league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Well, I guess I'll chime in. If you read these threads, you know I'm virtually always on the side of allowing a trade to pass through, and that almost no trade should be negated unless there is collusion going on. That said, this is the exception. One guy traded his players for material goods. That's the same thing as trading for a $20 bill (or whatever a case of Victory costs). That's wrong (and black & white wrong, I might add), and that puts both guys involved in the trade in a position where they should immediately be kicked to the curb - if your league has the cajones to do it. Guys like these are not welcome in a legit FF league. Agree completely. This is an obvious "case" ( ) of collusion. He is essentially bribing the other owner. Total BS, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverlips Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 Well, I guess I'll chime in. If you read these threads, you know I'm virtually always on the side of allowing a trade to pass through, and that almost no trade should be negated unless there is collusion going on. That said, this is the exception. One guy traded his players for material goods. That's the same thing as trading for a $20 bill (or whatever a case of Victory costs). That's wrong (and black & white wrong, I might add), and that puts both guys involved in the trade in a position where they should immediately be kicked to the curb - if your league has the cajones to do it. Guys like these are not welcome in a legit FF league. freinds league, just being total idiots. I'm in the process of trying to change it. I'm not the commish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 If I were commish in that league, plain and simple, I would not allow it. That is just plain dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 (edited) This notion has been discussed at great lengths on these boards, and I do not agree. I do think a trade like this can and should be overturned collusion or not. You can and should police people from being stupid. F-ucked up league if you don't. Sooooo, I guess you didn't read the rest of my post then where I said that THIS trade should be blocked because of the beer. That's something from the outside (or as BB called a "material good") that has no business being in any FF trade. We do disagree on the stupidity part. Who am I as Commish or who is another owner to have a say in a trade just because someone is stupid? If they pull dumb trades, they'll get ripped from the league. Hopefully they wise up. If not, don't have them back. You say a league is f'ed up if people aren't policed. Well Big Brother, I say it's f'ed up if they are. Edited October 20, 2006 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Sooooo, I guess you didn't read the rest of my post then where I said that THIS trade should be blocked because of the beer. That's something from the outside (or as BB called a "material good") that has no business being in any FF trade. We do disagree on the stupidity part. Who am I as Commish or who is another owner to have a say in a trade just because someone is stupid? If they pull dumb trades, they'll get ripped from the league. Hopefully they wise up. If not, don't have them back. You say a league is f'ed up if people aren't policed. Well Big Brother, I say it's f'ed up if they are. I read the post, and rather than get into this debate for the umpteenth time (not with you, but others), can we agree that reasonable minds can disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I read the post, and rather than get into this debate for the umpteenth time (not with you, but others), can we agree that reasonable minds can disagree? Oh absolutely...trust me, I'm not in here to argue and am not the type that has to convince everyone I am right all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I'm normally one who argues for never vetoing trades, but that's when pure FF material is involved (draft picks, players etc.) When you bring outside material in (in this case beer), then I'd veto them all. Everything has to stay within the game or it just comes down to the richest player. Monkey wins a bananana. He's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 (edited) I'm normally one who argues for never vetoing trades, but that's when pure FF material is involved (draft picks, players etc.) When you bring outside material in (in this case beer), then I'd veto them all. Everything has to stay within the game or it just comes down to the richest player. So I guess an offer that includes one's wife and/or girlfriend in the deal is definitely out, uh? Its still sort of fantasy, though.... Edited October 21, 2006 by Atlas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 (edited) This notion has been discussed at great lengths on these boards, and I do not agree. I do think a trade like this can and should be overturned collusion or not. You can and should police people from being stupid. F-ucked up league if you don't. damn it. I agree with him. I truly believe that a trade like this would ruin league balance and it is the commish who dropped the ball. Its a commish's job to get the right people in a league to avoid stuff like this (folk who know their stuff, and are competative enough to not roll over). If there are going to be trades, then a commish needs to make sure those involved can handle it. If not, he put together a bad league where the best drafted team does not win the game - but rather the first team to pick on the retaard. The whole thing can be very discouraging to good and active owners who drafted well and have done well in free agency. Its akin to the Commish of the NFL letting a team lose all of its games so they can get a high draft pick the following year. It simply cannot happen. In a redraft league.... a trade like this can ruin the year for everyone except the dude who robbed the helpless. In a keeper or dynasty league - a trade like this can have long lasting negative effects. Suddenly there is a team in the league whose lineup would be met on the huddle with comments about a three team league including the owners great aunt and his dog. And there is a team that has serious issues (who nobody is going to want to play) who'd essentially give division mates two extra wins a year. (an unearned benefit that other owners don't get). I know people disagree - but I believe that it is a commish's job is to make a league fair and fun. Letting a trade like this go through is neither fair or fun for the other owners - nor does it keep owners wanting to come back. Edited October 21, 2006 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Second year in league and the guy is a fanatic. Always sending out these stupid trade offers over the MFL system. Sent an offer of this, his team trades-Betts and Toomer for the other teams- SA and Darrel Jackson. The kicker is that they freely admitted in the trade that a case of Victory was involved. The guy who gave up SA is the worst player in the league, drafted Dom Davis in round two, really has no clue. Do I have a basis for trying to get this deal reversed right. His rational was that SA isn't playing and either is Betts. Oppinions? Next season, don't invite the prick who always sends out ridiculous offers -- noone wants to play FFootball with cheesdix like that. What a schmuk. 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.