What's the craziest thing you've ever included in a Trade ?

[iloveny18]

I was trying to make a trade with one guy who had both edgerrin james and marshall faulk. this was back in 2001, or 2002 i believe, when both were top 5 backs. He wouldn't budge, but he then offered for me to give him 100 bucks for either one of them. I was actually thinking about it too since our league prize was about 600

[skibrett15]

dude, thats pathetic. Its called cheating if you are paying for players.

[KolbSaves]

dude, thats pathetic. Its called cheating if you are paying for players.

And it's called cheating if your girlfriend sleeps with another guy too!

[iloveny18]

dude, thats pathetic. Its called cheating if you are paying for players.

Well I never actually did it. I'm not shady like that, but the other guy is.

[lmcjaho]

dude, thats pathetic. Its called cheating if you are paying for players.

Why? Unless the league has a rule specifically forbidding it there is no cheating involved... In one of my leagues we bid real $$ for players each week in order to build the pot, and we have a rule expressly forbidding a trade transaction to include real $$ (although you can include cash from your team's salary bank) because teams that were close to the top in years past would offer $$ to others for a trade since they expected to recoup it in their winnings - so trading for $$ in that league would be cheating now. Without a rule against it though, why not? Real teams in other sports (don't recall seeing anything like it in the NFL but could be wrong) make trades with $$ involved all the time - you're giving up a player who has a certain value and you're receiving something else of value in return - just because it is a value in a different context doesn't make it cheating...

The guy who slept with another guy's chick for a player though, that's funny shiznit...

[Payne Dailey]

Why? Unless the league has a rule specifically forbidding it there is no cheating involved... In one of my leagues we bid real $$ for players each week in order to build the pot, and we have a rule expressly forbidding a trade transaction to include real $$ (although you can include cash from your team's salary bank) because teams that were close to the top in years past would offer $$ to others for a trade since they expected to recoup it in their winnings - so trading for $$ in that league would be cheating now. Without a rule against it though, why not? Real teams in other sports (don't recall seeing anything like it in the NFL but could be wrong) make trades with $$ involved all the time - you're giving up a player who has a certain value and you're receiving something else of value in return - just because it is a value in a different context doesn't make it cheating...

So I'm in ninth or tenth place and you're in fourth place. Then guy in fifth place offers me ten dollars in cash to trade him TO for Charles Rogers before your matchup and he wins & knocks you out of the playoffs. Your going to be ok with that outcome?

[lmcjaho]

So I'm in ninth or tenth place and you're in fourth place. Then guy in fifth place offers me ten dollars in cash to trade him TO for Charles Rogers before your matchup and he wins & knocks you out of the playoffs. Your going to be ok with that outcome?

It's a free country right? It's called capitalism. If I am in 4th and you get TO for C-Rog+10$ and I have a problem with it I should have offered TO for Cedric Wilson+20$ and then it wouldn't be a problem for me anymore... Only way I see this as a problem is if the $$ transactions are ruled illegal in the league by-laws (like in my league) or if they are done covertly so that only one person has the option available to them...

If there is $$$ on the line and you are willing to put up your own $$ to improve your team I say that is your prerogative unless there is a league rule preventing it. If there is no $$ on the line and you still want to put up your own $$ to win I say you go right ahead - obviously you need the self-esteem help that buying a championship will give you much more than I do...

[Payne Dailey]

So I'm in ninth or tenth place and you're in fourth place. Then guy in fifth place offers me ten dollars in cash to trade him TO for Charles Rogers before your matchup and he wins & knocks you out of the playoffs. Your going to be ok with that outcome?

It's a free country right? It's called capitalism. If I am in 4th and you get TO for C-Rog+10$ and I have a problem with it I should have offered TO for Cedric Wilson+20$ and then it wouldn't be a problem for me anymore... Only way I see this as a problem is if the $$ transactions are ruled illegal in the league by-laws (like in my league) or if they are done covertly so that only one person has the option available to them...

If there is $$$ on the line and you are willing to put up your own $$ to improve your team I say that is your prerogative unless there is a league rule preventing it. If there is no $$ on the line and you still want to put up your own $$ to win I say you go right ahead - obviously you need the self-esteem help that buying a championship will give you much more than I do...

You said it best right there, for money or fun it's pretty cheap.

[lmcjaho]

[quote=lmcjaho]obviously you need the self-esteem help that buying a championship will give you much more than I do...

You said it best right there, for money or fun it's pretty cheap.[/quote]

Only cheap if it is not done on the up & up IMO. If the whole league is aware of the possibility of cash-for-player trades then there is nothing cheap or seedy about it - it's just a business transaction and any of the other owners had the same opportunity as the one who wins the sweepstakes...