- 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: TDBBL Week 12 Preview
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:11 am to rmc
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:11 am to rmc
quote:
Right, because that would be bad for the contenders not named Les. IE You, Andy, Karma, etc
again bitch, i didn't even veto ron's trade because i could see where you improved next year, though it was lopsided as frick. in this trade, you don't improve. it has nothing to do with les getting better. not for me, anyways. if you are going to bitch, then frick it, run it through again and i won't veto. if you think beasley and bosh is an improvement, and if you think that giving up half of your team is of because your playing for next year, then do it.
1
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:14 am to TigerPhan27
ronnie's deal was far worse. There were standout performers and almost keepers being dealt for waiver wire fodder. This is borderline waiver wire and low performers for borderline waiverwire fodder.
I haven't voted on this thing yet. Before I do, I would move that LE needs to include a draft pick to even things up a little bit.
I haven't voted on this thing yet. Before I do, I would move that LE needs to include a draft pick to even things up a little bit.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:15 am to TigerPhan27
quote:
Here's another problem, if this deal goes through and Ronnie's deal got nixed, now Ronnie is the one getting screwed in the deal
Yep.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:15 am to TigerPhan27
quote:
I'd rather just do away with it and let RMCC void obvious collusion.
no way. These are the rules we all agreed to. There needs to be a way to police these deals.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:17 am to LSU Fan 90812
i just don't see how beasly and bosh are better than jamison and carter. if rick thinks that will help his team, then i am for it. run it back through rick, i don't have a problem with it brah.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:20 am to cwill
cwill, you see my email?
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:22 am to PortCityTiger24
they're not. but rick thinks they are. the point is however.
And these are for all the people suggesting ronnie mex would be getting the shaft.
ron was getting 4 potential keepers and a good role player. for two keepers and waiver.
that's the diff. other than VC, Jamison, nobody else is a keeper.
And these are for all the people suggesting ronnie mex would be getting the shaft.
ron was getting 4 potential keepers and a good role player. for two keepers and waiver.
that's the diff. other than VC, Jamison, nobody else is a keeper.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:28 am to LSU Fan 90812
wait did that thing already get vetoed?
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:28 am to LSU Fan 90812
I think Ron's offer clearly made Rick better next year, that's why I didn't veto, even though ron would have been loaded. This offer doesn't make rick better at all, but if he thinks it does it's on him. If he runs the trade through again, I won't veto.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:30 am to LSU Fan 90812
yeah, if you didn't veto it I don't know who else did. Rick is saying that "the contenders" vetoed it, but looks like at least 4 others besides me and nobes vetoed it.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:31 am to PortCityTiger24
Sproles is available in TDFL.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:33 am to LSU Fan 90812
I just don't why, in this trade and the Ronnie trade why there needs to be 12 players involved. If the rick just wanted to trade VC and Jamison and then add maybe another borderline keeper type guy for Beasely and Bosh and he thought Beasly and Bosh were better than AJ and VC going forward would this be vetoed? I don't understand why half the team needs to be dealt.
This post was edited on 1/14/09 at 11:33 am
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:33 am to PortCityTiger24
I did not veto. Saw it last night, but wanted to wait til the morning to get a look at it.
slo could've vetoed.
slo could've vetoed.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:35 am to TigerPhan27
quote:
I don't understand why half the team needs to be dealt.
Neither do I. It appears to be be window dressing for an uneven trade.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:40 am to TigerPhan27
quote:
I just don't why, in this trade and the Ronnie trade why there needs to be 12 players involved. If the rick just wanted to trade VC and Jamison and then add maybe another borderline keeper type guy for Beasely and Bosh and he thought Beasly and Bosh were better than AJ and VC going forward would this be vetoed? I don't understand why half the team needs to be dealt.
that's exactly the point. It's the influx of other players that make it lopsided. do that deal throw in an extra player to make it 3 for 2.
or do 4-2 with a couple of draft picks and nobody would question it.
it's when you do a 2-2 and then 4 waiver wire players for 4 decent people do people get in trouble.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 11:42 am to LSU Fan 90812
and throw in the fact that Rick has said he might now even play next year. like i said though, if they do it again i wont veto it.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 12:05 pm to rmc
do the same trade, get LE to include a pick or two and it won't get voted down.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 12:07 pm to rmc
- I'm giving up half of my team to get a player I targeted - Bosh
I guess the question is how does it get to this point? Did you offer the deal or LE? Does it start out with 6 players to get one? If LE offers a deal where you need to send half of your team to get 1 guy why accept it? If you offered the deal 1st then I don't think it's the league's responisibility to veto it to protect you, not what they are doing anyway.
I guess the question is how does it get to this point? Did you offer the deal or LE? Does it start out with 6 players to get one? If LE offers a deal where you need to send half of your team to get 1 guy why accept it? If you offered the deal 1st then I don't think it's the league's responisibility to veto it to protect you, not what they are doing anyway.
Posted on 1/14/09 at 12:08 pm to TigerPhan27
For example, i wanted Kobe so i gave up 2 players to get him. It never got to a 10 for 10 deal to make it happen
Posted on 1/14/09 at 12:12 pm to TigerPhan27
exactly. i just think that there always needs to be a somewhat balance in what's being given even if it's slightly skewed.
and knat, i responded to you email...
and knat, i responded to you email...
Page 12 of 55
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News