Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Inside Trading?


Kansas State 2000
 Share

Recommended Posts

This proposed trade screws up the league for EVERYONE else in the league, and upsets the entire competitive balance of it. You guys are dreaming if you're measuring two weeks of production as the yardstick as to whether this makes sense. You can't let stupidity upset the entire league, and basically ruin everyone else's investment of time and money by letting the first pick in the draft change teams for next to nothing. Driver is serviceable, but his time is likely past. Maybe I'd consider Jennings for LT, but even that is a stretch. It smells of collusion, but even if its not, its stupidity on one owners part, and the commissioner's dictum is to make decisions in the best interests of the league (the money paying owners), and should veto this dilly of a trade.

 

I thought fantasy football was usually about a point system, not on draft value...

 

Collusion after week 2 really, unless this is a new person in the league that only the commish knows then maybe, but I don't see it to be collusion. This guy could have had a nice draft with turner, C.Johnson, and others who are doing well and feels LT is expendable. Could he get more LT absolutely but who are we to judge his thought process and what he feels brings his team value. And for screwing up the league cudos to the guy who was able to close the deal on Driver for LT, shame on you for not offering more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought fantasy football was usually about a point system, not on draft value...

 

Collusion after week 2 really, unless this is a new person in the league that only the commish knows then maybe, but I don't see it to be collusion. This guy could have had a nice draft with turner, C.Johnson, and others who are doing well and feels LT is expendable. Could he get more LT absolutely but who are we to judge his thought process and what he feels brings his team value. And for screwing up the league cudos to the guy who was able to close the deal on Driver for LT, shame on you for not offering more.

 

I think its great that everybody's out to hoodwink everybody else all the time. Sure, its great to win on a trade, but the reality is if this steal (trade) is allowed to go through it likely upsets the competitive balance of the entire league. Especially if its a sizeable fee to play, you're gonna have some upset owners, and likely won't have your league intact for very long. That's why you have a commish- to at least exercise some degree of reasonableness, and Driver for LT doesn't cut it, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its great that everybody's out to hoodwink everybody else all the time. Sure, its great to win on a trade, but the reality is if this steal (trade) is allowed to go through it likely upsets the competitive balance of the entire league. Especially if its a sizeable fee to play, you're gonna have some upset owners, and likely won't have your league intact for very long. That's why you have a commish- to at least exercise some degree of reasonableness, and Driver for LT doesn't cut it, IMO.

 

I respect your opinion, like I said we dont know all of the details about this person or league. This guy may be an idiot and should be kicked out next year, or maybe he's won it and takes flyers sometimes. Just an example of how you cant veto deals just because it seems unfair look at the NFL. Randy Moss for a 4th round pick, honestly that was far from a fair deal but the NFL cant go deciding what deal goes through because others are upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys saying there is never collusion unless you hear or see in writing that the owners are colluding? So you would never veto a trade without this evidence? I'm sure you could justify Westbrook, TO, and Romo for STL DEF, Ben Utech, and Javon Walker. Could be legit, never know what going to happen. Give me a break.

 

You wouldn't need a break if you understood what collusion meant. It essentially means a secret agreement for fraudulent purposes. How are you ever going to prove this? A confession. A rat maybe. Maybe they're stupid enough to have it in writing somewhere and somebody discovers it.

 

Say I propose your trade through the league website and the other owner accepts it. I never spoke to him. I never sent a message to him - just proposed the trade. Collusion right? No it isn't. Maybe I gave up. Maybe I think that all the other owners are dicks and I want to torpedo the league. Is that right? No it isn't. But it isn't collusion.

 

That's why collusion rules are worthless. If that is your league's only basis for vetoing a trade, then your never going to veto a trade. I'm all for a league rule that says something to the effect that the commisioner can veto a trade if it substantially effects the fair competitive balance of the league. Bam - yiour proposed trade is vetoed

Edited by Furd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys saying there is never collusion unless you hear or see in writing that the owners are colluding? So you would never veto a trade without this evidence? I'm sure you could justify Westbrook, TO, and Romo for STL DEF, Ben Utech, and Javon Walker. Could be legit, never know what going to happen. Give me a break.

 

So I see a trade like that and ask legitimate questions. Both owners have to rationally justify to the league how each team benefits from the trade since it appears to be so overwhelmingly and overtly one sided. After they make their arguments, then vote as to whether it is collusion between the teams.

 

If the teams are found to be colluding (by a supermajority of the league if you're looking for my input), the trade is undone and both owners are kicked out of the league.

 

Give yourself a break.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D If your league lets this happen, you should find new friends or a different league, clearly LT was a #1 pick? Driver was like Avg. 8th round! I don't know how you can justify that? My league Driver was 7.7 and LT was 1.1? That's a difference of 78 draft positions, seems fair to me! :wacko:

 

 

Its also not just about the differential between the two players, but could LT have brought more value. If the two teams quietly worked out a trade, while the other owners didn't know LT was available, then one could easily deduce there is collusion, as clearly the LT owner could have received a much better offer than Driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Collusion" rules are practically worthless. You're never going to have evidence of it, other than your interpretation of the trade at issue.

 

What most people call "collusion" is an unfair trade based about various circumstances.

In my local, I created this clause:

 

Good sportsmanship is an expectation for every team. Collusion and cheating will be dealt with on an individual basis as agreed upon by the league. Penalties may include: forfeiture of entry fee and other winnings, loss of games, and expulsion from the league. Any cheating will be looked upon in a serious manner.

 

 

We had one ugly incident eight years ago. Since then all has been good. It's good to have a little flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't need a break if you understood what collusion meant. It essentially means a secret agreement for fraudulent purposes. How are you ever going to prove this? A confession. A rat maybe. Maybe they're stupid enough to have it in writing somewhere and somebody discovers it.

 

Say I propose your trade through the league website and the other owner accepts it. I never spoke to him. I never sent a message to him - just proposed the trade. Collusion right? No it isn't. Maybe I gave up. Maybe I think that all the other owners are dicks and I want to torpedo the league. Is that right? No it isn't. But it isn't collusion.

 

That's why collusion rules are worthless. If that is your league's only basis for vetoing a trade, then your never going to veto a trade. I'm all for a league rule that says something to the effect that the commisioner can veto a trade if it substantially effects the fair competitive balance of the league. Bam - yiour proposed trade is vetoed

I understand the defination. I look at it this way. I'm looking to trade LT, the #1 or #2 rated RB on 99.99% of the boards (turf toe, not #1 stats now, blah blah, he is still held in high regards). Do I take Donald Driver (#2 WR on Packers) without shopping LT around to every other team? Okay, without talking to other owners I don't know whether he did or not, but it looks like at least 1 owner was not asked. This raises a red flag to me. Either the guy is completely new to FF and has no logical thoughts running through his brain or there is collusion. I think it was stated the league has been around for 8 years, if the original LT owner has been in FF for 8 years, there is no legit way he would trade LT without shopping around.

 

 

Edit - I missed gspot's post above pretty much saying the same thing.

Edited by kcmast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its also not just about the differential between the two players, but could LT have brought more value. If the two teams quietly worked out a trade, while the other owners didn't know LT was available, then one could easily deduce there is collusion, as clearly the LT owner could have received a much better offer than Driver.

 

 

I understand the defination. I look at it this way. I'm looking to trade LT, the #1 or #2 rated RB on 99.99% of the boards (turf toe, not #1 stats now, blah blah, he is still held in high regards). Do I take Donald Driver (#2 WR on Packers) without shopping LT around to every other team? Okay, without talking to other owners I don't know whether he did or not, but it looks like at least 1 owner was not asked. This raises a red flag to me. Either the guy is completely new to FF and has no logical thoughts running through his brain or there is collusion. I think it was stated the league has been around for 8 years, if the original LT owner has been in FF for 8 years, there is no legit way he would trade LT without shopping around.

 

 

Edit - I missed gspot's post above pretty much saying the same thing.

 

Are you guys kidding? Since when does an owner have to let the entire league know that a player is up for grabs? We've had 3 trades happen in our local so far and I was not asked if I wanted to make an offer. Granted if he sent out an email saying LT is on the block and best offer will be accepted then fine but no one has to tell the whole league of their plans.

Edited by Whiskey Pimp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the league should vote on everybody's starting line ups every week too ... to ensure that everybody starts their optimum line up every week in the spirit of maintaining a competitive balance in the league. Then when the voting is over the commissioner can set everybody's lineups accordingly.

 

BB said it ... if you are going to manage somebody else's team then you should pay their entry fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, I agree that you shouldn't have to publicly shop every guy you're prepared to trade. Mind you, you're often wise to do so, especially when it's a guy like LT, because you're about 100% more likely to get somebody better than Driver.

 

As for those playing the nanny state card. Keep in mind, this is not about protecting someone from doing something stupid. This is about protecting the entire league's competitive balance from one guy stockpiling great players on the cheap. Hell, that's why the obvious collusion trades are vetoed because the easiest way to tell that's going down is if a guy who's out of contention trades somebody good to a contender. You're not protecting the guy from making a dumb trade, you're protecting everyone from that guy making a dumb trade.

 

So this isn't a FF equivalent to seat belt laws, this is a FF equivalent to not letting someone dump toxic waste in the local river because it's cheaper.

 

Sure, who knows, Driver could outperform LT. And BB, I'll give you that bet right now. No caveats. The thing is, at this point, it seems like a pretty dicey trade. If I were commish, I would likely let it slide but wouldn't be happy about it at all and I can completely understand why others would be up in arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, I agree that you shouldn't have to publicly shop every guy you're prepared to trade. Mind you, you're often wise to do so, especially when it's a guy like LT, because you're about 100% more likely to get somebody better than Driver.

 

As for those playing the nanny state card. Keep in mind, this is not about protecting someone from doing something stupid. This is about protecting the entire league's competitive balance from one guy stockpiling great players on the cheap. Hell, that's why the obvious collusion trades are vetoed because the easiest way to tell that's going down is if a guy who's out of contention trades somebody good to a contender. You're not protecting the guy from making a dumb trade, you're protecting everyone from that guy making a dumb trade.

 

So this isn't a FF equivalent to seat belt laws, this is a FF equivalent to not letting someone dump toxic waste in the local river because it's cheaper.

 

Sure, who knows, Driver could outperform LT. And BB, I'll give you that bet right now. No caveats. The thing is, at this point, it seems like a pretty dicey trade. If I were commish, I would likely let it slide but wouldn't be happy about it at all and I can completely understand why others would be up in arms.

 

So you should also go through everybody's staring line ups to ensure they are starting the best starters to protect the league's competitive balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you should also go through everybody's staring line ups to ensure they are starting the best starters to protect the league's competitive balance.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to answer this.

 

If, through some sleazy means you are able to unload a marginal player for a stud, that means that the next time you play my team, you will have one more stud than you "should" have. That is why technically non-involved teams would care about trades. Like I said, it is not a nanny state deal, as someone else mentioned which implies that these rules are there to protect people from themselves.

 

Now, ideally, we all play in leagues with upstanding guys who are all trying to win. However, I have joined leagues in the past where I didn't know everyone in the league and was once offered a pretty BS trade because my team was looking good down the stretch and one of the guys who was all but eliminated had a grudge against another member. Dude just wanted to make sure this other guy didn't win. Because, 1) I'm an honorable person and 2) I didn't want the league to think that I was taking part in some sleazy deal to pay a guy for a player, I told him that wasn't cool.

 

None the less, people do petty things. I mean why have rules at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This proposed trade screws up the league for EVERYONE else in the league, and upsets the entire competitive balance of it. You guys are dreaming if you're measuring two weeks of production as the yardstick as to whether this makes sense. You can't let stupidity upset the entire league, and basically ruin everyone else's investment of time and money by letting the first pick in the draft change teams for next to nothing. Driver is serviceable, but his time is likely past. Maybe I'd consider Jennings for LT, but even that is a stretch. It smells of collusion, but even if its not, its stupidity on one owners part, and the commissioner's dictum is to make decisions in the best interests of the league (the money paying owners), and should veto this dilly of a trade.

 

How can trading 1 player for 1 player screw up the league for EVERYONE and upset the competitive balance?? What does that even mean?

 

LT is a great RB but he alone does not win leagues.

 

Driver is getting up there but SO is LT, he is going to be 30 soon and that is typically the age where RB's begin their descent.

 

And imo, commissioners should not veto trades due to owner fallibility.

 

If they did the cardinals never would have gotten Lou Brock from the Cubs. And I am a Cubs fan.

Edited by Jrick35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a case of multiple things being equally true. It's a rotten trade (IMO). It probably upsets the balance of the league. The owner could probably get a lot more (up to and including TO or Brandon Marshall) for LT.

 

All very true, but the trade shouldn't be vetoed, unless there is collusion, and we all know that's probably not going to be proven unless someone fesses up. Not damn likely.

 

If you don't like dumb trades, put a rule in place not allowing trades of first-rounders, or hell, first/second rounders.

 

Here's what I'd do as a league commissioner because you know you'd be hearing a ton of crap from the other owners. If the LT-trading team owner was a newb to fantasy football, I'd have a little talk with him about trade values, league balance, etc and leave it at that. If he/she wasn't a newb, I'd wait and see what happened the rest of the year, and supposing that LT ends up scoring-wise where we all think he should be, I'd be sure that owner heard about this dumb trade at every draft and on every league message board post for the remainder of time. I'd probably put something in my sig about it as well.

 

Nothing like ridicule to clean that stuff up.

 

And if the owner appears to be doing it to just piss the rest of the league off, he/she would not be getting an invitation to return the following season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm even bothering to answer this.

 

If, through some sleazy means you are able to unload a marginal player for a stud, that means that the next time you play my team, you will have one more stud than you "should" have. That is why technically non-involved teams would care about trades. Like I said, it is not a nanny state deal, as someone else mentioned which implies that these rules are there to protect people from themselves.

 

Now, ideally, we all play in leagues with upstanding guys who are all trying to win. However, I have joined leagues in the past where I didn't know everyone in the league and was once offered a pretty BS trade because my team was looking good down the stretch and one of the guys who was all but eliminated had a grudge against another member. Dude just wanted to make sure this other guy didn't win. Because, 1) I'm an honorable person and 2) I didn't want the league to think that I was taking part in some sleazy deal to pay a guy for a player, I told him that wasn't cool.

 

None the less, people do petty things. I mean why have rules at all?

 

 

So you have a no trade rule to prevent some other team from getting a better player than you? Or is it that you just don't like trades that don't involve your team.

 

Here's a clue for you ... in every league that I am in I am trying to have the competitive edige over all the other owners and I am trying to win. I'm sure that is unsettling for you and you want to spread the points and wins out evenly over all owners to maintiain a compettive balance so that everybody feels good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All sides can make all the arguments they want for, against, whatever, but anybody who posts here at The Huddle "knows" this is an unbalanced trade. Whether or not I can see the future is pretty much irrelevant.

 

It is what it is, and nothing can change the fact that its unbalanced. The clue is the value of Driver to the LT owners club. Nothing anybody can say can convince anybody that if that team needs a receiver, Driver was the best offer he could get for LT, with or without injury.

 

True, there are no guarantees to any results for any players, but there is an indication of value. Someone mentioned a trade of Brady for Cutler last year. Honestly, last year the trade of Brady would have brought Cutler plus something. Nevertheless, the type of league it is makes a difference, because even a straight up trade last year of Brady for Cutler last year could make sense if its a dynasty type league where one owner is rebuilding and trading current value for future value.

 

All that being said, the trade is unbalanced and everybody knows that. I don't believe that is in dispute by anybody who has posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm even bothering to answer this.

 

If, through some sleazy means you are able to unload a marginal player for a stud, that means that the next time you play my team, you will have one more stud than you "should" have. That is why technically non-involved teams would care about trades. Like I said, it is not a nanny state deal, as someone else mentioned which implies that these rules are there to protect people from themselves.

 

Now, ideally, we all play in leagues with upstanding guys who are all trying to win. However, I have joined leagues in the past where I didn't know everyone in the league and was once offered a pretty BS trade because my team was looking good down the stretch and one of the guys who was all but eliminated had a grudge against another member. Dude just wanted to make sure this other guy didn't win. Because, 1) I'm an honorable person and 2) I didn't want the league to think that I was taking part in some sleazy deal to pay a guy for a player, I told him that wasn't cool.

 

None the less, people do petty things. I mean why have Detlef rules at all?

fixed :D

 

This is a case of multiple things being equally true. It's a rotten trade (IMO). It probably upsets the balance of the league. The owner could probably get a lot more (up to and including TO or Brandon Marshall) for LT.

 

All very true, but the trade shouldn't be vetoed, unless there is collusion, and we all know that's probably not going to be proven unless someone fesses up. Not damn likely.

 

If you don't like dumb trades, put a rule in place not allowing trades of first-rounders, or hell, first/second rounders.

 

Here's what I'd do as a league commissioner because you know you'd be hearing a ton of crap from the other owners. If the LT-trading team owner was a newb to fantasy football, I'd have a little talk with him about trade values, league balance, etc and leave it at that. If he/she wasn't a newb, I'd wait and see what happened the rest of the year, and supposing that LT ends up scoring-wise where we all think he should be, I'd be sure that owner heard about this dumb trade at every draft and on every league message board post for the remainder of time. I'd probably put something in my sig about it as well.

 

Nothing like ridicule to clean that stuff up.

 

And if the owner appears to be doing it to just piss the rest of the league off, he/she would not be getting an invitation to return the following season.

I own Marshall in one league and I wouldn't take LT for him....also own TO in another league and wouldnt trade him for LT either.....there are 4 things that are working against LT right now...1. The TOE injury 2. He is approaching 30 3. His miles 4. When RBs fall they can fall FAST and HARD...now I dont think LT is done but I also dont think he is a lock for a top season at RB either

 

All sides can make all the arguments they want for, against, whatever, but anybody who posts here at The Huddle "knows" this is an unbalanced trade. Whether or not I can see the future is pretty much irrelevant.

 

It is what it is, and nothing can change the fact that its unbalanced. The clue is the value of Driver to the LT owners club. Nothing anybody can say can convince anybody that if that team needs a receiver, Driver was the best offer he could get for LT, with or without injury.

 

True, there are no guarantees to any results for any players, but there is an indication of value. Someone mentioned a trade of Brady for Cutler last year. Honestly, last year the trade of Brady would have brought Cutler plus something. Nevertheless, the type of league it is makes a difference, because even a straight up trade last year of Brady for Cutler last year could make sense if its a dynasty type league where one owner is rebuilding and trading current value for future value.

 

All that being said, the trade is unbalanced and everybody knows that. I don't believe that is in dispute by anybody who has posted

:wacko: and fwiw, I have asked for each teams complete rosters and starting requirements yet that hasnt been given yet either.

 

could the guy have gotten better then driver in YOUR opinion or even my opinion MAYBE but then again maybe he sees Driver in a different light then you or I....I surely see LT in a different light then you and many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information