89Topps

Established Members
  • Content count

    3,213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

89Topps last won the day on May 5

89Topps had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,173 Excellent

About 89Topps

  • Rank
    On the Ballot

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,259 profile views
  1. Yea, I don't think I'd appreciate that rule. I did the leg work to get a deal done only for it to serve as an advertisement to the league that player is available? Kind of flies in the face of fair negotiation.
  2. Keeper deals, IMO, still need to be within the realm of fairness for this season though. We had a deal a couple years ago. It's a 14 team, keep 3, and some guy who was out of it was trying to acquire Bryant. He traded like 6 good, starting caliber players, or something like that. He essentially just threw in extra players, because, "why not?". The league went nuts and it was vetoed. One of those deals where both teams benefited, but it was still a bad deal.
  3. Well, if that's how you and your league mates like to play, then more power to you.
  4. Cycling, or impeding is against Yahoo rules too. Not sure about others, but I assume they have some kind of language about it in their rules. If it's not specifically mentioned as illegal, then I'd still say it's pretty bush league. But, whatever, I'm not in your league and you're not in mine.
  5. The post that started the QB discussion was beakmans, where he said he essentially cycled QBs through waivers so his opponent couldn't pick them up. That is cheating at worst, and bush league at best. If that's not what you meant by "the QB thing" in your post, then ok.
  6. Well, that's not what my post was about. You're arguing a completely different scenario.
  7. It is actually clear cheating by ESPN's rules. And rostering players so your opponent can't have them is different than picking up and dropping players solely for the purpose of putting them on waivers.
  8. At least the Goldy trade makes sense in that he's saving salary. Having a hard time making sense of that Polonco trade though.
  9. I guess I would need to know what each trade is, the player values and the reasoning behind them. Upton, Greinke & Smoak for Polonco, in and of itself is vetoable. Now, if you tell me Greinke & Upton would cost him $35 each next year and Polonco, for some reason is $1, then it makes a lot more sense. If that's the case, then it's a problem with your keeper rules. Also, as you suggest, you should probably have a much earlier trade deadline.
  10. To me, if someone simply picks up the best QB available and rosters him throughout the weekend, then that's fine. He chose to sacrifice a roster spot to roster that player. That is quite a bit different than picking up 2 QBs a day for 2 or 3 days, simply so they can be dropped into waivers and not available on Sunday. With the latter, you are doing nothing other than shrinking the free agency pool.
  11. On ESPN, it is illegal to intentionally cycle players through waivers, solely to prevent other owners from rostering them. It's called "impeding" and it's in the rules. Certain transactions made solely to impede other owners is not allowed. Tanking games for the sole purpose of denying another player's chance to make the playoffs is against the rules. In particular, cycling through players in free agency to put them on waivers and make them unavailable to other teams in your league is strictly prohibited and is grounds for expulsion from the game. Now, what constitutes "cycling" players? I guess that would be up to the LM to decide.
  12. Never mind. Just saw he's sitting today.
  13. Any Milwaukee insiders know if Arcia it's able to play today?
  14. The QB thing, at best, is completely lame, and at worst, is straight up cheating.
  15. That's tanking. I don't know about other formats, but it's illegal per ESPN rules. A draft lottery would solve the problem, or just booting the guy for a bush league move.