Quote: Originally posted by deathinahole on 2/24/2010I prefer to leave it general. That way, people assign their own dumb and not dumb.

That's just dumb.

Ahhhh, I guess I need to go check out "our" collusive chat again.

I am at a loss why anyone would defend the subject of a "freeze out" when he's an ADMITTED CHEATER!!!

HE USED THE WORDS "I CHEATED, AND GOT CAUGHT" IN THE WORLD CHAT!!!!!!!!!!!

How can anyone defend this loser??!??

Quote: Originally posted by iain on 2/24/2010I am at a loss why anyone would defend the subject of a "freeze out" when he's an ADMITTED CHEATER!!!HE USED THE WORDS "I CHEATED, AND GOT CAUGHT" IN THE WORLD CHAT!!!!!!!!!!!How can anyone defend this loser??!??

iain, FOCUS! The issue is collusion. It isn't about the participants. Simple debate: collusion or not collusion.

The_Kid: "but by not trading with him, not on the merits of any players, is putting him at a disadvantage to others who have the ability to make trades."

I have a lot of people that I find it VERY difficult to trade with. For reasons that have nothing to do with the players.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

OK, I'll ask.

Who's in this trade? Gimme player cards.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By The__Kid on 2/24/2010

Quote: Originally posted by iain on 2/24/2010
I am at a loss why anyone would defend the subject of a "freeze out" when he's an ADMITTED CHEATER!!!

HE USED THE WORDS "I CHEATED, AND GOT CAUGHT" IN THE WORLD CHAT!!!!!!!!!!!

How can anyone defend this loser??!??

iain, FOCUS! The issue is collusion. It isn't about the participants. Simple debate: collusion or not collusion

Collusion implies a formal (and typically secret) agreement between parties.

One can have tacit endorsement without collusion.

WIS has confirmed that cheating took place. The owner in question has admitted it, too. I think this is a case where several owners feel that cheating should not be allowed, and they are voicing their displeasure in the form of freezing out an owner with the intent of making him leave of his own volition.

This is NOT collusion.

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 2/24/2010OK, I'll ask.

Who's in this trade? Gimme player cards.

A little late to the party. It's not about "this trade"

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Was that FOCUS-y enough for you?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 2/24/2010OK, I'll ask.

Who's in this trade? Gimme player cards.

Sox, actually I felt it was a veto-able trade WITHOUT looking at what teams were involved. It's a valid part of my argument as well...

OK, so the cheater gave up:
24 year old RP in his sixth season (so no more development), listed as a subB on the cheater's team:
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1926839

5 year pro, AAA starter, probably won't be a major league pitcher...or at least shouldn't be...
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=2220791

The cheater received:
The number 5 pick in last seasons' draft, catcher Rob Tucker, who projects to, defensively, a 87-75-73 catcher with 92(!) durability (he's already at 86), and hitting numbers of 82 82 67 80 66.
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3040176

John Perry, a non factor. Maybe a bench fill in, in a pinch.
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=2670075

Decent looking international Onan Yanada, who has L/R projections of 89/94....
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=2997361