RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 So on Tue I get an offer from another owner giving me Ben + Lockett + Ajayi for Watkins + Sharpe + Mariota. I jump on it. The next day he tells me he was drunk and meant to ask for Jennings and not Sharpe and wanted to swap them back. Our rules say no trade backs for 3 weeks to prevent collusion so I caved and gave him Jennings for Payne + Enunwa. ( keep in mind these trades all happened before Watkins put on IR and Decker announcement happened). After Watkins was put on IR 3 days later he is demanding we either reverse all the trades or I give him even more players for compensation to make up for Watkins going on IR 3 days after the trade. Calling me a piece of sh*t and saying I'm not playing fair. Am I wrong for not giving him even more now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flgatorguy87 160 Posted October 1, 2016 I'd tell him he can suck my d!ck. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 459 Posted October 1, 2016 He's a whiny loser biatch who has been outmaneuvered by life. Tell him to pound sand, and tell him we all said so. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillygrrl08 139 Posted October 1, 2016 Fist to his face, on his porch, in front of his wife and kids 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Simms 11 127 Posted October 1, 2016 You need to send him back a WR since you ripped him off with the first trade. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 You need to send him back a WR since you ripped him off with the first trade. He made the original offer to ME. I didn't rip him off. He ripped himself off then I gave him Jennings the next day bc he said that would make it fair according to him. So you're saying I should just keep giving him players until he deems it fair? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Simms 11 127 Posted October 1, 2016 You had a feeling the injury was serious for Watkins and you didn't tell the guy before accepting his offer. That's just foul play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$epphori$ 118 Posted October 1, 2016 You had a feeling the injury was serious for Watkins and you didn't tell the guy before accepting his offer. That's just foul play. bullsh1t it is. he is not responsible for the owners lack of knowledge. you sound like you are one of them players that think all trades are supposed to be even, bunch of cry babies. sh1t like this is what is ruining fantasy football. In the NFL do teams complain when a trade isnt fair? Or ask for another player if the current one falls down and gets a boo boo? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 You had a feeling the injury was serious for Watkins and you didn't tell the guy before accepting his offer. That's just foul play. Lol - bc you know what's in my head! I thought he may sit another week and maybe take a few weeks until he's effective. That was the general concensous according to the fantasy world. The owner who asked for him has been doing this for 15 years and knows his stuff. He's no rookie. FYI here was the last rotoworld update on Watkins when the trade was made: NFL.com's Mike Garofolo reports Sammy Watkins will test out his injured foot on Wednesday or Thursday, and that it will determine his Week 4 availability. Per Garofolo, "there are no structural issues" with Watkins' foot, and it remains "an issue of pain tolerance." Watkins tried to play through the injury on short rest in Week 2, but had a sub-par night against the Jets' leaky secondary. It sounds like Watkins will probably be listed as "DNP" on Wednesday. Even a limited session Thursday would have him tentatively on track to return against the Patriots. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thePRO 78 Posted October 1, 2016 You had a feeling the injury was serious for Watkins and you didn't tell the guy before accepting his offer. That's just foul play. ^^^This the dude in your league? STFU! It's not the OP's job to inform his trade partner about any information. Especially since it was widely known that Watkins had a foot issue. This wasn't something that was hidden or hard to know. And even if it was, once you evaluated and accept the trade, it deserves to go through. Tell your buddy to get better at trading and keeping updated with player status! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 bullsh1t it is. he is not responsible for the owners lack of knowledge. you sound like you are one of them players that think all trades are supposed to be even, bunch of cry babies. sh1t like this is what is ruining fantasy football. In the NFL do teams complain when a trade isnt fair? Or ask for another player if the current one falls down and gets a boo boo? Thank you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 ^^^This the dude in your league? ! Lol that's what I suspected!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thePRO 78 Posted October 1, 2016 Don't be a pansy. Stand your ground and tell him to shove it. You already gave in and changed the trade once to benefit him by giving him Jennings and Enunwa. Tell this guy to F off and be a man! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 917 Posted October 1, 2016 If you have to ask, you already know... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 Don't be a pansy. Stand your ground and tell him to shove it. You already gave in and changed the trade once to benefit him by giving him Jennings and Enunwa. Tell this guy to F off and be a man! For the record I gave him Jennings for Enunwa. It was before decker news broke. It really doesn't matter anyway bc it's what he wanted to make the trade more fair. B Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thePRO 78 Posted October 1, 2016 For the record I gave him Jennings for Enunwa. It was before decker news broke. It really doesn't matter anyway bc it's what he wanted to make the trade more fair. B Good for you! Like you said it doesn't even matter! Take that trade to the bank and tell him to F off! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,310 Posted October 1, 2016 There's no focking take backs in fantasy football. Your rules are stupid and the other owner is being a see you next Tuesday 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimaveli 119 Posted October 1, 2016 He has the shut all the way up and accept his punishment for trading for a mysteriously injured dude with foot issues in a sport where running is a thing you must be able to do. If Footloose would've shown up tomorrow and played great, he would've been doing a gang of smack talking. It's amazing what happens when someone trades with the hope that they are fleecing you only to find out they are the ones taking the loss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 There's no focking take backs in fantasy football. Your rules are stupid and the other owner is being a see you next Tuesday No, our rule IS no take backs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 917 Posted October 1, 2016 There's no focking take backs in fantasy football. Your rules are stupid and the other owner is being a see you next Tuesday Is a trade not you and another owner each entering into an agreement in an effort to improve your teams and only your teams? Tradebacks meet that criteria. Collusion only occurs when one player willingly hurts his own team to help another team. People just quickly jump the the conclusion that tradebacks are collusion because it's a catchy sound bite. But when you think about it, that stance is illogical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozenbeernuts 1,652 Posted October 1, 2016 It kind of sounds like you two are colluding Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 It kind of sounds like you two are colluding How? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 917 Posted October 1, 2016 It kind of sounds like you two are colluding That's every trade. Every trade ever is designed to help the 2 teams involved. Every one ever. If someone does a trade not designed to help them, then THAT would be collusion. And anytime 2 teams are helped, it's at the expense of their opponents. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaxjag 43 Posted October 1, 2016 You had a feeling the injury was serious for Watkins and you didn't tell the guy before accepting his offer. That's just foul play. It might be different if the news were sudden ala a Josh Gordan rehab entry. But Watkins's status has been in question for a long time. Anyone trading for Watkins assumes the risk/reward ratio. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 There's no focking take backs in fantasy football. Your rules are stupid and the other owner is being a see you next Tuesday Lol. Took me a few mins to realize what "see you next Tuesday" meant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaxjag 43 Posted October 1, 2016 Is a trade not you and another owner each entering into an agreement in an effort to improve your teams and only your teams? Tradebacks meet that criteria. Collusion only occurs when one player willingly hurts his own team to help another team. People just quickly jump the the conclusion that tradebacks are collusion because it's a catchy sound bite. But when you think about it, that stance is illogical. You couldn't me more wrong. The vast majority of "trade backs" that I've seen are really a temporary agreement to swap players to manage bye weeks or injuries. It saves the team from exposing a player to the waiver and cheats the rest of the league. It is as much collusion as a one sided trade. There could be a legitimate tradeback scenario where team needs change or someone just changes their mind. However, not surprisingly, rules are in place to prevent shenanigans and they could interfere with a legit need to reacquire a player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 You couldn't me more wrong. The vast majority of "trade backs" that I've seen are really a temporary agreement to swap players to manage bye weeks or injuries. It saves the team from exposing a player to the waiver and cheats the rest of the league. It is as much collusion as a one sided trade. There could be a legitimate tradeback scenario where team needs change or someone just changes their mind. However, not surprisingly, rules are in place to prevent shenanigans and they could interfere with a legit need to reacquire a player. I agree with this but trade backs really aren't the point of this thread. The point is that I gave him another player once to appease him and now he's asking for another player three days later when Watkins news was announced. He saying it's the "friend "thing to do. All the while calling me a sh*tty person and wishing me bad luck in life and fantasy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 917 Posted October 1, 2016 You couldn't me more wrong. The vast majority of "trade backs" that I've seen are really a temporary agreement to swap players to manage bye weeks or injuries. It saves the team from exposing a player to the waiver and cheats the rest of the league. It is as much collusion as a one sided trade. There could be a legitimate tradeback scenario where team needs change or someone just changes their mind. However, not surprisingly, rules are in place to prevent shenanigans and they could interfere with a legit need to reacquire a player. If they laundered the trade through a third party it should be ok though. That way it wouldn't really be trading back, since an intermediate party is involved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,310 Posted October 1, 2016 No, our rule IS no take backs. So you pulled an end around the rule with the Jennings trade? Seems pretty shady to me sir Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozenbeernuts 1,652 Posted October 1, 2016 How? Because you made a trade to mutually make both teams better above the rest of the competition. You both agreed to get better giving two teams a distinct advantage. That's collusion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 917 Posted October 1, 2016 Because you made a trade to mutually make both teams better above the rest of the competition. You both agreed to get better giving two teams a distinct advantage. That's collusion Anytime people trade they're conspiring (synonyms include "aim for", "work together on", "cooperate", "strive") to make a trade that is beneficial to both teams. Of course, since both teams got better, it's ultimately to the detriment of the rest of the league. That by definition is collusion, so only a tradeback would be fair in this scenario. In my league, trades are only allowed for 1 week, then reversed. Just to cover bye weeks or whatever comes up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedzoneMonster 102 Posted October 1, 2016 So you pulled an end around the rule with the Jennings trade? Seems pretty shady to me sir YES THANK YOU! You are making my point. I didn't want to do the Jennings thing after the initial trade but I cracked. He now wants me to give him another player and calling me a shitty person bc I won't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Simms 11 127 Posted October 2, 2016 Yeah, I was just screwing around. The trade was at Watkins with foot concern value. If Watkins was not hurt or recovered quickly, you were the one getting fleeced. The timing sucks for him but how long does he think you are accountable for injuries to traded players? If he was hurt next week is the trade undone? That notion is ridiculous. Go to his house and c0ck-punch his wife in front of him and his family. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kent 228 Posted October 2, 2016 No, our rule IS no take backs. So why does this thread exist? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimaveli 119 Posted October 2, 2016 Tell dude to shut all the way up. If you know the dude, sprinkle cussing in. Then pull a birdman and tell him that you ain't gon say it no mo. No matter what you do to try to appease him, it'll never be enough. Trades have risk. He traded for a super risky asset with known risk and not great news surrounding the asset. It turned out badly. Maybe he'll learn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaxjag 43 Posted October 2, 2016 If they laundered the trade through a third party it should be ok though. That way it wouldn't really be trading back, since an intermediate party is involved. Thank Heaven for Columbian Drug Lords! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thePRO 78 Posted October 2, 2016 Who brought up collusion? There's just no take-backs period. And whoever said it should be like a trade and have a mutual agreement, I agree. OP doesn't agree though, so no trade back!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglesfreak 10 Posted October 2, 2016 YES THANK YOU! You are making my point. I didn't want to do the Jennings thing after the initial trade but I cracked. He now wants me to give him another player and calling me a shitty person bc I won't. So you screwed him initially and now screwed him even more by trading a injured jennings for the #2 jets wr Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thePRO 78 Posted October 2, 2016 So you screwed him initially and now screwed him even more by trading a injured jennings for the #2 jets wr I must have missed the part where that was his fault and not the owner who accepted the trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimaveli 119 Posted October 2, 2016 We're leaving out the part where saying 'injured Jennings' is really like saying 'Jennings in his typical state'. Anyone who has followed him should know that's his thing/issue/hurdle. He can be day to day for a month like almost no one else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
