collusion?

[escobante 0]

not as much as someone who doesn't qualify a moronic statement like this, you insulting dooche.

 

At least I gave sound reasoning for my statements. You just posted garbage.

 

wow, he can call someone else names, but can't handle it himself.

 

reasoning, yes. sound reasoning, no.

 

and i did qualify it in the preceeding part of my post, didn't know i would need to copy and paste it again for you within the same post. i will remember your exceedingly short attention span next time.

 

and did you just actually use the term "dooche[sic]"?

[football_scooter 0]

wow, he can call someone else names, but can't handle it himself.

 

reasoning, yes. sound reasoning, no.

 

and i did qualify it in the preceeding part of my post, didn't know i would need to copy and paste it again for you within the same post. i will remember your exceedingly short attention span next time.

 

and did you just actually use the term "dooche[sic]"?

 

Actually, you are the only one in here I called a name. Because you deserved it for being a dooche. (the real spelling doesn't get past the *** filter.)

 

I provided detailed explanation why someone was being illogical. Does proving someone wrong and telling them that thier line of reasoning is illogical equate to an insult now? Wow - what a shame...no one will ever be wrong again.

 

Fact is that you answered someone else, and said nothing whatsoever to any of my points. Just insulted me. And that makes you a dovche (roman spelling)

[escobante 0]

Actually, you are the only one in here I called a name. Because you deserved it for being a dooche. (the real spelling doesn't get past the *** filter.)

 

I provided detailed explanation why someone was being illogical. Does proving someone wrong and telling them that thier line of reasoning is illogical equate to an insult now? Wow - what a shame...no one will ever be wrong again.

 

Fact is that you answered someone else, and said nothing whatsoever to any of my points. Just insulted me. And that makes you a dovche (roman spelling)

 

you called Moz dumb for sharing the opinion of many posters here that to continue to compete when you are out of the money is proper. you said "Your line of "reasoning" is selfish and stupid. Sorry to sound harsh, but it's a cut & dry situation."

 

you must not have noticed the obvious rephrase of your own words, but there you go. and my insult is even more apt if you don't recognize that the reasoning behind my stance was stated in the first section of my original post. i wasn't aware that i would have to repeat the same reasoning for my argument beginning with "hey football_cooter, ..." in order for you to understand the argument.

 

and my objection to "dooche[sic]" isn't the spelling, but the fact that i have not heard anyone over the age of 12 use the term as an insult, but then again, I haven't asked your age.

[football_scooter 0]

whatever you say, dovche.

 

Moz' statement was in fact selfish - it basically translates to "it doesn't matter if I'm committing collusion and have no chance to win because I am getting what I want by improving my chances to play spoiler."

 

I find that to be both selfish, in that it puts ones own vindictive desires ahead of things like scruples and morality, and stupid, as in, I think it's stupid to help another team cheat by colluding with them.

 

Hope this helps, dovche.

[mggoilers 0]

The character of a man is known from his conversations.

--Menander

[duaneok66 0]

The character of a man is known from his conversations.

--Menander

 

 

post of the day . . .

[TD Ryan2 314]

Is scooter 100% correct in this thread? yup

Is scooter an ass? yup, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the topic being discussed in this thread.

like him or not, the man is right.

 

 

 

teams out of contention have no business making trades unless it is a keeper league.

Why? because it's is the most effective way to prevent collusion. Period.

 

This "I'm playing for pride" stuff is nonsense.

I'd expect that in most cases, teams being mathematically eliminated before trade deadlines are a result of a disinterested or absentee owner.

It is a far fetched scenario to think that some owner is a die-hard ffballer who's giving 100% effort yet somehow can't win a game all year.

[escobante 0]

whatever you say, dovche.

 

Moz' statement was in fact selfish - it basically translates to "it doesn't matter if I'm committing collusion and have no chance to win because I am getting what I want by improving my chances to play spoiler."

 

I find that to be both selfish, in that it puts ones own vindictive desires ahead of things like scruples and morality, and stupid, as in, I think it's stupid to help another team cheat by colluding with them.

 

Hope this helps, dovche.

 

moz isn't colluding by attempting to win. that is the point of playing. and it would be unfair to the rest of the league if the person who is out of contention doesn't play to win, because that might lead to artificial wins by other league teams. it is just amazing that you don't see this, or are unwilling to see it. as long as the trade benefits both teams, there is no problem.

 

and where do you get "vindictive"? attempting to field a competative team is "vindictive"?

 

i guess the question for you is motivation, and you simply can not ascribe motivation for the trade in question based on the trade itself as described. there must be something more to it for you to be so vitriolic about the scenario from the start. because logically speaking, you are clearly in the wrong.

 

the clear example is: do NFL teams continue to play after they are eliminated from the playoffs, or do they continue to try and win games? are they vindictive, stupid colluders?

 

what if you are guy #3 and are competing with guy# 4 to make the playoffs and guy #4 has to play guy #2 in the final weeks of the season, it seems to me unfair to guy #3, that guy#2 has to play by different rules than others who are in the hunt still. that puts guy#3 at a disadvantage because guy#4 has an artificially better chance of winning against the artificially limited guy#2.

 

it clearly isn't "cut and dry" as you say. you simply have not thought this thru and are unwilling to.

 

good day.

[TD Ryan2 314]

moz isn't colluding by attempting to win. that is the point of playing. and it would be unfair to the rest of the league if the person who is out of contention doesn't play to win, because that might lead to artificial wins by other league teams. it is just amazing that you don't see this, or are unwilling to see it. as long as the trade benefits both teams, there is no problem.

 

 

but Moz CAN'T win... that's what being mathematically eliminated means.

 

Moz' futility at fantasy football now prevents him from trading players. He can and still should be required to submit his best lineup week in and out. THAT is how the league "fairness" and "balance" is maintained.

[escobante 0]

Is scooter 100% correct in this thread? yup

Is scooter an ass? yup, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the topic being discussed in this thread.

like him or not, the man is right.

teams out of contention have no business making trades unless it is a keeper league.

Why? because it's is the most effective way to prevent collusion. Period.

 

This "I'm playing for pride" stuff is nonsense.

I'd expect that in most cases, teams being mathematically eliminated before trade deadlines are a result of a disinterested or absentee owner.

It is a far fetched scenario to think that some owner is a die-hard ffballer who's giving 100% effort yet somehow can't win a game all year.

 

two things,

 

it has nothing to do with playing for pride, but with competativeness in the league. the two teams in question are not the only teams involved. the team being prevented from trading solely because they are out of the playoffs still has to play against other teams that are in the hunt, and that effects everyone.

 

and two, regarding it being the most effective way to prevent collusion: it is not. if you have a trade deadline such as has been suggested by others, that would be both more effective and fair, because the same rule would apply to all teams at all times. but to apply a limit to one team because of their record artificially enhances other team's chances of winning who "get" to play the team in the last weeks of the season , which hurts other teams who don't "get" to play that team.

 

and a generic rule that is aimed to prevent collusion has nothing to do with the original example we were discussing. scooter said that it is always collusion to make trades after one of the participants is eliminated. true, collusion can occur and rules can prevent it, but the same rules can also prevent legitimate trades that are not collusion. that is fine, as long as the rules are applied to all teams at the same time. the situation described in the post about "guy#1 and 2" is not at all an example of collusion. as stated in the post, the trade benefits both teams. the trade in the example is not collusion.

 

i can see where you are coming from, but you are both wrong about the topic.

 

 

 

but Moz CAN'T win... that's what being mathematically eliminated means.

 

Moz' futility at fantasy football now prevents him from trading players. He can and still should be required to submit his best lineup week in and out. THAT is how the league "fairness" and "balance" is maintained.

 

 

again, no fairness or balance if he alone is artificially kept from trading. and if it isn't important that he fields as good a team as possible, then why should he be required as you say to submit his best lineup? if he shouldn't be concerned with the outcome of the games?

 

you see what i mean? i see what you are trying to apply in general terms, but if you are trying to prevent collusion, you just nix all trades as of the first date someone is mathematically eliminated. that is fine, because it constricts everyone to the same rule.

[kiwimango 0]

sounds like one guy was deep at rb and took advantage of it, if this trade was made in week 9 or 10 then you should not be bitching and calling it cheating, cadillac did good down the streach last year. Hell I traded cadilac for harrison straight up to a guy around week 10 that needed a running back bad. Telling a team he can't trade in week 9 or 10 just because his record isn't good is just stupid. What if lj or tiki got hurt, then guy #1 would have been pretty screwed, he was still taking a risk.

 

No, As I intitally stated, WASNT MY TEAM, so talk about someone else. The problem with this trade is that Guy #1 already is stacked with (2) #1 RBs an (2) #1 WRs. He also has 2 other #2 RBs and trades them to a guy that has been eliminated from the playoffs at the time of the trade. He could have picked up the 2 starting RBs that replaced his injured RBs and been trying to win. It wasnt a keeper league, so what are his motives??? Trying to win, hell Moats had 2 or 3 good games to end the season. The problem was that by trading a TOP 5 WR to a team that ALREADY HAD the #1 & #4 RB and 2 TOP 10 WRs giving him a new TOP 5 WR, HE ESSENTIALLY SEALED THE FATE FOR THE REST OF THE LEAGUE!!!

 

There is no great GMing here, just an idiot who either knew what was happening and didnt care or was so unintelligent to think he was helping himself. I could care less, but this example is why you dont allow someone to trade when they are out of it. By Week 10 Guy #1 has (5) of the top 12 point getters in his lineup and wins the money on a BOGUS TRADE AT BEST!

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Moz' futility at fantasy football now prevents him from trading players. He can and still should be required to submit his best lineup week in and out. THAT is how the league "fairness" and "balance" is maintained.

 

How is league "fairness and balance" maintained when the league is playing with 2 sets of rules. IMO your league ceases to be fair the minute certain teams can play to win and others cannot.

[escobante 0]

How is league "fairness and balance" maintained when the league is playing with 2 sets of rules. IMO your league ceases to be fair the minute certain teams can play to win and others cannot.

 

yep

[kiwimango 0]

How is league "fairness and balance" maintained when the league is playing with 2 sets of rules. IMO your league ceases to be fair the minute certain teams can play to win and others cannot.

 

I guess I dont look at it as 2 sets of rules. I look at it just like baseball, there are some unwritten rules. My guy hits HR and he comes up next time and gets hit, my pitcher SHOULD to retaliate and hit either the other pitcher or the other teams best player. Unwritten Rule!

 

The same thing here, if you are eliminated from contention to make the playoffs and you make a move that unfairly and DRASTICALLY CHANGES the league, then that is not FAIR. That is an unwritten rule. I have no problem with a guy trying to get better, but to do what the guy did in my example, was to end that season in Week #10. The minute that trade was approved, the fairness and balance of the league, CHANGED! Maybe collusion should not be the word, I dont know what it is, but when that happens, I dont think of a guy trying to help himself compete for the rest of the year! I think, that makes no sense at all to give the 1st place team the 2nd Best WR.

[football_scooter 0]

moz isn't colluding by attempting to win. that is the point of playing. and it would be unfair to the rest of the league if the person who is out of contention doesn't play to win, because that might lead to artificial wins by other league teams. it is just amazing that you don't see this, or are unwilling to see it. as long as the trade benefits both teams, there is no problem.

 

and where do you get "vindictive"? attempting to field a competative team is "vindictive"?

 

i guess the question for you is motivation, and you simply can not ascribe motivation for the trade in question based on the trade itself as described. there must be something more to it for you to be so vitriolic about the scenario from the start. because logically speaking, you are clearly in the wrong.

 

the clear example is: do NFL teams continue to play after they are eliminated from the playoffs, or do they continue to try and win games? are they vindictive, stupid colluders?

 

what if you are guy #3 and are competing with guy# 4 to make the playoffs and guy #4 has to play guy #2 in the final weeks of the season, it seems to me unfair to guy #3, that guy#2 has to play by different rules than others who are in the hunt still. that puts guy#3 at a disadvantage because guy#4 has an artificially better chance of winning against the artificially limited guy#2.

 

it clearly isn't "cut and dry" as you say. you simply have not thought this thru and are unwilling to.

 

good day.

 

Actually now you are being just as illogical as Moz. The only reason I'll even respond is because it's fun making you look foolish for your efforts. And yes, I am an a$$ at times. No argument there.

 

"moz isn't colluding by attempting to win." -

 

But he cannot "win". He can win a few games, but he is elimiated from winning the league. Thus "win" is ambiguous and serves you ill. And you also imply that the only way he can "attempt to win [a few games playing spoiler]" is predicated on his making a deal with a contrending team to do so, which you so conveniently leave out of this statement.

 

"it is just amazing that you don't see this, or are unwilling to see it. as long as the trade benefits both teams, there is no problem."

 

The trade fails to benefit both teams. The benefit of a deal in FFB is to improve one's chances of winning the league. As I've pointed out ad naseum, he is elimiated from contention, ergo he cannot possibly benefit from it. A half retarded chimpanzee could understand this concept, yet it eludes you again and again. That's what amazes me.

 

"and where do you get "vindictive"? attempting to field a competative team is "vindictive"?"

 

I get Vindictive from the repeated assertion that all he has to gain is playing spoiler to another team. Sometimes words are what they are without connotations that you associate with them. Being vindictive in this case = playing spoiler. If all you have to gain with the win is to screw another team out of a playoff berth, what else do you call it? "Vindictive" sounded somehow more polite than "being a d!ck".

 

"i guess the question for you is motivation, and you simply can not ascribe motivation for the trade in question based on the trade itself as described. there must be something more to it for you to be so vitriolic about the scenario from the start. because logically speaking, you are clearly in the wrong.

 

the clear example is: do NFL teams continue to play after they are eliminated from the playoffs, or do they continue to try and win games? are they vindictive, stupid colluders? "

 

No. In fact, I am being perfectly logical. You however are being a dovche. It has nothing whatsoever to do with motivation, nor does it matter what scenario you present with which players or how balanced the deal itself it. As I keep saying you can "attempt to compete" with your existing roster. You keep implying that a trade needs to be made to facilitate this. There is no dependancy. NFL teams do not make trades to continue to play spoiler or attempt to compete. There goes your logic flying out the window, *woosh!* You're propping up this straw man apples and oranges argument to attempt to say that I am being illogical - now that's just comedy right there. So right back atcha: "Do NFL teams make trades with other NFL teams just beofore the playoffs so they can play spoiler?" If they did, you bet your arse that other teams in contention would raise some sand over it. Duh.

 

"you simply have not thought this thru and are unwilling to.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha - I'd say I am the only one of us thinking this through so far. You keep leaving out the most important aspect: that a trade is taking place. In every one of your examples, you leave that out. (now pay attention, because of all the wasted pixels between us, this is all that really matters) In every reason you give to justify, you conveniently forget to mention that a trade between a team mathematically eliminated and a team in contention is taking place, which is at the core, collusion. It is a deal that benefits only one of two teams engaged in the deal.

 

If you insist on providing illogical definitions of the words "helps" "benefits" and such, then I can't help you. But changing the definition to suit your illogical reasoning doesn't make it suddenly logical, it makes you a dovche.

 

HTH!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but Moz CAN'T win... that's what being mathematically eliminated means.

 

Moz' futility at fantasy football now prevents him from trading players. He can and still should be required to submit his best lineup week in and out. THAT is how the league "fairness" and "balance" is maintained.

 

GIVE THAT MAN A CI-GAR!!!

 

 

Exactly correct, sir.

 

and no worries...I took the ass comment as a compliment.

 

 

 

 

i see what you are trying to apply in general terms, but if you are trying to prevent collusion, you just nix all trades as of the first date someone is mathematically eliminated. that is fine, because it constricts everyone to the same rule.

 

This is exactly what I've been saying, dovche. If you weren't so busy being argumentative and trying to prove me wrong you might realize that.

 

this is the exact rule in all my leagues, and the rule I've been arguing with you about.

 

that when a team is out of contention, they may no longer make trades.

 

So either you're schitzo and the logical sound minded personality came out to say this, or you're a dovche who's backtracking.

 

Smart money's on the latter. Either that or you're saying that all teams should be barred from making deals once one team is eliminated, which is just silly. That's what the trade deadline is for.

 

 

 

How is league "fairness and balance" maintained when the league is playing with 2 sets of rules. IMO your league ceases to be fair the minute certain teams can play to win and others cannot.

It's not two sets of rules. Those who can still win can still try to win and those who cannot win cannot make trades, but can still try to win with what they've got. your words attempt to confuse what is a very simple issue.

 

you, like escobante, attempt to make a correlation between "trying to win" and "making a trade to try to help a team out of contention win" - sorry. No dependancy there. None.

 

 

the rule applies to every team in the league. When you cannot win, you cannot make trades. When you can win, you can make trades. at least until the deadline.

 

why are you having so much trouble with this?