Would you consider this collusion?

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

It's all about taking advantage of homerism as I am admittedly (to him as well) trying to hose a huge Cleveland Sports fan in my league (PPR, pt all TD's).

 

I'm offering Braylon and Deuce

 

for

 

Gore and Vincent Jackson

 

He's the last place team and out of the playoffs at 1-8, and the trade isn't completely terrible (He has Hightower, Ronnie Brown and Willie Parker) and could actually end up benefitting him, and there is a chance it could be a bad trade for me if Braylon starts blowing up and/or if Torain amounts to anything.

 

On paper though, it is terrible... and I know it. And I'm sure the league would at the very least question it.

 

My team:

 

Campbell, Thigpen, Rosenfels

MBIII, Torain, Faulk, Deuce, Rhodes, Chester Taylor

Marshall, Braylon, Matt Jones, Engram

Billy Miller

 

 

His team:

 

Favre, Quinn,

Parker, Gore, Hightower, Ronnie Brown,

Coles, Jackson, HIlliard, Patten Walker

Winslow

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Delete this thread before the sharks come.

 

Just because it's lobsided doesn't make it collusion but it could qualify as rape.

[hitman29 0]

... and the trade isn't completely terrible

 

Nonsense. This is an awful trade. Why on earth would a guy who is a Browns fan, who has probably seen all of Edwards' 800 drops in agonizing slo-mo, trade a top 3 RB (not to mention a top 20 WR along with him) for him? Did he actually already verbally agree to the trade?

[lagarzlebrew 0]

I'd do the trade if I were you!

 

[$epphori$ 118]

do you even know what collusion means? if your involved in this trade you should be able answer your own question.

[ILikeTacos 0]

do you even know what collusion means? if your involved in this trade you should be able answer your own question.

what? i think that collusion means sharing money. he hasn't said that he is doing that. thus, for you to (seemingly) argue that this is somehow (by definition) collusion is silly.

 

Is your argument that a bad trade (that is really bad) collusion (by definition)?

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

Another moronic trade post.

Well, are you colluding with the guy???? Can you answer your own question? Why are you even asking us?

[Phurfur 70]

do you even know what collusion means? if your involved in this trade you should be able answer your own question.

 

 

Thank you; it is what makes these threads so incredibly stupid.

[$epphori$ 118]

what? i think that collusion means sharing money. he hasn't said that he is doing that. thus, for you to (seemingly) argue that this is somehow (by definition) collusion is silly.

 

Is your argument that a bad trade (that is really bad) collusion (by definition)?

 

wow...the intelligence level has fell to an all time low

[MikieV101 0]

It's all about taking advantage of homerism as I am admittedly (to him as well) trying to hose a huge Cleveland Sports fan in my league (PPR, pt all TD's).

 

I'm offering Braylon and Deuce

 

for

 

Gore and Vincent Jackson

 

He's the last place team and out of the playoffs at 1-8, and the trade isn't completely terrible (He has Hightower, Ronnie Brown and Willie Parker) and could actually end up benefitting him, and there is a chance it could be a bad trade for me if Braylon starts blowing up and/or if Torain amounts to anything.

 

On paper though, it is terrible... and I know it. And I'm sure the league would at the very least question it.

 

My team:

 

Campbell, Thigpen, Rosenfels

MBIII, Torain, Faulk, Deuce, Rhodes, Chester Taylor

Marshall, Braylon, Matt Jones, Engram

Billy Miller

His team:

 

Favre, Quinn,

Parker, Gore, Hightower, Ronnie Brown,

Coles, Jackson, HIlliard, Patten Walker

Winslow

 

 

Do you think you are colluding with yourself?

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

This isn't some sort of collaboration between two owners to benefit one owner in any way. I am not making any sort of behind the scenes deal and selling guy at an inflated value because the demand warrants such a situation. I only ask because I am well aware that it appears as collusion, but I know for a FACT that it is not.

 

It is a matter of taking advantage of situations... and in a game that is more about fun to my league than about money, it would be more fun for this guy to have Quinn with Braylon and Mr. Grapefruit Nuts.

 

He still has a chance at a consolation prize, and I am offering him nothing in return for the trade. It's just me taking advantage of an overzealous fan and the situation he is in.

 

Not to mention he already has three other RB's on his rosters that could very well match Gore in the 2nd half of the season, and he is very weak at WR. What guarantees are that Gore will continue to perform. Last time I checked they are down to their 3rd string QB, and a brand new head coach who is teetering on the edge of crazy.

[phan420 0]

what? i think that collusion means sharing money. he hasn't said that he is doing that. thus, for you to (seemingly) argue that this is somehow (by definition) collusion is silly.

 

Is your argument that a bad trade (that is really bad) collusion (by definition)?

 

[Savior57 0]

You know it's bad. You just hope he doesn't care anymore because he's 1-8.

 

It's bad it's unfair to your fellow league members. Don't do it!

[madd futher mucker 36]

Is the trade really collusion? Take any dictionary and you will find out the answer is no.

 

But is collusion the only valid reason to veto a trade. No, not in my opinion.

 

Is the trade extremely onesided? Yes

 

Is there a likelihood of a veto? It depends on your veto rules and the philosophy of the league.

 

As a commish with veto power, would i personally veto it? Probably not, but i would sure ask him why he made the trade and what makes him feel it would help his team, because I don't see it at all from his point of view; If he did not give me some kind of reasonable rationalization as to how he sees the trade helping his team, I would consider vetoing it..........but our league has a trade deadline of 10/31 to prevent teams that are 1-8 from making "I give up" and/or desperation trades with teams in contention, so this trade would never be an issue. I think an early trade deadline (just around or after week 8 or 9) prevents a lot of these type of trades that at a minimum can cause a lot of hard feelings in leagues.

 

Are you ethically in the wrong by proposing the trade? Not in the least........Trades don't have to be 'fair'. but you do run the risk of a veto here.

[NateBurleson81 0]

This is amazing to me, Almost everybody has said this is a lopsided trade, which I do agree with, But I am getting ripped apart for saying that AD and Housh for Roddy and Rivers is lopsided. So basically what I am gathering is that people are...

 

1.Very contradictory

2.Very hateful towards me. Thay have said alot of mean things.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

Is the trade really collusion? Take any dictionary and you will find out the answer is no.

 

But is collusion the only valid reason to veto a trade. No, not in my opinion.

 

Is the trade extremely onesided? Yes

 

Is there a likelihood of a veto? It depends on your veto rules and the philosophy of the league.

 

As a commish with veto power, would i personally veto it? Probably not, but i would sure ask him why he made the trade and what makes him feel it would help his team, because I don't see it at all from his point of view; If he did not give me some kind of reasonable rationalization as to how he sees the trade helping his team, I would consider vetoing it..........but our league has a trade deadline of 10/31 to prevent teams that are 1-8 from making "I give up" and/or desperation trades with teams in contention, so this trade would never be an issue. I think an early trade deadline (just around or after week 8 or 9) prevents a lot of these type of trades that at a minimum can cause a lot of hard feelings in leagues.

 

Are you ethically in the wrong by proposing the trade? Not in the least........Trades don't have to be 'fair'. but you do run the risk of a veto here.

 

 

Great response

 

 

 

This is amazing to me, Almost everybody has said this is a lopsided trade, which I do agree with, But I am getting ripped apart for saying that AD and Housh for Roddy and Rivers is lopsided. So basically what I am gathering is that people are...

 

1.Very contradictory

2.Very hateful towards me. Thay have said alot of mean things.

 

Trade favors Roddy Rivers side for a numbers standpoint... but the kicker here is that RB's are harder to come by. So while someone is getting better players, another team is getting players that are harder to get. It's why RB2's and WR1's are comparable.

 

Also, no one likes a whiner, so just leave comments like #2 out and don't take people's attacks personal... everyone's an ahole when they are sitting behind the keyboard can't get punched in the face in front of their wife and kids

[madd futher mucker 36]

Nate: First of all the trade you are talking about was not really very one-sided. There is no context that you presented that ANY of us on this board would have considered sufficient for a veto. You asked for and were given the same opinion (albeit in different words) and made at least 8 redundant responses, preferring to continually argue with virtually every responder rather than accept what people were telling you.

 

If you ask for an opinion and you don't like the answers you get, look inward. While this board can sometimes get crude or cruel in their responses, generally THEY expect that THEIR opinions - no matter how undiplomatically given, will be respected.

You, however, were equally crude and personal in your response their opinions. Further, you kept your thread going for about a week longer than it merited by arguing with everyone you disagreed with EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE THE ONE soliciting their opinion, not the other way around.

 

Now you come here and hi-jack this thread to try to re-hash again your point of view.

 

I personally think it is time you look inside yourself and start to "grow up" iF you want to re-gain any credibility or respect here. But you have already been told that by many others.

[phan420 0]

Nate: First of all the trade you are talking about was not really very one-sided. There is no context that you presented that ANY of us on this board would have considered sufficient for a veto. You asked for and were given the same opinion (albeit in different words) and made at least 8 redundant responses, preferring to continually argue with virtually every responder rather than accept what people were telling you.

 

If you ask for an opinion and you don't like the answers you get, look inward. While this board can sometimes get crude or cruel in their responses, generally THEY expect that THEIR opinions - no matter how undiplomatically given, will be respected.

You, however, were equally crude and personal in your response their opinions. Further, you kept your thread going for about a week longer than it merited by arguing with everyone you disagreed with EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE THE ONE soliciting their opinion, not the other way around.

 

Now you come here and hi-jack this thread to try to re-hash again your point of view.

 

I personally think it is time you look inside yourself and start to "grow up" iF you want to re-gain any credibility or respect here. But you have already been told that by many others.

 

Thank you and goodnight!

 

[NateBurleson81 0]

Nate: First of all the trade you are talking about was not really very one-sided. There is no context that you presented that ANY of us on this board would have considered sufficient for a veto. You asked for and were given the same opinion (albeit in different words) and made at least 8 redundant responses, preferring to continually argue with virtually every responder rather than accept what people were telling you.

 

If you ask for an opinion and you don't like the answers you get, look inward. While this board can sometimes get crude or cruel in their responses, generally THEY expect that THEIR opinions - no matter how undiplomatically given, will be respected.

You, however, were equally crude and personal in your response their opinions. Further, you kept your thread going for about a week longer than it merited by arguing with everyone you disagreed with EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE THE ONE soliciting their opinion, not the other way around.

 

Now you come here and hi-jack this thread to try to re-hash again your point of view.

 

I personally think it is time you look inside yourself and start to "grow up" iF you want to re-gain any credibility or respect here. But you have already been told that by many others.

shut up. Wasnt hijacking anything, I was making a comparison.

[McPaul 0]

######! for the FINAL time, if you HAVE to ASK, the answer is NO, there is NO collusion.

[Dr.Grimm 0]

shut up. Wasnt hijacking anything, I was making a comparison.

However, it is beyond obvious that there is no comparison whatsoever with this trade and the one you were b1tching and moaning about.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

Update... we went ahead and made the trade as so:

 

I gave Braylon and Kevin Faulk

 

for

 

Gore and Javon Walker

 

 

It is the process of being vetoed. I will tell you one thing, my buddy who is getting Braylon thinks in everyway that this trade will make his team better. Naturally, I do too.

[unckeyherb 2]

This isn't some sort of collaboration between two owners to benefit one owner in any way. I am not making any sort of behind the scenes deal and selling guy at an inflated value because the demand warrants such a situation. I only ask because I am well aware that it appears as collusion, but I know for a FACT that it is not.

 

It is a matter of taking advantage of situations... and in a game that is more about fun to my league than about money, it would be more fun for this guy to have Quinn with Braylon and Mr. Grapefruit Nuts.

 

He still has a chance at a consolation prize, and I am offering him nothing in return for the trade. It's just me taking advantage of an overzealous fan and the situation he is in.

 

Not to mention he already has three other RB's on his rosters that could very well match Gore in the 2nd half of the season, and he is very weak at WR. What guarantees are that Gore will continue to perform. Last time I checked they are down to their 3rd string QB, and a brand new head coach who is teetering on the edge of crazy.

this is the answer to your question. You had it in you the whole time. Unless the commish can PROVE COLLUSION, it can not be vetoed. Whos to say this guy doesn't genuinely think that with Hill in as QB Gore is going to blow, and is therefore selling him high? It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the fairness of trades. Typically, someone does make out with a seemingly better deal. That is the nature of trades. For anyone to veto without a. a taped conversation proving collusion, b. an email proving collusion, or c. a signed confession proving collusion, is BS. Half the fun of trading in my leagues is to try and fleece the other guy and then brag about it when we're all out drinking. To know that my fleecing might be overturned by a third party because "its not fair" would result in me leaving the league immediately and finding one with a non-wanker policy.