otis29 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. I agree - I run two leagues and I'd have a hard time running something like this through, especially if the league's been around a long time and this kind of thing hasn't been the norm. To be honest, I'd rather the members of the league see me as someone with integrity (which is pretty important when you have to make difficult decisions) than someone who will skirt the rules to try to win a championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The argument that the only reason a trade should be vetoed is collusion is still the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Back to the topic, this trade should have never been finalized until after both parties looked into the injuries. Once the trade goes through, it is done, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The argument that the only reason a trade should be vetoed is collusion is still the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why is that? Because you are so astute at FF that managing your own team isn't enough and you feel the need to manage other owners' teams for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Meh, not a big enough deal to get in a huff about it IMO. Amend your rules for next year for no conditional trades if its important to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 This is what is commonly known as pooling rosters - in other words, collusion. Agreed. Most leagues I am in have a no trade back clause as that is one of the few easy to prove forms of collusion. These teams are essentially loaning each other players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Why is that? Because you are so astute at FF that managing your own team isn't enough and you feel the need to manage other owners' teams for them? I am in no leagues that don't have at least one BAD owner. Paying an average of $100 per league, the payouts are too big to just shrug off a horrible move that this owner does that leads one of his buddies into big money. For example, this week, a very good team was given Edge for Mushin Muhammed from one of his buddies. This trade was voted down, thus sent to the commissioner, where he denied it. I would have done the same thing. It just is no fun nor IMO fair to the other owners in the league with quality teams. Should we have let the trade go through, wrote the guy a check for $1200, and been done with it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I am in no leagues that don't have at least one BAD owner. Paying an average of $100 per league, the payouts are too big to just shrug off a horrible move that this owner does that leads one of his buddies into big money. For example, this week, a very good team was given Edge for Mushin Muhammed from one of his buddies. This trade was voted down, thus sent to the commissioner, where he denied it. I would have done the same thing. It just is no fun nor IMO fair to the other owners in the league with quality teams. Should we have let the trade go through, wrote the guy a check for $1200, and been done with it?? That's why YOU need to be the one to find the fish & hook him. That's as much of an art as playing FF itself. It also happens to be the reason why I rarely play in leagues that have fish in them (no offense, peepinmofo - but the Ladder league is a little different... ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) I am in no leagues that don't have at least one BAD owner. Paying an average of $100 per league, the payouts are too big to just shrug off a horrible move that this owner does that leads one of his buddies into big money. For example, this week, a very good team was given Edge for Mushin Muhammed from one of his buddies. This trade was voted down, thus sent to the commissioner, where he denied it. I would have done the same thing. It just is no fun nor IMO fair to the other owners in the league with quality teams. Should we have let the trade go through, wrote the guy a check for $1200, and been done with it?? Seriously, though, how exactly do you know a trade is bad before results come in for the season? Look at the people who would've vetoed a straight up trade of SJax for Adrian Peterson, saying how badly the person getting SJax was screwing over the league. I'm sure you would have been one of the people vetoing it before week 1 this year - yet how would that trade have turned out? I don't care how much expertise you claim to have, you don't have the prescience to be able to deny that kind of trade if it is done non-collusively. You don't have the right to manage other people's teams - especially in a $$$ league. Edited October 19, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Seriously, though, how exactly do you know a trade is bad before results come in for the season? Look at the people who would've vetoed a straight up trade of SJax for Adrian Peterson, saying how badly the person getting SJax was screwing over the league. I'm sure you would have been one of the people vetoing it before week 1 this year - yet how would that trade have turned out? I don't care how much expertise you claim to have, you don't have the prescience to be able to deny that kind of trade if it is done non-collusively. You don't have the right to manage other people's teams - especially in a $$$ league. I would have let that trade through, no problem. A trade has to be pretty insanely terrible for me to want to veto it, but there are definitely trades that warrant a veto. Nobody answered my question. Should we have let the Edge for Mush trade go through and handed the guy $1200 and said thanks for comin??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor_stoppage Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Seriously, though, how exactly do you know a trade is bad before results come in for the season? Look at the people who would've vetoed a straight up trade of SJax for Adrian Peterson, saying how badly the person getting SJax was screwing over the league. I'm sure you would have been one of the people vetoing it before week 1 this year - yet how would that trade have turned out? I don't care how much expertise you claim to have, you don't have the prescience to be able to deny that kind of trade if it is done non-collusively. You don't have the right to manage other people's teams - especially in a $$$ league. Dammit. I hate it when Billy takes off the Troll Mask and starts talking sense - I don't like agreeing with him. But he's 100% right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Dammit. I hate it when Billy takes off the Troll Mask and starts talking sense - I don't like agreeing with him. But he's 100% right here. No he isn't. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor_stoppage Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 No he isn't. Seriously. I guess I just don't see how you can prejudge trades. I'm thinking of a specific example from my team, this season. I was lambasted here for making a trade that the "always trade fair value" crowd took offense to some weeks ago. It was Brandon Marshall for Rudi Johnson and Andre Johnson, while both were injured. On the surface, it looks incredibly lopsided. 2 (alleged) top 10 players at their positions for one hopefully up and coming WR? But the fact is, it's bitten me right in the posterior. Neither one has come back yet (unless you count Rudi's 8 yards), and I've been limited in the other moves I could make while holding those 2 in reserve - no extra slots to play the waiver wire with. Meanwhile, my trading partner has gotten decent but not great numbers from Marshall since. This is also my team that's just imploding this year. By the time either one of the Johnson's is worth anything, I'll likely be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. So in this specific case, I really believe I cut my own throat with what looked like a lopsided trade at first. It didn't help this team that I drafted Lee Evans and gave up on Jones-Drew one week too early either - but you get the idea. 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.