kcmast Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 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. Read my post; did I say you have to? No. What I said is if you are going to trade a guy who is considered one of the top 2 fantasy RBs, wouldn't you shop around instead of taking a teams #3/4 fantasy WR? If you are trading lesser players, sure you find a deal that fits, but I can not fathom trading a premier player for a lesser player without seeing if I could get more first. If, and I say if because I can't say whether he shopped around more, he just took the driver deal, my mind immediately goes to "sounds fishy." Maybe it's just my logical way of thinking that always gets me in trouble with my wife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 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. Grits, if you are commish in a league where a guy starts all the players that were on his bench the previous week and the guy he is playing against is fighting for a playoff spot, would you mention it? I'm not saying this trade can't go through, but it throws up a huge red flag to me and I would want an explanation to prove it is legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaim.Witz Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 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. Agreed, and I saw the request for the rosters, etc.. Although it is MY opinion, I don't think it's that far-fetched that Driver alone wouldn't be the value ANYBODY on this board, or in any league, would figure to be equivalent in value to acquire LT, and I am in an idiot league after taking 2 years off from FF. We all value players differently, and that's what makes it interesting. However, there is reasonable and not quite reasonable in estimating value, and that's all I'm trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 (edited) 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. Not sure why I would expect you to start actually reading the posts of those you are arguing with because you've never done so before but I specifically said that I would not veto such a trade were I commish. None the less, I do frown upon soulless losers who apparently rank winning in FF above fair play and honor. In my newest league we have one 1st timer. Somebody tried to rape him (offering P Rivers for Westbrook after week 1) when both QBs he drafted looked like crap. Fortunately the guy had enough sense to reject the offer but I still made a point, as commish, of reminding the guy who made the offer that this is a league among friends. That any loser who busts "all is fair in love and war", needs to reminded that a game intended to be an entertaining diversion among friends from life's hassles is neither love nor war. Thus nothing worth lowering yourself to such a sleazy level. That doesn't mean you've got to go easy on the guy. You're bound to draft a better team and at some point may likely be in the situation of being able to trade a few non-starters to him for one of his better players, just because he's thin. But you don't have to be a dewsh about it. Trust me, I too am looking for a competitive edge. Carry on. Edited September 19, 2008 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 (edited) Sure, who knows, Driver could outperform LT. And BB, I'll give you that bet right now. No caveats. It's not a bet. I happen to agree that the LT owner should have gotten much better compensation. I asked if someone was willing to make a guarantee of their knowledge of the outcome of future events. I've played FF long enough to know better, which is all the more reason that I'd never veto an apparently lopsided trade. I would question one that had the earmarks of pooling 2 teams. I don't see that here - not even remotely. Even then I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and ask for a reckoning of their reasoning before I'd even think about placing a veto vote. Some here apparently know a hell of a lot more about the outcome of things that have yet to happen than I do and feel the need to use that knowledge to protect owners from themselves. Edited September 19, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 It's not a bet. I happen to agree that the LT owner should have gotten much better compensation. I asked if someone was willing to make a guarantee of their knowledge of the outcome of future events. I've played FF long enough to know better, which is all the more reason that I'd never veto an apparently lopsided trade. I would question one that had the earmarks of pooling 2 teams. I don't see that here - not even remotely. Even then I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and ask for a reckoning of their reasoning before I'd even think about placing a veto vote. Some here apparently know a hell of a lot more about the outcome of things that have yet to happen than I do and feel the need to use that knowledge to protect owners from themselves. I think you and I actually agree on how this should be handled. In terms of official rulings, I'll always err on the side of letting people do what they will. That said, something like this would certainly make me keep an open eye. And like I said above, in instances worse than this, if commish, I will remind someone to watch their step. LT's injury, of course, saves the trade parterns from complete outrage. However, I don't think anyone should have to be able to guarantee that LT will out perform Driver to be outraged by the trade. Hell, you could use the same guarantee arguement to justify making that trade prior to week 1. Someone gives you crap and all you have to say is "How do you know? LT could bust his leg tomorrow and then who's looking stupid." FF is all about taking the knowledge we have before us and making informed conclusions. I think it's safe to say that most would pick LT as having a better chance of putting up good numbers than Driver for the rest of the season, even with the bum toe. Now, here's a question for you and Grits. How far do you take this avoidance of "nanny state" rules. Healthy LT looking good for Driver after week 2? All good? What about the P Rivers for Westbrook trade that was attempted in one of my leagues? Is that cool as well? I mean, nobody can guarantee that Westbrook out performs Rivers, even after this last week. Right? Once again, it's not just about protecting owners from themselves, it's about protecting the integrity of the league. 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.