firstandgoal Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 He traded Hines Ward for Javon Walker this AM and and tried to trade Walker to me, on whidh I declined. THEN after I read the Walker surgery news, I noticed Walker was not on his team anymore and his trade had Ward back. Here's his LAME ASS RESPONSE: "If you check page 34 line 56 column 7 section B of our deal it stated that if one our injured knee boys was worse off then reported then the major players (Ward/Walker) would swap back for a week. I suppose I should have held off on reporting that part of the deal until game time. However, I wanted to move Walker as I thougt he could bring in more than Ward. And since they reported Walker was fine Thurday morning but all of a sudden needs knee surgery in the afternoon. So the other guys are traded I get Ward this week and I get Walker next week. I am screwed. Any interest in Walker?" I am shocked "I get Ward this week and I get Walker next" this league has been going for 10 years with the same commisioner, and never have I seen anything lke this. SUGGESTIONS PLEASE on how I should proceed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If the Walker owner is cool with this then theres not much you can do. Are they friends? Would he have any reason to help the commish win this week? The only thing that could stop this trade would be collusion IMO. Any owner can trade any player at any time in my book, barring collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF409ers Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) He traded Hines Ward for Javon Walker this AM and and tried to trade Walker to me, on whidh I declined. THEN after I read the Walker surgery news, I noticed Walker was not on his team anymore and his trade had Ward back. Here's his LAME ASS RESPONSE: "If you check page 34 line 56 column 7 section B of our deal it stated that if one our injured knee boys was worse off then reported then the major players (Ward/Walker) would swap back for a week. I suppose I should have held off on reporting that part of the deal until game time. However, I wanted to move Walker as I thougt he could bring in more than Ward. And since they reported Walker was fine Thurday morning but all of a sudden needs knee surgery in the afternoon. So the other guys are traded I get Ward this week and I get Walker next week. I am screwed. Any interest in Walker?" What the hell is that?? Edited October 19, 2007 by SF409ers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtra Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Do you want to know what to do before or after you put the 2x4 upside his head ? I get the rest of the league together and call bullSega! if its my league,a trade is a trade once its announced. Tell him to hike up his skirt ,send back Ward and eat his mistake,there are no mulligans. Thats the nicest I would be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Do you want to know what to do before or after you put the 2x4 upside his head ? I get the rest of the league together and call bullSega! if its my league,a trade is a trade once its announced. Tell him to hike up his skirt ,send back Ward and eat his mistake,there are no mulligans. Thats the nicest I would be If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtra Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week. But does it make sense for the Walker owner to trade him away and then trade him back(after the news of surgery) assuming there are transaction fees?He has nothing to gain by having Walker back and making the same trade next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firstandgoal Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week. I don't agree DemonKnight!! A trade is a trade. There is no shuch thing as I get him this week, you get him next week in FF!!! This is the F'ing Commisioner!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 But does it make sense for the Walker owner to trade him away and then trade him back(after the news of surgery) assuming there are transaction fees?He has nothing to gain by having Walker back and making the same trade next week. Like I said, you have to prove collusion. Does the Walker owner have a better option that Ward this week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 A trade is a trade. Exactly. If both owners agree to trade back and thiers no rules against it and no reason to suspect collusion then the trade stands. Cant penalize stupidity. Make sure you are the benefactor next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The best you can hope for is a league vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtra Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) Exactly. If both owners agree to trade back and thiers no rules against it and no reason to suspect collusion then the trade stands. Cant penalize stupidity. Make sure you are the benefactor next time. They didnt trade back,the trade was only valid if ones knee wasnt worse than the others as reported by the papers,in which case the trade will actually be official the following week instead of this week. The only one who gains anything at all out of this is the commisioner. For his next trade it will only be valid if the player he recieved outscores the player he traded away ,which will be according to the rule on page 68 section b line 3. Edited October 19, 2007 by xtra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 For his next trade it will only be valid if the player he recieved outscores the player he traded away ,which will be according to the rule on page 68 section b line 3. I'm pretty sure the whole rules thing was for humors sake... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtra Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I'm pretty sure the whole rules thing was for humors sake... I know,mine was just sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 It sounds like a conditional trade which should only be allowed by rule. If "this" then "that". But I question his line about the injury conditions voiding the trade because he then offered you Walker, which he had no right to do if there were conditions possibly requiring a swap back of players. Also it was a poorly worded trade, (If their knees are worse off than thought) by whos standards? You gonna ask Hines and Javon personally. You should be able to expect more from the commissioner. This whole thing is odd and makes me question the commish's judgement. He needs to step up and keep the original trade intact, for looks sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Still not clear on the rules of your league and how they apply! In my league, not only is a trade a trade, but we have a rule that states that no two teams can trade the same player or players back and forth to each other, be it the same deal or partial deals in the same FF year. This avaoids a lot of "collusion" talk and kills any potential for 'lending' players for a week. Answering your questions, with or without a league vote, if your rules do not specifically disallow, then "creative" team management should be allowed to continue. After all. it is easier to beg for forgiveness that ask for permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dread Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Still not clear on the rules of your league and how they apply! In my league, not only is a trade a trade, but we have a rule that states that no two teams can trade the same player or players back and forth to each other, be it the same deal or partial deals in the same FF year. This avaoids a lot of "collusion" talk and kills any potential for 'lending' players for a week. Answering your questions, with or without a league vote, if your rules do not specifically disallow, then "creative" team management should be allowed to continue. After all. it is easier to beg for forgiveness that ask for permission. perfectly put Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Sounds real lame to me, I'd find a new league after this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If the trade deadline allows for multiple trades durring the week and both owners agree then they didnt even have to justify thier actions though. Just make a trade back then another next week. This is what is commonly known as pooling rosters - in other words, collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 NO conditional trades ahould be allowed. Once a trade occurs it is final and the only way the player you traded away returns to your roster is via free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberho27 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Yes I agree, if this isn't collusino than what the hell is? He made a trade than demanded the trade back for a week because it didn't work out in his favor? Major abuse of powers on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I see no problem with this trade, as long as the condition was agreed to by both owners, and put in place for everyone to see as part of the trade. If they are putting this condition in place after the fact, it reeks of collusion. The conditions of the trade should have been in place for everyone to see at the time the trade was announced, not disclosed afterwards. The NFL has conditional trades all the time (i.e trade valid pending physical)...I see no reason not to allow it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Denmark<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<something rotten in. This trade reeks of collusion. First of all, announcing the trade without notifying the league of the conditional parameters, then voiding the trade based on information that came out after the trade was completed, then announcing that the trade would be put off a week based on the conditional parameters? It sounds like Ward is being sent to the team that he can do the most good on during the week. That is collusion. Bring it to a league vote and both owners should be given the boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 This is what is commonly known as pooling rosters - in other words, collusion. NO conditional trades ahould be allowed. Once a trade occurs it is final and the only way the player you traded away returns to your roster is via free agency. Denmark<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<something rotten in. This trade reeks of collusion. First of all, announcing the trade without notifying the league of the conditional parameters, then voiding the trade based on information that came out after the trade was completed, then announcing that the trade would be put off a week based on the conditional parameters? It sounds like Ward is being sent to the team that he can do the most good on during the week. That is collusion. Bring it to a league vote and both owners should be given the boot. Agreed. Although if this is a long-standing league, then I would probably let the offending owners off with a very strong warning to never attempt anything even remotely close to this again. If they aren't remorseful about this, then you either have to get them kicked out or you need to leave that league, because they will continue to screw the rest of you going forward. Better yet, if they simply won't budge on this, then expose the absurdity of their collusion by finding another owner to pool your roster with on a very large scale... keep "conditionally" trading your studs back and forth to each other especially when one of you plays either of those 2 owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 There's no renting in fantasy football, but obviously there IS crying. Anytime you rent a player for a week than you have bs imo. But I don't see the advantage for having either of these two players for an extra week at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) Yes I agree, if this isn't collusino than what the hell is? He made a trade than demanded the trade back for a week because it didn't work out in his favor? Major abuse of powers on this one. Exactly...we have all discussed collusion for years now. Common thought being how hard it is to prove. Well, guess what? This IS collusion and the commish's email is the proof. How can anyone think an "If/Then" trade is OK? Suppose I make this trade: Maroney for Housh...but only under the conditions that Maroney scores X points/game for the next few weeks, otherwise, we trade back? Or under the conditions that IF Henry is not suspended, then I return Maroney and get Housh back? If anyone thinks that is any different that what these two did then there's no helping you. That is COLLUSION and should NOT be allowed. A trade is NOT a trade...at least when crap like this is made a condition of the trade. Edited October 19, 2007 by The Wolf 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.