- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trade Collusion?
Posted on 9/6/12 at 10:24 am to Bearded Angler
Posted on 9/6/12 at 10:24 am to Bearded Angler
It's not collusion.
Lopsided trade, but not collusion.
Lopsided trade, but not collusion.
3
Posted on 9/6/12 at 10:28 am to reddman
quote:
It's not collusion.
Lopsided trade, but not collusion.
Bingo. Problem is, people don't understand the difference.
Posted on 9/6/12 at 10:32 am to reddman
you mean people aren't colluding in week 1?!
Posted on 9/6/12 at 10:36 am to reddman
quote:
ESPN introduced this option to allow leagues to decide whether a trade is fair to both parties and to prevent collusion.
It doesn't even make sense for Team A. They will be left with 1 "startable" RB in Marshawn Lynch, who is injured right now!
The only reason I may say not to veto would be because it looks like an 8 or 10 team league and everyone has All-Stars.
But if it is less than a 14 team league, Starks shouldn't be rostered.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News