|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: $80k-$100k | |||
| 0-20% |
   
|
2 | 11.76% |
| 20-40% |
  
|
4 | 23.53% |
| 40-60% |
  
|
8 | 47.06% |
| 60-80% |
  
|
2 | 11.76% |
| 80-100% |
  
|
1 | 5.88% |
| Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#12
10-22-2007, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't for you to decide. It looks like a team doing bad is trying to get a little more depth across the board. It doesn't have to be fair.. trades don't need to be fair. They just need to not be cheating. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is. If the trade is CLEARLY -EV, it's covered under the dumping/collusion/owner conduct rules, REGARDLESS OF INTENT TO CHEAT. 
|
|
#14
10-22-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This isn't for you to decide. It looks like a team doing bad is trying to get a little more depth across the board. It doesn't have to be fair.. trades don't need to be fair. They just need to not be cheating. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is. If the trade is CLEARLY -EV, it's covered under the dumping/collusion/owner conduct rules, REGARDLESS OF INTENT TO CHEAT. [/ QUOTE ] That is not how my league is run. These owners paid their money, as long as they aren't cheating than it is my opinion that there is never a reason to veto a trade. I've played FF for 13 years and never been in a league that did it another way. If your rules say differently why are you asking here?
|
|
#15
10-22-2007, 10:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
when it comes to Edwards vs Driver, before the season starts ANYONE makes that trade, and the guy getting Driver WINS the trade. Edwards has tough games coming up, and has been overperforming. This really isn't THAT bad.
|
|
#16
10-22-2007, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
What if Driver goes off for a career year and Braylon goes out with an injury after you veto the trade? This owner had a shot to make a run and now you decided the way he valued players was inappropriate and you cost him his chance to win.
That is why its not right to veto without collusion.
|
|
#17
10-22-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
when it comes to Edwards vs Driver, before the season starts ANYONE makes that trade, and the guy getting Driver WINS the trade. Edwards has tough games coming up, and has been overperforming. This really isn't THAT bad. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah there's no way this trade should be vetoed, but I think the guy getting LT+Edwards is getting the better deal.
|
|
#18
10-22-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] when it comes to Edwards vs Driver, before the season starts ANYONE makes that trade, and the guy getting Driver WINS the trade. Edwards has tough games coming up, and has been overperforming. This really isn't THAT bad. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah there's no way this trade should be vetoed, but I think the guy getting LT+Edwards is getting the better deal. [/ QUOTE ] The reason it's a better deal is because 2 roster spots can produce what 3 can. In a situation with depth issues though that becomes less relevant. So ya I agree, giving a good team the chance to produce so many points out of 2 guys is obviously pretty rough for anyone chasing that guy. But it ain't collusion.
|
|
#19
10-22-2007, 11:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
I don't care what rules you would implemenmt if you could make your own league. I care what the rules of my league state, namely:
1. All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team or its standing within the league. 3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other). This is the standard I have to judge by. Does this trade (throw Garcia in so it's Garcia/LT/Edwards for Driver/Parker/ELi) meet that standard, where one team is clearly expected to be negatively impacted by the trade? Losing LT seems beyond obviously -EV to me, to the point I'd prop bet at at least 1.5:1.
|
|
#20
10-22-2007, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what rules you would implemenmt if you could make your own league. I care what the rules of my league state, namely: [/ QUOTE ] lol christ, good luck im outta this thread. ps your rules are terrible. You should never be in a situation where you judge someone else's value of players.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
