- 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: Trades in your league
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:21 am to CBandits82
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:21 am to CBandits82
Look man, I'm against vetoing. People value players differently.
However, in the example of Buck Allen for Leveon Bell, that's easily "vetoable" especially it being a straight RB for RB swap. There's just no justifying that, unless we're now predicting injuries like tzimme
However, in the example of Buck Allen for Leveon Bell, that's easily "vetoable" especially it being a straight RB for RB swap. There's just no justifying that, unless we're now predicting injuries like tzimme
2
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:22 am to Tigereye10005
Our league has had 4 total. I wouldn’t say that’s a lot, but it’s pretty consistent in my leagues. People want a trade that clearly favors them. Rarely happens both players like a trade
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:24 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Rarely happens both players like a trade
Then how does a deal get done if one of the owners doesn't like the trade?
quote:
People want a trade that clearly favors them.
This mentality doesn't make sense, the point of a trade is to help two teams get better.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:25 am to castorinho
quote:
However, in the example of Buck Allen for Leveon Bell, that's easily "vetoable" e
The only veto-able trade is obvious collusion IMO.
Bell owner could be frustrated if Bell has had a bad run of games, who are you to tell the Bell owner how to run his team?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:27 am to castorinho
quote:
There's just no justifying that,
to you its not, but the Bell owner might be ready to get rid of him. Bad stretch of games, bad play off schedule, whatever.
Just because you have a different opinion does not make it veto-able.
You can't tell the Bell owner how to run his team.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:36 am to CBandits82
quote:but none of that applies to Bell currently.
Bad stretch of games, bad play off schedule, whatever.
Use Kareem Hunt for Robert woods for example and now I'm with you.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:02 am to castorinho
I think the answer to the Buck for Bell scenario would be to dive a little deeper into the reasons.
If I saw that come across, I'd certainly question it. Without a veto, the way to do it is reach out to the commissioner and say that you think this trade is fishy and are worried there's something else going on here. Then, the commissioner and/or the rest of the league approach the two owners and ask them to explain their reasoning. If they can't give a real explanation, cancel the trade.
And it's only if they give a real explanation, doesn't have to be a good one. As long as the guy who traded Bell thinks that it was a fair deal, it should go through.
If I saw that come across, I'd certainly question it. Without a veto, the way to do it is reach out to the commissioner and say that you think this trade is fishy and are worried there's something else going on here. Then, the commissioner and/or the rest of the league approach the two owners and ask them to explain their reasoning. If they can't give a real explanation, cancel the trade.
And it's only if they give a real explanation, doesn't have to be a good one. As long as the guy who traded Bell thinks that it was a fair deal, it should go through.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:09 am to Tigereye10005
Typically, even trades that I find awful, I can see the angle the person is going for.
This example is just a bad one
This example is just a bad one
Posted on 11/17/17 at 3:54 pm to CBandits82
quote:
This mentality doesn't make sense, the point of a trade is to help two teams get better.
I agree. That's why our league only has had 4 trades. There have probably been 10 times that many proposed
Posted on 11/17/17 at 4:00 pm to Upperdecker
I the commish of a league that locks roster moves of teams once they are eliminated from playoff contention. Nothing worse than a roster dump or trade giveaway once they no longer care.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 4:29 pm to Tigereye10005
my old league was a legit trade happy league. 5-10 could happen any season.
The league I am in this year has had 1 and it was post draft prior to week 1. Classic case where some teams are drowning and crashing straight into consolidation bracket without a care in the world.
I liked the trade happy league better.
The league I am in this year has had 1 and it was post draft prior to week 1. Classic case where some teams are drowning and crashing straight into consolidation bracket without a care in the world.
I liked the trade happy league better.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 4:39 pm to Tigereye10005
Out of 2 leagues, 2 trades and I made both
Posted on 11/17/17 at 8:47 pm to Tigereye10005
I'm in 3 leagues.
League 1, first league I ever joined, doesn't allow trades. It's my biggest money league.
League 2, friends from back home started this one. We have only a couple trades per year.
League 3, dynasty league. Not a lot of trading, maybe 3 or 4 this year.
League 1, first league I ever joined, doesn't allow trades. It's my biggest money league.
League 2, friends from back home started this one. We have only a couple trades per year.
League 3, dynasty league. Not a lot of trading, maybe 3 or 4 this year.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:02 pm to noonan
Doesn't allow trades?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:14 pm to Tigereye10005
Nope, no trades
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:32 pm to noonan
That's just dumb
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:02 pm to SoFunnyItsNot
quote:
Nothing worse than a roster dump or trade giveaway once they no longer care.
Exactly, which is why the “no collusion, no veto” is a stupid rule.
I literally never had a trade issue in my leagues, but they understand trading if they are eliminated is unethical or Bell for Buck allen is fricking ridiculous. Anything that upsets the integrity of the league should be vetoed
There’s a fine line between “its their team, let them to what they want” to “you’re a fricking idiot, you shouldn’t be playing FF”
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:17 pm to lsuhunt555
quote:
That's just dumb
While I agree, it's really not much of an issue.
And since it was the first one I joined it was really all I knew until I started joining others. Plus, I usually finish in the money or at least close to it, so I'm not too worried about changing things.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:17 pm to CBandits82
How do you determine obvious collusion?
Oh yea, you can’t.
I hate this stupid frickin line that people repeat every year on here
Oh yea, you can’t.
I hate this stupid frickin line that people repeat every year on here
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:42 pm to GynoSandberg
quote:
xactly, which is why the “no collusion, no veto” is a stupid rule.
I literally never had a trade issue in my leagues, but they understand trading if they are eliminated is unethical or Bell for Buck allen is fricking ridiculous. Anything that upsets the integrity of the league should be vetoed
There’s a fine line between “its their team, let them to what they want” to “you’re a fricking idiot, you shouldn’t be playing FF”
I’ve never had an issue in trading in my leagues, buck Allen for Bell would never happen in a league where I’m an owner.
But if the Bell owner wants Allen And he believes it helps his team you can’t tell that dude no. Who are you to decide for him who he wants? You have an idiot in your league.
Like casterino said earlier, Buck Allen for Bell is a bad example in the first place.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News