ReturnToSender Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Ok, here s the deal, 1 pt per recption, 10 yards rush/recieve 1pt, 1 per 25 pass, bonus at 100 for rush/recieve and 300 pass 6 pt per td. We have 3 folks that look at trades and make sure they are close and fair before they can go through. The two people invloved in trade are the other 2 who can approve along with myself. I approved it..is this trade way too one sided? 10/03/06 09:06 am ET KAISER SOZE Barber, Tiki RB NYG - Traded from HIGHLANDER Browns, DST DST CLE - Traded from HIGHLANDER Bulger, Marc QB STL - Traded from HIGHLANDER Jacobs, Brandon RB NYG - Traded from HIGHLANDER Mason, Derrick WR BAL - Traded from HIGHLANDER Wayne, Reggie WR IND - Traded from HIGHLANDER 10/03/06 09:06 am ET HIGHLANDER Bell, Mike RB DEN - Traded from KAISER SOZE Bell, Tatum RB DEN - Traded from KAISER SOZE Carr, David QB HOU - Traded from KAISER SOZE Colston, Marques WR NO - Traded from KAISER SOZE Frye, Charlie QB CLE - Traded from KAISER SOZE Jennings, Greg WR GB - Traded from KAISER SOZE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I wouldn't reject it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 While the trade looks a bit lopsided, you can't reject it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Your rule is that trades can be vetoed if they are not "close and fair?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It is not the league's job nor the commissioner's job to determine the fairness of a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulOttCarruth Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Why didn't they just swap rosters entirely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 which side is supposedly getting the better deal here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 no reason to not let it go, but i bet this is a dynasty league too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msaint Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 i think highlander wins overall, but it's not a raping what with colston/jennings breaking out and t.bell being named the sole starter (for now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Looks to me like 1 guy is trying to get younger for the future while the other is stocking up for this year. I would not veto it unless these 2 have a past or there is some other circumstance I do not know that should prevent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It looks lopsided because of all the "big names" on 1 roster but those players are not exactly stepping up and the "no names" on the other roster are. The trade should stand as far as I'm concerned....and I am a commish in 2 leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Unless the total points scored by the players on Team A are exactly the same as Team B, you have to reject. It's the only way to prove that a trade is fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnToSender Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Our league, a re-draft league, enacted an approval process thanks to highlander 2 years ago, when the idiot paniced and sent Shawn Alexander off for his back up and tier 3 WR after Alexander was carted off the field. Of course SA came back the next week and finsihed with a huge season. The league is screaming that KAISER SOZE raped the roster of Highlander. It is of course a case of named players going for young players. The point total was off by 2 points, I approved it, I think it's fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnToSender Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Can you explain why you think the Highlander gets the better of the deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Why didn't they just swap rosters entirely? Exactly. 10 player deals are "fabulous". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showtyme5 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It's definitely fair enough to not reject. But I'd rather be the guy getting Tiki, Wayne, and Mason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) no way that trade should be vetoed. your league is a bunch of sackless puke idiots if that trade gets overruled. pretty ballsy trade by highlander, but he could EASILY end up getting the best of it. bell is probably the most valuable player in the trade and highlander is getting him. carr has been putting up pretty decent fantasy #s (better than bulger) despite houston playing like crap in general. and maybe it doesn't last, but colston and jennings have established themselves as their teams' top receiving threats. all told (and depending who else i had at QB), i think i'd RATHER have his end of this trade because of the big upgrade at RB. but regardless, any league that would "scream" to have this trade overruled is a bunch of pathetic grannies who need to find a new hobby. Edited October 3, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Is it collusion? If not, let them run their f'n teams. your league is full of crybabies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It is not the league's job nor the commissioner's job to determine the fairness of a trade. Unfortunately, in this league, the rule they have in place states the trade has to be fair and close. They even have a committee to vote on it. The problem therein lies with what just happened: members of the committee involved in a trade, making the committee a mute point, since now it can't exist. They should really think about enacting a rule immediately to make all trades approveable unless collusion can be proven. That being said, if they can't change the rule, and the question is: is this trade fair on value? no, the guy getting barber, bulger & wayne is probabaly going to make out better over the course of the REST of the year. but is it overwhelmingly onesided? hardly. approve the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 No collusion evident. So don't Return To Sender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 ...I'd rather be the guy getting Tiki... ...the guy getting barber... umm, i don't know what trade you guys are looking at. but i think he's getting jacobs, not barber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 umm, i don't know what trade you guys are looking at. but i think he's getting jacobs, not barber. I missed it too - look at the top line. There are 6 players being traded on each team, not 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I missed it too - look at the top line. There are 6 players being traded on each team, not 5. ooooooh ok.....weird optical illusion thing how i missed that line, and apparently wasn't the only one. well, adding in tiki and mike bell, i certainly take back what i said about preferring highlander's end of the deal. but i DON'T take back what i said about this not being anywhere CLOSE to an overturn-able trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry.harris Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 umm, i don't know what trade you guys are looking at. but i think he's getting jacobs, not barber. ummm, i do not know what trade you are looking at, but the first line above Brown's def clearly says Tiki Barber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Agree with others...you cannot reject this trade and that "fair and close" rule is far too subjective. That needs to be changed and unless collusion is proved, you cannot reject any trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.