Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Ummm, I think you're going way overboard here.First off, him paying for another owner is not a big deal. In fact, it's a very nice thing to do. Now if there were some seriously lopsided trades going on between the two afterwards, then yes, I'd be looking further into it.Second off, neither trade, at the time they happened, appear super lopsided. Looking at the first trade, Manning for McNabb (ignore the kickers) during week 4 is not THAT bad. Back then, people (like myself) were still hoping McNabb would break out of his funk. Heck, he had only played 3 games after week 4! NOW, we can look at it and think Manning for McNabb is ludicrous. But at that time, it was not. Looking at the second trade, McCardell/Moulds for Glenn/Gardner is not THAT bad of a trade. I personally wouldn't have done it, but that's just me. I see no reason to veto, or go the extra mile and start throwing out the "C" word.You might want to rethink this position before it REALLY starts a s*itstorm...
Collusion is when two owners conspire to make a lopsided trade in order to significantly improve one team - usually with a side agreement or intent for the owners to split any resultant prize money or just in general screw someone else.Relax man.
I think I change my opinion.The commish is out of it, and has just given the best team the one piece he was lacking. Add that the Commish paid the entrance fee of the team, and I now think you might have something.Wouldn't shock me at all if a deal was made at the start of the season that the Commish gets the winnings off the newbie and that basically the newbie gets to play without a financial obligation just to get his feet wet this season.Not saying that is the case, but it wouldn't shock me.Either way, as the second place team, you might have a case.***** For the record, this is probably the first time I've said that it might actually be collusion after all in 15 years of playing fantasy football.You really should post all the facts when asking a question.
For all of you that say he is 'just trying to get the new owner involved'....That's just BS. You don't help other in FF just beacuse their new players. The commish should not have to baby this guy into returning. The new guy is still his competition and it does not sound like he is treating it as such.If the commish was last and his solution was to make these deals, I'd say that it does look lame. Your not fixing things by giving up on Manning. Lets look back to week 4.Manning had just come off of a 6 TD game and had thrown for 914 yards and 9 TDs to that point. McNabb had 506 yards and 0 TDs in 3 games. Why do that deal?Week 8 analysis pending. I think you do have a beef.
After reading YOUR thread, I can only think of one thing.Nice to meet you "Pot".Speaking as a commish, I thank GOD you aren't in my league. You make me SIIIIIIIICK!!!!
