|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
#51
10-23-2007, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
i may not agree with his views on this trade in terms of being fair or not, but you have to admit, OP is making some quality posts.
more TomCowley please! 
|
|
#54
10-23-2007, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
it shouldnt be allowed because of the free agent qb's available, if he wants a qb, you just listed some good ones
|
|
#55
10-23-2007, 12:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
Not even close to collusion.
|
|
#56
10-23-2007, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
That trade is beyond atrocious. LT>Parker+Driver+Eli. Massive RB improvement to the top RB in the league, free quality young WR (who's a considerable improvement over Driver).
Though I'd probably approve it in my league unless I had reason to believe there was collusion, I would fully expect to lose one or more owners in the offseason as a result of it. Because of that, I'd probably send both owners a "wtf" e-mail and depending on the reply from the idiot, likely discuss with our league's executive committee to boot him in the offseason for ineptitude. I always prefer to lose clown owners to good ones who are concerned with fairness.
|
|
#57
10-23-2007, 08:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
That trade is beyond atrocious. LT>Parker+Driver+Eli. Massive RB improvement to the top RB in the league, free quality young WR (who's a considerable improvement over Driver). Though I'd probably approve it in my league unless I had reason to believe there was collusion, I would fully expect to lose one or more owners in the offseason as a result of it. Because of that, I'd probably send both owners a "wtf" e-mail and depending on the reply from the idiot, likely discuss with our league's executive committee to boot him in the offseason for ineptitude. I always prefer to lose clown owners to good ones who are concerned with fairness. [/ QUOTE ] wtf? You'd boot an owner for having a different opinion than you?
|
|
#58
10-23-2007, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
Allow the trade. Your getting pissy over a pretty even trade.
There is no such thing as an even trade when LT is involved. I do know people that would never allow a trade where he was involved, even if it was for Addai and Peyton. These people are very poor fantasy players.
|
|
#59
10-23-2007, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
B is probably just desperate and thinks his best shot is for LT to get hurt or something after the trade, and he may be banking on Eli running super-hot. The guy needs to do something crazy to get lucky. I don't think it shoud be vetoed because I want the right to make stupid trades myself.
If you don't trust these people, then boot them out next year. I wouldn't wanna play with people I don't trust. It's a good idea to ask the guy giving up LT for his reasoning. There are actually fantasy sports lawyers for this sort of thing.
|
|
#60
10-23-2007, 09:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
why do ppl make questions when they already have their mind made up? [/ QUOTE ] Because he wanted to show this thread to everyone in his league to get more veto votes. He's pissed since he obviously can't do that, or he already did and we convinced them all to not veto.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
