gspot Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 OK, to me, this trade is completely one-side IMO at first blush! Based on Alexander's injury, am I over-reacting? Need someone to talk me off the ledge or validate my protest! The league's commissioner made the trade and approved it! I realize Shuan is injured, but the league's MVP for a borderline starting RB seems unfair! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatTom Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Ok, here is the first one like this I've seen this year!!! Trades should only be vetoed for collusion, not perceived stupidity. Whether you think a trade is fair or not is not relevant. Only the two parties involved need to see the fairness. Fred is producing, while SA is on the bench, and not coming back for a couple weeks. YOu didn't list the rosters of each player. Maybe the SA owner really needs a back that will produce some points and is willing to forego the potential for SA to come back and produce. What good is it to have the league MVP on your roster if you are losing. My starting RBs are Dunn and Fred T, with my first round pick Jordan riding the bench. I'm 6-0 and leading he league in points. The owners of SA and LJ are a combined 3-9. In the end, your thoughts and opinions don't matter, only those of the other owners involved. As long as there is no collusion, the trade is valid. Fairness, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonedaddies Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Ok, here is the first one like this I've seen this year!!! Trades should only be vetoed for collusion, not perceived stupidity. Whether you think a trade is fair or not is not relevant. Only the two parties involved need to see the fairness. Fred is producing, while SA is on the bench, and not coming back for a couple weeks. YOu didn't list the rosters of each player. Maybe the SA owner really needs a back that will produce some points and is willing to forego the potential for SA to come back and produce. What good is it to have the league MVP on your roster if you are losing. My starting RBs are Dunn and Fred T, with my first round pick Jordan riding the bench. I'm 6-0 and leading he league in points. The owners of SA and LJ are a combined 3-9. In the end, your thoughts and opinions don't matter, only those of the other owners involved. As long as there is no collusion, the trade is valid. Fairness, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholders. Bearcat is on point! Don't fight it, let it go and hope they both end up hurt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Frost Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I echo those comments 1. Collusion=reason to veto. 2. Stupidity not a reason to veto. Remember that stupidity is bad when somebody makes a trade that strengthens an opponent...but you had your chance to take advantage of stupidity during the draft. On a particularly serious note, you can really piss a friend off by telling them their stupid...and look like a complete ass when their stupid-ass trade actually works against all odds. Been there. Done that. Not pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gspot Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 I echo those comments 1. Collusion=reason to veto. 2. Stupidity not a reason to veto. Remember that stupidity is bad when somebody makes a trade that strengthens an opponent...but you had your chance to take advantage of stupidity during the draft. On a particularly serious note, you can really piss a friend off by telling them their stupid...and look like a complete ass when their stupid-ass trade actually works against all odds. Been there. Done that. Not pretty. Ok, thanks to all who responded for talking me down! I will heed your advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth8ball Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Ok, thanks to all who responded for talking me down! I will heed your advice. I think maybe knowing what are the records of the team giving up Alexander is. If that team has a miserable record than maybe there is some collusion involved. In my league we have a panel of three for situations like this a commish OKing a deal where he is involved. if the commish is getting SA and the other owner feels his season is hopeless, that is the definition of collusion IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzarvell Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I think maybe knowing what are the records of the team giving up Alexander is. If that team has a miserable record than maybe there is some collusion involved. Not necessarily. Perhaps the SA owner with the bad record can no longer wait for SA to get healthy and this is the only trade offered to him? I've made lopsided trades in the past trying to save my season... never worked but at the time I felt it was the only ray of hope I had. 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.