Larry Johnson for Ladanian Tomlinson

[ggroovy17 0]

We get to keep a player for one year so the owner of LJ kept him this year and just traded him to the LT owner so both of them can be kept now.

 

Players are upset in the league because LJ and LT won't be available next year. It's a loophole in the system, but would you be upset over this and is it borderline collusion?

[idiotec 31]

borderline collusion? I would call it playing the game. Absolutely nothing wrong with it IMO.

[skinsrule05 30]

borderline collusion? I would call it playing the game. Absolutely nothing wrong with it IMO.

 

I agree with that. You are playing by the rules. But I do have to say that the rules are a little weak if you can do that. In our keeper league a players keeper status goes with him if he is traded it doesn't start all over.

[CapitalCityCajun 0]

Kudos to you and the other team for finding that loophole and taking action, the others are just jealous they couldn't do it. You didn't break any rules and I applaude that!

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Players are upset in the league because LJ and LT won't be available next year. It's a loophole in the system, but would you be upset over this and is it borderline collusion?

 

Well, the rules are the rules, and they've found a way around it. I guess you can't blame them, but I can see how it would upset the others.

 

That is the problem these limited keeper leagues produce though. My advice is to let the trade go through and try to find a way to fix the loophole. In my league no player can be kept who was kept the previous year, regardless of which team kept him. So in that case LJ and LT would both still be ineligible to be kept even with the trade.

[2bmayhem 1]

Nice moves. The swap is actually "brilliant", because it makes practical sense in a keeper league, with your rules.

 

Your other league mates must be going..... doh....

 

I'll bet the rules change next year.

[Turf CamelToe 1]

I agree with that. You are playing by the rules. But I do have to say that the rules are a little weak if you can do that. In our keeper league a players keeper status goes with him if he is traded it doesn't start all over.

 

Same as ours

[Lions_or_Die 0]

Fix the loophole. It is shady at best, but it is within the rules. That's why we don't carry players over year to year.

[AnaheimRams 28]

Looking into my crystal ball...

 

I forsee a flood of trades coming up in your league.

[Natural Lights 0]

Do not blame these two for playing by the rules. Stupid league rules ultimately leads to a stupid league. Yet another reason why it should be all (dynasty), or nothing(redraft)

[KingofBeer 0]

Just because the rules do not explicitly cover this particular scenario doesn’t make it ok. Ask yourself these two questions 1) What is the objective of the rule that is in place (one-year keepers), and 2) Do trades like this defeat the objective of the rule? IMO, the intention of the rule is to limit the advantage of dominant players so a few people don’t dominate the league year after year by holding on to guys like LT2 and LJ. It’s not a given that these players will be dominant for years but it is possible. So, IMO, the rule should be interpreted that the player you trade for should have the same status as the player you traded away. If not, then the owners will be getting value for a player beyond the one year that the rule intended.

[urmother 0]

Just because the rules do not explicitly cover this particular scenario doesn’t make it ok. Ask yourself these two questions 1) What is the objective of the rule that is in place (one-year keepers), and 2) Do trades like this defeat the objective of the rule? IMO, the intention of the rule is to limit the advantage of dominant players so a few people don’t dominate the league year after year by holding on to guys like LT2 and LJ. It’s not a given that these players will be dominant for years but it is possible. So, IMO, the rule should be interpreted that the player you trade for should have the same status as the player you traded away. If not, then the owners will be getting value for a player beyond the one year that the rule intended.

 

 

a lot of you guys talk an awful lot about intentions and the spirit of the rule/law, etc. how about just making some rules and sticking by 'em? this trade is absolutely fine.

[dreadlocks34 0]

Your league then should adopt a keeper tag on players to prevent this from happening. It must be a new league otherwise this certainly would have happened before.

[KingofBeer 0]

a lot of you guys talk an awful lot about intentions and the spirit of the rule/law, etc. how about just making some rules and sticking by 'em? this trade is absolutely fine.

 

exactly the type of simple-minded response I would expect from you.

[adam smitty 0]

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[rdrs4life 0]

exactly the type of simple-minded response I would expect from you.

 

Occam's razor, brosiff.

[mggoilers 0]

Seems fair, what's the new rule?

 

LJ can never be traded for LT?

 

Just make it a re-draft, or don't set limits on how long a player can be kept.

 

Is this league jealousy or envy?

[Mephisto 15]

Seems like a smart move to me.

 

You want to prevent it... after the one year "kept" term, those players must be released to the free-agent pool.

[westlak 1]

We get to keep a player for one year so the owner of LJ kept him this year and just traded him to the LT owner so both of them can be kept now.

 

Players are upset in the league because LJ and LT won't be available next year. It's a loophole in the system, but would you be upset over this and is it borderline collusion?

I'm not in a keeper league yet I'm considering trading LT straight up for LJ because of

Tommy's history of late season injury problems. I wouldn't sweat this one.

[resser2 0]

Well, the rules are the rules, and they've found a way around it. I guess you can't blame them, but I can see how it would upset the others.

 

. In my league no player can be kept who was kept the previous year, regardless of which team kept him. So in that case LJ and LT would both still be ineligible to be kept even with the trade.

 

 

what is the point of having a keeper league then?

[HardTack 0]

If they went by the rules every year....what would prevent them from doing the same next year?? Couldnt they just swap again and say that they didnt keep him the previous year. That trade could go on until one of the players retires.

[Trojan35 0]

Your rules are lame, thus you have to deal with this lameness.

[Vikings4ever 496]

According to the rules, perfectly leagal.

 

If the league does think it's a big deal, change the rules during the offseason.

[Baylorboy123456 0]

Just wait until LJ has a terrible year next year while LT stays consistent. That'll show him.

[swirvenirvin 25]

borderline collusion? I would call it playing the game. Absolutely nothing wrong with it IMO.

 

 

A yep it may cause you to change you rules for next year but nothing wrong with this

[Black Ice 0]

We get to keep a player for one year so the owner of LJ kept him this year and just traded him to the LT owner so both of them can be kept now.

 

Players are upset in the league because LJ and LT won't be available next year. It's a loophole in the system, but would you be upset over this and is it borderline collusion?

 

Seems like a stupid rule you can only keep a guy for one year. I'm surprised you don't see this more often. I'd do the same and swap top tier guys, for top tier guys.

[Big Blue 06 195]

This loophole they found is really quite smart and makes sense for both teams. Plus, the value is about even, so you can't get pissed at the owners.

[jerryskids 5,206]

We get to keep a player for one year so the owner of LJ kept him this year and just traded him to the LT owner so both of them can be kept now.

 

Players are upset in the league because LJ and LT won't be available next year. It's a loophole in the system, but would you be upset over this and is it borderline collusion?

I agree with the vast majority here that your rules suck and that the keeper status should go with the player. That being said, I'm intrigued by the motivation of the LT owner. Sounds like, from your description, he could have been kept next year (you specifically said LJ was not keepable so I'm presuming LT was). If so, why do what is essentially a straight-up trade, which helps the LJ owner so much next year? Unless he thinks LJ is worth it I suppose.

[urmother 0]

exactly the type of simple-minded response I would expect from you.

 

it is simple. follow the rules your league sets. allow people the freedom to employ whatever creativity/strategy they see fit w/in the rules. thankfully most people here disagree w/your position to change (or over-interpret) rules after-the-fact.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Why is this called a "loophole"? Our league has the same rules, everyone is aware of them. Seems to me most of the guys in your league simply are not aware of the rules.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I agree that this is well within the rules and it's a little shady. Shady because these 2 guys are dealing and will be pulling the same deal year after year until it's changed. Great example of why NOT to have a keeper league. Essentially these two guys have the #1 and #2 draft spots locked up year after year until the next LT/LJ come along. Only an injury to either will bite them in the ass just like last year when I kept Dante Culpepper.

[KingofBeer 0]

it is simple. follow the rules your league sets. allow people the freedom to employ whatever creativity/strategy they see fit w/in the rules. thankfully most people here disagree w/your position to change (or over-interpret) rules after-the-fact.

 

first, i was saying that the commissioner could clarify and interpret the rules, which isn't the same as changing them. sometimes friends get together and form a league with a loose set of rules, and just because every chapter, rule, and subsection isn't etched in granite and notarized doesn't mean the rules that do exist can't be interpreted by the commish. i don't know all of the circumstances in this league and there is, imo, some gray area in this discussion. so, unlike some others i am not going to pound my chest and say that my opinion is undoubtedly correct. second, a lot of the people disagree with you too (thankfully ). people are saying that the rule sucks and should be changed next year. why don't you go tell all of them to follow the rules set by the league and to not change them after-the-fact? owners with elite players will loose a possible advantage even if the rules are changed in the off-season.

[ERZER 0]

borderline collusion? I would call it playing the game....

 

 

Here here! Like others are saying, you need to fix a loop hole that even Dixie Bubbles could jump through.

[urmother 0]

first, i was saying that the commissioner could clarify and interpret the rules, which isn't the same as changing them. sometimes friends get together and form a league with a loose set of rules, and just because every chapter, rule, and subsection isn't etched in granite and notarized doesn't mean the rules that do exist can't be interpreted by the commish. i don't know all of the circumstances in this league and there is, imo, some gray area in this discussion. so, unlike some others i am not going to pound my chest and say that my opinion is undoubtedly correct. second, a lot of the people disagree with you too (thankfully ). people are saying that the rule sucks and should be changed next year. why don't you go tell all of them to follow the rules set by the league and to not change them after-the-fact? owners with elite players will loose a possible advantage even if the rules are changed in the off-season.

 

hey brain-damaged one. voting on rule changes that will apply a year down the road is fine. changing the rules midseason is not. i'd suggest they change the rule for the next season also.

 

i honestly don't see how someone wouldn't notice this "loophole" w/in 1 minute of proposing the rule, but if it wasn't addressed in the rules it's absolutely wrong to suggest changing it now. changing it at the end of the season in regards to how it affects next year is fine. what you suggested is changing the rules now so that those 2 players wouldn't be eligible to be kept by their new owners. i hope to god you're not a commish w/your "the spirit and intent of foofy la foof foof is to make all happy and wada wada..."

 

agree on rules. follow said rules. re-evaluate rules and vote on changes at the end of season for following year.

[KingofBeer 0]

hey brain-damaged one. voting on rule changes that will apply a year down the road is fine. changing the rules midseason is not. i'd suggest they change the rule for the next season also.

 

i honestly don't see how someone wouldn't notice this "loophole" w/in 1 minute of proposing the rule, but if it wasn't addressed in the rules it's absolutely wrong to suggest changing it now. changing it at the end of the season in regards to how it affects next year is fine. what you suggested is changing the rules now so that those 2 players wouldn't be eligible to be kept by their new owners. i hope to god you're not a commish w/your "the spirit and intent of foofy la foof foof is to make all happy and wada wada..."

 

agree on rules. follow said rules. re-evaluate rules and vote on changes at the end of season for following year.

 

i thought you were capable of reading a post, understanding what the person is saying, and formulating an intelligent response. my mistake. i will move along. i already know what you're going to say in your simple-minded response so save your time because i wont be back to read it.

[urmother 0]

i thought you were capable of reading a post, understanding what the person is saying, and formulating an intelligent response. my mistake. i will move along. i already know what you're going to say in your simple-minded response so save your time because i wont be back to read it.

 

 

if you're going to talk trash you should at least try not to repeat yourself. i actually enjoy the weightier arguments/discussion/analysis on this board (which are unfortunately rare).

 

if you want check out some of my thoughts on collusion, internet gambling, and letting opponents' roster decisions influence your own. that's about as heavy as it gets around here. as for you, trying to redefine your initial position in subsequent posts (probably because you've since realized its idiocy) is weak. if you've realized your mistake fess up or shut up. if you've got addiitonal points to make in favor of your position by all means provide 'em. and if you want to just talk trash feel free. but don't expect me to fawn all over your nonsensical blathering & weak retorts. if you say something idiotic expect (and relish) in getting called out on it. little girl emotions are best left to yourself.

[Jamy_Z 0]

Obviously a great move, I just think the rules r a bit odd.

 

Basically- u and this guy can switch LT and LJ until one of them becomes ###### or retires or has an injury...

 

SO after next year ull just get LT back and hell get LJ.

 

stupid.

[OD99 0]

i thought you were capable of reading a post, understanding what the person is saying, and formulating an intelligent response. my mistake. i will move along. i already know what you're going to say in your simple-minded response so save your time because i wont be back to read it.

 

I guess I have a simple mind too because as far as I can see you just keep talking weak sh!t and then calling other people simple.

 

There is no interpretation of a rule here - if the rule is that you can't keep the same player on your team for more than one year the rule needs to change. How else do you want to define the rule? They can't trade LT for LJ?

 

The bottom line is everyone in the league, if they are smart, is trading away their players that they can't keep for next year and trying to get the best value back for them. In this case, these guys are pretty much getting even value, at least the best they can get.

 

What if it was Manning for LT? Or McNabb for LJ?

 

This whole topic is stupid because the rule as it has been explained is clear.