Collusion? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Collusion?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby SouthBronxBombers » Tue May 31, 2005 5:24 pm

I'll also point out the two of you are misstating what I said. I said nothing about vetoing a fair trade, or a trade that benefits one owner over another. If you are going to criticize what I said, at least do that. Don't make up something and then respond to it. I said when a trade upsets the competitive balance. Only a complete fool or someone who has an axe to grind as in the case of Davus would assume it means what the two of you have said it does. It means exactly what it is. Upsetting the competitive balance, you know, like trading a person you pick up off the waiver wire for a top twenty player. Or trading, say, Homer Bush to get ARod. That is what is referred to as upsettiing the competitive balance. Which pretty much a person with at least average intelligence could understand.
SouthBronxBombers
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 892
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby SouthBronxBombers » Tue May 31, 2005 5:27 pm

Davus, you brought the thread back after no one had posted for a week. You had to have gone searching for it as it was pages deep. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you without being a jerk, it's no wonder the guy in your league has a problem with you. I'm not going to bother with you anymore. Interacting with trolls is a waste of time and that is all you have shown yourself to be. Have a nice life.
SouthBronxBombers
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 892
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby davus » Tue May 31, 2005 5:32 pm

SouthBronxBombers wrote:I'll also point out the two of you are misstating what I said. I said nothing about vetoing a fair trade, or a trade that benefits one owner over another. If you are going to criticize what I said, at least do that. Don't make up something and then respond to it. I said when a trade upsets the competitive balance. Only a complete fool or someone who has an axe to grind as in the case of Davus would assume it means what the two of you have said it does. It means exactly what it is. Upsetting the competitive balance, you know, like trading a person you pick up off the waiver wire for a top twenty player. Or trading, say, Homer Bush to get ARod. That is what is referred to as upsettiing the competitive balance. Which pretty much a person with at least average intelligence could understand.


Pretty much a person with at least average intelligence could understand that a Homer Bush for ARod trade is collusion but you are talking about vetoing trades that aren't collusion. That's poor sportsmanship brah, simple as that. You don't want anybody else to get a good deal because that hurts your chances. However you want to explain it doesn't change that. Why not just make trades illegal?

And Garret Anderson is a top twenty player....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Yep, he was a 1st or 2nd round pick in ALL of my leagues this year.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHHHAHAAHAHAA!!!

*goes unconcious from severe stress to logic sensors*
davus
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 768
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby davus » Tue May 31, 2005 5:36 pm

SouthBronxBombers wrote:Davus, you brought the thread back after no one had posted for a week. You had to have gone searching for it as it was pages deep. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you without being a jerk, it's no wonder the guy in your league has a problem with you. I'm not going to bother with you anymore. Interacting with trolls is a waste of time and that is all you have shown yourself to be. Have a nice life.


Yeah, it's called search for the term "collusion" and, imagine that, a thread with the title "Collusion" pops up.

Don't worry, nobody will think anything less of you when you pop up, throw a bunch of insults around and then run away with your tail between your legs. ;-)
davus
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 768
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby raiders_umpire » Tue May 31, 2005 5:36 pm

geez guys just relax.... no need to get personal....



as far as the original poster, i see no way this trade could be called collusion... one team is buying beltran low, but it is definitely not collusion....
Image
raiders_umpire
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 27781
Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You will be missed, Robert Smeraldo.

Postby SouthBronxBombers » Tue May 31, 2005 5:38 pm

I am going to reply once more. I'd suggest you invest in a dictionary and look up the word collusion. Trading Homer Bush for ARod would not fit the definition unless the owners got together and entered into a plan to better one team at the expense of the other. The trade itself is not collusion. Nor did I mention the name of Garrett Anderson anywhere. I have never said he was a top 20 player. I have no problem with teams making good trades that benefit them, no matter where they are in the standings. My statement was clear, and you chose to make it something it was not because you cannot handle being told you were wrong on another thread. But you go right ahead, spout your lies, be a troll and generally show your ass. No skin off my nose. It's not like you have anything intelligent to offer, so ignoring you from now on will not cost me anything. GFY
SouthBronxBombers
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 892
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby davus » Tue May 31, 2005 5:42 pm

SouthBronxBombers wrote:I am going to reply once more. I'd suggest you invest in a dictionary and look up the word collusion. Trading Homer Bush for ARod would not fit the definition unless the owners got together and entered into a plan to better one team at the expense of the other. The trade itself is not collusion. Nor did I mention the name of Garrett Anderson anywhere. I have never said he was a top 20 player. I have no problem with teams making good trades that benefit them, no matter where they are in the standings. My statement was clear, and you chose to make it something it was not because you cannot handle being told you were wrong on another thread. But you go right ahead, spout your lies, be a troll and generally show your ass. No skin off my nose. It's not like you have anything intelligent to offer, so ignoring you from now on will not cost me anything. GFY


LOL.

Yes, you coming around and calling me every name in the book certainly is making me look unintelligent. :-?

;-D
davus
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 768
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby josebach » Tue May 31, 2005 5:53 pm

Collusion is most definitely NOT the only reason to veto a trade. Almost every league has one or two owners that are inferior to the rest of the league. To stand by and let opportunistic owners take advantage of them is complete and total bullsh1t. If an owner is inexperienced, naive or just plain stupid, it's the commissioner's responsibility to make sure he's not taken advantage of. Right now Dellucci is ranked considerably higher than Vlad. Are you telling me you would let that trade go through? Being an opportunist is below most people. To have a veto system that rewards opportunists and penalizes owners that have a sense of fairplay is unconscionable... especially when there is money involved.

What kind of person wants to win that way?
josebach
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2036
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee

Postby Rance Mulliniks » Tue May 31, 2005 5:59 pm

josebach wrote:Collusion is most definitely NOT the only reason to veto a trade. Almost every league has one or two owners that are inferior to the rest of the league. To stand by and let opportunistic owners take advantage of them is complete and total bullsh1t. If an owner is inexperienced, naive or just plain stupid, it's the commissioner's responsibility to make sure he's not taken advantage of. Right now Dellucci is ranked considerably higher than Vlad. Are you telling me you would let that trade go through? Being an opportunist is below most people. To have a veto system that rewards opportunists and penalizes owners that have a sense of fairplay is unconscionable... especially when there is money involved.

What kind of person wants to win that way?


So when would it be okay to trade Delucci for Vlad? If we knew Vlad would be out until the first week of September, would it be okay? Different managers have different expectations of a player, I don't think you can force yours on them. Beltran was a top-3 pick in most leagues, would he be today? I'm not sure. In April, people would have said it was crazy to trade Ollie Perez for Bret Myers, or trade Helton for Derrek Lee, do you find that crazy now?? At some point people have to accept that all players won't repeat in 2005 what they did in 2004.
Image
Mulliniks Watch: Still stuck on 1325 games 3569 AB 445 R 972 H 73 HR 435 RBI 0.272 AVG 15 SB
Rance Mulliniks
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 2207
(Past Year: 27)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Up in the Rockies, hoping for powder

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact