Page 1 of 1

Was trade complaining justified?

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:03 pm
by microwave donut
I'm a big believer in don't veto anything, but we had an issue where one guy who should be definitely be owned was traded for someone who maybe should be owned. I would say the trade was bad but not vetoable at all. However once the trade went through the guy on the short end dropped his acquired player immediately for a streamer D.

I asked the manager who got the good end. He said the other manager told him he was going to drop dude anyways so they arranged for him to take his trash then drop that instead. Then I complained. I wasn't the only one who bitched but he made it seem like we were being assholes. Hey, I wanted to bid on that guy if he hit waivers, why should you get him for free?

Re: Was trade complaining justified?

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:54 pm
by jaywrong
From what it sounds like, I'd consider this collusion, which is the only vetoable scenario I agree with. Owner A told Owner B that I'm dropping a player, but he can help you, so you can have him for free.

That should be unacceptable.
I'm a big believer in don't veto anything, but we had an issue where one guy who should be definitely be owned was traded for someone who maybe should be owned. I would say the trade was bad but not vetoable at all. However once the trade went through the guy on the short end dropped his acquired player immediately for a streamer D.

I asked the manager who got the good end. He said the other manager told him he was going to drop dude anyways so they arranged for him to take his trash then drop that instead. Then I complained. I wasn't the only one who bitched but he made it seem like we were being assholes. Hey, I wanted to bid on that guy if he hit waivers, why should you get him for free?