Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy
That's fine, but you said trades could only be declined if collusion was suspected. Was collusion suspected here? I'm just trying to figure out which way we are going. Collusion, or the commish doesn't like the trade unless his team benefits, which standard are we going to use?
|
Well I'll just say this and use it as a hypothetical situation mind you. But if two teams are trading...one team is lets just say 1-3 and the other team is 3-1 or perhaps even 4-0. Now just imagine for a second the 3-1 team is getting the way better part of the trade, to the point where it's not even a remotely close trade. Why then would he or whomever the commish in this given situation allow the rich to get richer. I mean adding a stud receiver and stud back to an already stud team while the weaker team is getting ripped off (even though the weaker team proposed the trade) just doesn't seem right on some level. Now I'm not saying there's any truth to this or not...but I could see how some Commissioners of leagues if they can prevent the trades might look at it that way. That's just my theory anyway.