|
|
Post by piratehooker on Mar 28, 2014 3:59:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jaguarsgm on Mar 29, 2014 11:59:40 GMT
I support this.
|
|
mike
New Member
Posts: 23 
|
Post by mike on Mar 29, 2014 17:13:11 GMT
Collusion is against the rules to start with. The commissioner doesn't need a DOT to fire owners who are caught in acts of collusion. There is no room for those types of members in the league. So to say the DOT would simply veto a trade because of collusion is not providing enough sanctions against cheaters. NO I see the real need for a DOT is to keep fast talking managers from scaring owners into knee jerk trades. Owners tell other owners how they can help them solve cap space, take over bad contracts, to trade good players in bad situations, I'm here to help you. Then an unbalanced trade happens. Ever notice how some managers help everyone but tend to always be stronger and all the other's weaker. Now thats a role of a DOT - to ensure a fair trade is had by all. Now if the only reason to veto a trade is collusion we don't need the DOT because collusion is already an automatic expulsion from the league. We may as well just let the owners trade at will if the DOT isn't granted the respect and authority to rule on trades in the best interest of the league. A couple of brow beating owners shouldn't dictate that veto's to be cast only when collusion is suspected or provable. So respect the DOT members decision, leave the league if you must because you all read the bylaws and happily signed up without exception, or disband the DOT and let the trades happen as they will. I too have been in 32 team Dynasty leagues for 20 years and I can tell you for a fact, it's hard to prove collusion unless you get the computers IP address, which we did, only to find one owner was actually running two teams. So lets be real honest with each other and stop all the crying.
|
|
|
|
Post by piratehooker on Apr 6, 2014 20:26:41 GMT
Ya but if the DOT member doesn't understand the value of certain things like cap space, then of course you will think its an unbalanced trade. I don't want advice or help from someone who thinks they know better than myself about my own situation, because you aren't me and you don't know my strategy. No one in this league needs to be babied. Saying things like "Oh this is too one sided so I am vetoing" to a trade where both owners have made good cases for their trades is retarded. If you have any questions about the reasoning for what someone has done in a trade , instead of just assuming you should ask and not just veto right away because you think you know better.
|
|
