- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Trade foul or not?
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:36 am
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:36 am
Our league is currently bickering over a trade involving Leveon Bell for Adrian Peterson. Peterson owner that would be getting Bell is throwing a shitfit because we are voting to approve or disapprove. Would y’all allow it?
10
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:38 am to woff32
quote:
Our league is currently bickering over a trade involving Leveon Bell for Adrian Peterson. Peterson owner that would be getting Bell is throwing a shitfit because we are voting to approve or disapprove. Would y’all allow it?
You think there is collusion after week 1?
You dont veto a trade just because you dont like it.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:38 am to woff32
I'd allow it
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:38 am to woff32
If both teams agreed and think it will help their team, and neither was tricked or misled, you let the trade go through.
Vetoing trades just because you don't like them is bush league.
Vetoing trades just because you don't like them is bush league.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:40 am to RB10
I agree, lots of the other teams don't. Just wanted the opinion of the Fantasy Board.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:40 am to woff32
Approve.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:47 am to woff32
Agree with the others. You veto a trade for collusion (cheating) only. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you should veto it.
If they want to get petty about it, just have both owners explain their reasoning. If either owner can't come up with an answer (even a dumb one), then maybe you have a discussion. But if both owners can explain why they want the trade, it's fine.
If they want to get petty about it, just have both owners explain their reasoning. If either owner can't come up with an answer (even a dumb one), then maybe you have a discussion. But if both owners can explain why they want the trade, it's fine.
This post was edited on 9/13/18 at 8:50 am
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:51 am to woff32
it isn't the league/commissioner's job to manage peoples teams for them
Posted on 9/13/18 at 8:52 am to GOON
It seems pretty obvious to me - one owner is worried about bell losing his job and wants guaranteed production from a guy who looked great in week 1.
The other is willing to take the risk of taking a player who hasn't shown up for his team yet but has huge upside.
The other is willing to take the risk of taking a player who hasn't shown up for his team yet but has huge upside.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 9:49 am to woff32
100% allow it, there is no reason not to allow it.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 9:51 am to woff32
Are you in the same league as the other person that’s talking about a Peterson/Bell trade?
This post was edited on 9/13/18 at 9:52 am
Posted on 9/13/18 at 9:53 am to woff32
quote:
Peterson owner that would be getting Bell is throwing a shitfit because we are voting to approve or disapprove
Fight that shite woff32!
Posted on 9/13/18 at 10:11 am to RB10
quote:
You dont veto a trade just because you dont like it.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News