2013 Forum Draft: Trades

[gabefergy]

[quote name='ClintLB8' timestamp='1364263439' post='1415522']
Did you move up for a particular person? Figured you'd have picked already unless there are several you like haha.
[/quote]

I'm going back and forth between a couple, but I have come to a decision.

[ClintLB8]

Decided to go with Cobi Hamilton. Being once considered a 1st round talent, I like the value of Hamilton at the end of the 4th. He will be a solid depth and rotation player.

[Mt. Crushmore]

CB Ron Brooks is on the block. He was a 4th round pick last year.

[stm85]

Chiefs are looking to trade up from their early 5th (149), can offer an early 7th (209). If you need extra picks and are interested let me know via PM

[Yatagarasu]

Carolina Pick 138 which is the first pick of the 5th round is available for trade.

PM me if you're interested. No Low-Balling!

Banned Trading Partners:
Denver
Philadelphia

[The Oakland Cathedral]

Looking for a proven pass rusher and Safety pm me if you have any offers.

[Mt. Crushmore]

[b]Official Trade[/b]

Bills: CB Ron Brooks (0.5 stars)

Colts: 4th (125)

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Mt. Crushmore' timestamp='1364341639' post='1416546']
[b]Official Trade[/b]

Bills: CB Ron Brooks (0.5 stars)

Colts: 4th (125)
[/quote]collusion?

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1364373278' post='1416812']
collusion?
[/quote]
Lol, you know what's funny? I saw that trade and somehow felt like someone would say that.

I personally don't care but I can see why some may.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1364381679' post='1416827']

Lol, you know what's funny? I saw that trade and somehow felt like someone would say that.

I personally don't care but I can see why some may.
[/quote]well for a start they are mates. and he's clearly lost interest because he never participates, and crush has took advantage off that. Crush offered me brooks and I was going to offer a sixth if I didn't get the cb I wanted.

I'm vetoing this trade.

[Mt. Crushmore]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1364383993' post='1416834']
well for a start they are mates. and he's clearly lost interest because he never participates, and crush has took advantage off that. Crush offered me brooks and I was going to offer a sixth if I didn't get the cb I wanted.

I'm vetoing this trade.
[/quote]

So I'm going to take advantage of a good friend just to gain a 4th round pick in a mock offseason? Seriously?

[Geving]

I think it's fishy too. The Colts GM clearly doesn't care anymore. But no way this is going to a veto when the Barron, Bryant, Lee trades etc didn't go to a vote.

[codizzle]

Going to veto a trade for a 4th? For a player who got drafted in 4th last year?

Come on now

[ravens__]

The way I see it, if you think it's collusion you have every right to veto. No matter the value of the trade in question.

There's definitely something fishy about this trade. I don't know if I would veto but I believe it should be voted on.

[arnie_uk]

It's got nothing to do with the value of the trade. Nothing at all. The colts GM has lost interest and if you didnt know him outside of the boards this are wouldnt have happened. Your at an n fair advantage there. If he was active and wanted to trade back he would have posted in the thread and anyone interested could have gave him an offer and of yours was the best them thats ok, but because no one else here can reach him and make offers, that's completely unfair to everyone else.

It wouldn't matter if it was the seventh round, the first round or whenever, you knowing him in real life has out you at an advantage over the rest of us.

What's to say I wasn't interested in his picks but couldn't get a trade done because he's not active, or anyone else for that matter? He was last active three days ago so you've clearly done this trade via text of face to face, no one else here has that ability, so that's unfair, and on that basis, I'm vetoing this trade.

[ClintLB8]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1364390413' post='1416875']
It's got nothing to do with the value of the trade. Nothing at all. The colts GM has lost interest and if you didnt know him outside of the boards this are wouldnt have happened. Your at an n fair advantage there. If he was active and wanted to trade back he would have posted in the thread and anyone interested could have gave him an offer and of yours was the best them thats ok, but because no one else here can reach him and make offers, that's completely unfair to everyone else.

It wouldn't matter if it was the seventh round, the first round or whenever, you knowing him in real life has out you at an advantage over the rest of us.

What's to say I wasn't interested in his picks but couldn't get a trade done because he's not active, or anyone else for that matter? He was last active three days ago so you've clearly done this trade via text of face to face, no one else here has that ability, so that's unfair, and on that basis, I'm vetoing this trade.
[/quote]

Gotta say I agree. I offered only a 6th for Brooks as well.. And this was awhile ago. He has been on the block for awhile. The guy isn't even playing.. If he was and made that trade, we would know he at least cared about the game enough not to collude because he put time and effort in and continued to do so. He doesn't care about the trade what so ever and it isn't you taking advantage if the guy doesn't give two thoughts about the trade or this game. Crush, don't play this off as you "wouldn't want to screw a good friend". He clearly has given up on the game.

[Clutch Ravens]

[quote name='ClintLB8' timestamp='1364402083' post='1417066']
Gotta say I agree. I offered only a 6th for Brooks as well.. And this was awhile ago. He has been on the block for awhile. The guy isn't even playing.. If he was and made that trade, we would know he at least cared about the game enough not to collude because he put time and effort in and continued to do so. He doesn't care about the trade what so ever and it isn't you taking advantage if the guy doesn't give two thoughts about the trade or this game. Crush, don't play this off as you "wouldn't want to screw a good friend". He clearly has given up on the game.
[/quote]

I have to agree too.

It really has little effect on me, but it just smacks too much of collusion.

[arnie_uk]

Again I'd have no issue if he was active and shopped the pick with brooks being his best deal but it hasn't been. Looking at my board I would have offered him something to drop back a few spots if he did shop it around.

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='Mt. Crushmore' timestamp='1364385814' post='1416840']
So I'm going to take advantage of a good friend just to gain a 4th round pick in a mock offseason? Seriously?
[/quote]
yes lol

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1364390413' post='1416875']
It's got nothing to do with the value of the trade. Nothing at all. The colts GM has lost interest and if you didnt know him outside of the boards this are wouldnt have happened. [b]Your at an n fair advantage there.[/b] If he was active and wanted to trade back he would have posted in the thread and anyone interested could have gave him an offer and of yours was the best them thats ok, but because no one else here can reach him and make offers, that's completely unfair to everyone else.

It wouldn't matter if it was the seventh round, the first round or whenever, you knowing him in real life has out you at an advantage over the rest of us.

What's to say I wasn't interested in his picks but couldn't get a trade done because he's not active, or anyone else for that matter? He was last active three days ago so you've clearly done this trade via text of face to face, no one else here has that ability, so that's unfair, and on that basis, I'm vetoing this trade.
[/quote]
You really cant veto this trade. That like saying Jim Harbaugh had an advantage in acquiring Boldin because he knew John.

Anyway, people have been trading away their 7th and 6th round picks due to length of the mock and the desire not to hold it up when they are inactive. As far as I'm concerned this trade falls under that. The fact that Crush knows him irl has absolutely no bearing on it. If anything he did you guys a service and was able to speed up the mock. The colts gm has been inactive and decided to get rid of his pick to crush rather than shop it out here and continue the game (which he clearly doesnt want to do).

If you want to call a vote, do it to ban and replace the colts gm for inactivity not for the trade.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Clutch Ravens' timestamp='1364403494' post='1417131']


I have to agree too.

It really has little effect on me, but it just smacks too much of collusion.
[/quote]I'll be honest it may affect me because I have two of the next few picks.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1364404530' post='1417183']

You really cant veto this trade. That like saying Jim Harbaugh had an advantage in acquiring Boldin because he knew John.

Anyway, people have been trading away their 7th and 6th round picks due to length of the mock and the desire not to hold it up when they are inactive. As far as I'm concerned this trade falls under that. The fact that Crush knows him irl has absolutely no bearing on it. If anything he did you guys a service and was able to speed up the mock.
[/quote]It's collusion.. and I have vetoed it so it has to go to a vote.

[Alexir]

Note to self: Don't do this next year, people whine too much. Not directed at one but many. Soooo many vetoes and whining. Man up...it's just a game

[Sizzlebshu]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1364404650' post='1417192']
It's collusion.. and I have vetoed it so it has to go to a vote.
[/quote]
technically a significant dissent has to be reached so no it doesnt.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Sizzlebshu' timestamp='1364405068' post='1417207']

technically a significant dissent has to be reached so no it doesnt.
[/quote]considering me and three others have all said it is, that's more than enough people to warrant a vote. And it was made clear anything resembling collusion could be vetoed

[The Oakland Cathedral]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1364404990' post='1417204']
Note to self: Don't do this next year, people whine too much. Not directed at one but many. Soooo many vetoes and whining. Man up...it's just a game
[/quote]I agree completely.

[-Truth-]

I completely understand why the consideration of collusion has occurred. However, Mt. Crushmore has been nothing short of an upstanding member since we first began this Mock several years ago. We also can't dismiss that the Colts GM was intrigued by Ron Brooks' draft status, nor that he could be unaware of the CBs left on the board due to a presumed lack of scouting noted by his lack of activity. From the outside looking in, I see how it could deserve a second look, but perhaps if we at least see the confirmation from the Colts GM, it would ease those aforementioned concerns.

[-Truth-]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I completely understand why the consideration of collusion has occurred. However, Mt. Crushmore has been nothing short of an upstanding member since we first began this Mock several years ago, and for that, he deserves at least some benefit of the doubt. We also can't dismiss that the Colts GM was intrigued by Ron Brooks' draft status, nor that he could be unaware of the CBs left on the board due to a presumed lack of scouting noted by his lack of activity. From the outside looking in, I see how it could deserve a second look, but perhaps if we at least see the confirmation from the Colts GM, it would ease those aforementioned concerns.[/font][/color]

[JO_75]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1364404301' post='1417169']
Again I'd have no issue if he was active and shopped the pick with brooks being his best deal but it hasn't been. Looking at my board I would have offered him something to drop back a few spots if he did shop it around.
[/quote]

Seems like that has been the problem, newbies joined in but they aren't really active on the board at all other than this game. Maybe we should limit it to X amount of players and the rest is filled by people taking a second team. At least then we would know people would be active.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='Miami Hurricane' timestamp='1364407146' post='1417296']
I agree completely.
[/quote]this is the first time I've actually been strongly against something..