Should this Team Exist?

[Grits and Shins]

And that is sort of where I fall into this discussion. Each individual trade was "fair," in the sense that as "stand alone trades" they hold up for the most part. He drafted well enough to have pieces to move.

 

My beef isn't with the owner of this Pro-Bowl team, but more with the owners who provided him this lineup. He was "setting up to be stacked" as you put it, and because they like trading more than anything else, they kept feeding the beast.

 

I just know that when most people see his team, their first reaction is to ask, 1: how did he get such a team, and 2: how did the other owners allow such a team to come into existence.

 

He outscored everyone else by over 400 points over 13 weeks, and was outscored only 13 times during the same stretch. The next closest person was outscored 50 times over that 13 week period.

 

So yeah, each individual trade may be "fair," but if at the end he ends up with this team, were they really that "fair?" IDK.

 

You can only judge each trade on its own merit ... it doesn't make sense to say all the trades were fair but when you look at all of them together they were not.

[delusions of grandeur]

Existence is a funny thing... See, according to Schrodinger's Cat theory, when a fantasy team sits in an unobserved state, it can be both dead and alive in the playoffs at the same time. It requires an observer, which as you've highlighted here, is you who allows this team to exist, purely by your observation of it's existence in this reality you've created. So really it's your fault....

 

But then I have to wonder if you even exist, or if we're just stuck in the Matrix where my perception of the existence of you and this super awesome team is just a figment of our imaginations. I guess we'll never know (unless this guy is like Neo. In which case, you were very wise to acknowledge the existence of the team of the "one" who will save us all)...

 

Hope that helps....

[MnLefty]

The problem is trades can only be evaluated on information at the time of the trade, and only on the players involved, not the rest of the rosters. It has to be up to each individual to look at the other team and decide "even though this deal looks fair on paper, his roster is stacking up too much to do it". And it really has to be each guy figuring it out on his own. IMO it's ethically a gray area bordering on collusion if guys start getting on the league message boards proclaiming "look at his roster, quit making trades with him", especially if guys start agreeing with each other to "freeze him out" on trading.

[kalel3475]

You can only judge each trade on its own merit ... it doesn't make sense to say all the trades were fair but when you look at all of them together they were not.

 

 

I would normally agree, except that the discrepancy in his team and the teams that gave up the core of his lineup is huge as they went in such drastic directions after the trades.

 

I know that other trades and injuries and WW pickups and all of that play their part. But the 4 teams he traded with that got him the core he is playing with now didn't make the playoffs, with only 1 of those teams having chance of making it after Week 11. The others scored much much lower for the season and had dismal records, well under .500 for the year vs. everyone else in the league.

[Whiskey Pimp]

I would normally agree, except that the discrepancy in his team and the teams that gave up the core of his lineup is huge as they went in such drastic directions after the trades.

 

I know that other trades and injuries and WW pickups and all of that play their part. But the 4 teams he traded with that got him the core he is playing with now didn't make the playoffs, with only 1 of those teams having chance of making it after Week 11. The others scored much much lower for the season and had dismal records, well under .500 for the year vs. everyone else in the league.

 

So what do you propose happen? Each trade individually was fine for both teams at the time but now the other teams involved are done and this one owner is stacked. Are you trying to say all of the trades should be reversed? The guy made a bunch of trades that other owners thought helped them at the time and now has really worked in his favor. What's the big deal?

[kalel3475]

The problem is trades can only be evaluated on information at the time of the trade, and only on the players involved, not the rest of the rosters. It has to be up to each individual to look at the other team and decide "even though this deal looks fair on paper, his roster is stacking up too much to do it". And it really has to be each guy figuring it out on his own. IMO it's ethically a gray area bordering on collusion if guys start getting on the league message boards proclaiming "look at his roster, quit making trades with him", especially if guys start agreeing with each other to "freeze him out" on trading.

 

 

And this did happen. One owner basically did just that, calling the trades crazy, especially in light of the roster he was putting on the field. He went from outscoring people to destroying people. So one owner said that everyone should consider whether they are completing his team or not.

 

Personally, I think that has to be part of a trade deal. Am I making this other team complete or too good? I didn't trade with him specifically because of this reason. We all agreed that there was to be no Commish approval or League vote on trades, so everyone knew what we were getting into. Then the trading started, and his team started taking shape, and some people wanted to at least voice the opinion that there may be more to consider than simply what you are getting from the deal.

[flemingd]

You joke, but it does seem that some owners think some of the trades should have been vetoed by the Commish. One owner was at the meeting when we decided to have unrestricted trading, without Commish approval, but now regrets not saying anything earlier about the "funny" trading going on.

This is exactly why you DON'T add veto's. Now your owners are going to want to veto a trade that is perfectly viable because it "makes one team too good" which is horseAthena. If the trade stands up on its own then it stands up on its own period. This owner could just as easily seen McCoy get hurt intead of Forte, Rice and Jennings aren't exacly carrying teams to FF victories right now, the Brees for Rodgers trade he got the short end of the stick on recently (barely, but still) etc. Jennings is hurt and Welker just tossed stinker so his team is hardly unbeatable.

 

The guy got lucky guessing on his buy lows and sell highs - nothing more.

[kalel3475]

So what do you propose happen? Each trade individually was fine for both teams at the time but now the other teams involved are done and this one owner is stacked. Are you trying to say all of the trades should be reversed? The guy made a bunch of trades that other owners thought helped them at the time and now has really worked in his favor. What's the big deal?

 

 

No, not suggesting a reverse of trades or anything like that.

 

I guess the big deal is that, in my experience in Fantasy Football, teams like this don't normally exist. Yet, this is the 3rd year in a row--I've been in the league for only the last two years, but watched closely the year before joining, that this one owner has fielded a Pro-Bowl team that statistically dominated everyone else. It is the same core group of owners who trade with this one owner, and they seldom, if ever make the playoffs. They don't seem to learn from their mistakes, and in fact get pissed at the idea that they are not making their teams better despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

One group of people left the League last year because of this, opening it up for more to join this year. They felt the trading was border-line collusion in nature. I don't think they collude, I just think that this sort of team doesn't normally exist in a 12 team, non-keeper league because most owners wouldn't supply one team with a lineup like the one he has. Yet here he stands, and if you bring this up to him and those key people that trade with him, they act as if WE are the crazy ones.

 

Maybe we are, which is why I am here asking the questions.

[kalel3475]

This is exactly why you DON'T add veto's. Now your owners are going to want to veto a trade that is perfectly viable because it "makes one team too good" which is horseAthena. If the trade stands up on its own then it stands up on its own period. This owner could just as easily seen McCoy get hurt intead of Forte, Rice and Jennings aren't exacly carrying teams to FF victories right now, the Brees for Rodgers trade he got the short end of the stick on recently (barely, but still) etc. Jennings is hurt and Welker just tossed stinker so his team is hardly unbeatable.

 

The guy got lucky guessing on his buy lows and sell highs - nothing more.

 

 

All valid points. And I am normally against Vetoes and League Votes on trades. But after seeing one team get "lucky" by fielding teams I've never seen anywhere else, three straight years, it makes you wonder.

[kcmast]

I'd be curious to see the first 6-8 rounds of you draft. Not sure how he even got enough trade bait to put that team together.

[crazysob]

Noone can predict the future. If all individual trades were fair then you really can't say anything just because the team is beastly in week 15.

Edited December 19, 2011 by crazysob

[Ursa Majoris]

So he drafted Rice, Forte and the traded Chris Johnson. And he also drafted Nicks, who he traded to get Jennings. And he also drafted Brees, who he traded to get Rodgers?

 

if this guy was able to draft such a team, I think its the other 11 owners that shouldn't exist.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

FWIW, I would never have given Brees and Forte for Rodgers either, so the owner is hardly a genius, IMO. Others opinions may vary.

[Ursa Majoris]

it makes you wonder.

It doesn't make me wonder at all. It makes me want to break out into a round of . He's clearly a good owner - and kudos to him for being an active trader too. There's a thread on here every year bemoaning the lack of trades in some leagues.

[delusions of grandeur]

Maybe we are, which is why I am here asking the questions.

You all keep trading him stud players. Of course that's on all of you... While I think it's totally wrong that some leagues will veto trades because it makes at least one team "stronger" (of course it does, they wouldn't trade if it didn't), but you do all realize you have a choice in whether trading with him is worth improving his team any more, right?

 

Now if he's purely just taking advantage of people that aren't anywhere near his skill level, then maybe you make a choice about whether having him is good for your league (though maybe not, I'm not really big on letting someone go because they were too good). But you certainly can't hold it against him for what you all agreed to, so I'm not sure what you're really looking for here, when you've already stated that you don't allow BS vetoes. Good for you, now do what it takes to beat the guy in the future, or concede that he just may keep whooping your ass if you're all going to trade him studs.

[historymike]

Yes, this team is possible, and even factoring out the "your league must have a bunch of 8-year-old idiots" component. A savvy (and more importantly, lucky) owner can make smart trades that at the time seemed even trades or even poor trades. As I mentioned in another thread, I lucked out by selling high on FJax (two leagues) and Forte (one league) a week or two before their season-ending injuries. Welker fell ridiculkously low for his 2011 output (he went 5.7 in one PPR league and 6.1/5.2 in two non-PPR leagues I am in). Foster could have been acquired fairly cheaply from a desperate owner when he was injured, and Chris Johnson was widely getting unloaded after his weak first half.

 

In two of my leagues both the Rodgers and Brees owners traded, thinking they were selling high, and both owner lived to regret this decision. So while this is a freakishly good team, I think it is entirely possible to assemble such a squad via fortuitous trading.

 

Remember too that Jennings is hurt and that Rodgers may see reduced playing time the last few games now that the Packers have home field locked up and the 16-0 dream has evaporated. This could be a team that has peaked too early - Foster could get fewer reps if the Texans decide they cannot improve their home field situation in the playoffs, while McCoy could see less work if the Eagles get eliminated (he is also not a free agent until 2013, so there is no incentive for him to play through injuries in meaningless games).

Edited December 19, 2011 by historymike

[kalel3475]

I'd be curious to see the first 6-8 rounds of you draft. Not sure how he even got enough trade bait to put that team together.

 

 

If I had an easy way to post it I would.

 

I will say this, for what it is worth. We use CBS sports for our League, and according to them, after the draft he had about a 17% chance of winning the League. After the initial round of trading prior to week 1, his chances went up to over 20%. by October 20th, not sure which Week in the season that is, his chances were up to about 37%. By the end of the trading period, in mid-November, he was sitting in at close to a 50-50 shot of winning the championship.

 

Each trade saw his chances go up with everyone he was trading with going down.

 

LIke I said, for what it is worth, those were the numbers.

[kalel3475]

It doesn't make me wonder at all. It makes me want to break out into a round of . He's clearly a good owner - and kudos to him for being an active trader too. There's a thread on here every year bemoaning the lack of trades in some leagues.

 

 

Oh there is no doubt that HE is a good owner. It's the others in the league that worry me.

[kalel3475]

You all keep trading him stud players. Of course that's on all of you... While I think it's totally wrong that some leagues will veto trades because it makes at least one team "stronger" (of course it does, they wouldn't trade if it didn't), but you do all realize you have a choice in whether trading with him is worth improving his team any more, right?

 

Now if he's purely just taking advantage of people that aren't anywhere near his skill level, then maybe you make a choice about whether having him is good for your league (though maybe not, I'm not really big on letting someone go because they were too good). But you certainly can't hold it against him for what you all agreed to, so I'm not sure what you're really looking for here, when you've already stated that you don't allow BS vetoes. Good for you, now do what it takes to beat the guy in the future, or concede that he just may keep whooping your ass if you're all going to trade him studs.

 

I agree completely. He is basically going to keep kicking us in our collective nuts until those few owners realize what they are doing and decide on their own to stop the madness.

 

I'm not upset with HIM at all. He is a great owner, to be sure.

 

But it's funny you mention taking advantage of people, because I really feel that he is taking advantage of people who would rather trade than do anything else, and who think they are fantasy gurus, all the while they have horrible teams at the end of the year and this same owner is in the finals year after year after year.

Edited December 19, 2011 by kalel3475

[Ursa Majoris]

Oh there is no doubt that HE is a good owner. It's the others in the league that worry me.

Well, there you have it. Several people have mentioned that. FWIW, I can only repeat what others have said about the trades:

 

Each stands on it's own merits

The results have broken his way

Owners have the right to refuse to trade if they think the team they are trading with will become too powerful

Owners do NOT have the right to collude to prevent trading with a particular team.

[kalel3475]

Well, there you have it. Several people have mentioned that. FWIW, I can only repeat what others have said about the trades:

 

Each stands on it's own merits

The results have broken his way

Owners have the right to refuse to trade if they think the team they are trading with will become too powerful

Owners do NOT have the right to collude to prevent trading with a particular team.

 

 

I agree in principal with all of the above.

 

Could you clarify the last point though? What do you consider "collude?" Posting on the League message board about the trades? Telling people in private not to trade with a specific team?

 

Thanks.

Edited December 19, 2011 by kalel3475

[Savage Beatings]

I don't think we can tell if this team is any good unless we know who his Kicker is.

[coordi88]

I ranted on our message board about people making dumb trades with one guy...

 

i was offering vjax and cedric benson for SJax and i think harvin (before harvin blew up) to another owner. the owner calls vjax and benson worthless and refuses to make a trade, even when i replaced harvin with some throwaway.

 

two days later the owner trades reggie bush, steve smith, and tony gonzalez for MJD to the one guy.

 

or i was trying to get phillip rivers early in the year, and i was pushing mike williams (TB) as part of the deal. This owner specifically calls williams trash and goes on to tlak a BUNCH of Athena about him. this was week 3 btw, two week after his only good game of the season... so about week 7 the same guy who called williams trash, tried to give up maclin for mike williams straight up to the one guy.

 

people are dumb.

 

Im not going to play in that league again next year because me and this guy are the only two people who arent completely clueless, and im not friendly enough with everyone else to get the deals he gets. not really anything you can do beyond that

 

edit: same guy got McCoy straight up for Frank Gore, the same week gore hurt his knee

Edited December 19, 2011 by coordi88

[delusions of grandeur]

I agree in principal with all of the above.

 

Could you clarify the last point though? What do you consider "collude?" Posting on the League message board about the trades? Telling people in private not to trade with a specific team?

 

Thanks.

Not to speak for Ursa, but a good broad definition of collusion per wikipedia, "Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage".

 

Notice that it doesn't have to be secretive, just that it tends to be (and really the only way to prove collusion is if there is public knowledge of it anyway). Thus why I don't totally agree with those that say you have to "prove" collusion to overturn a trade. You know it when you see it if a trade is so lopsidedly bad that along with the situational factors (like an owner being out of the playoff hunt and trading his studs for trash) that give more reason to strongly suspect collusion, than that to give them the benefit of the doubt that it's just a "bad" trade in your eyes. Of course IF you can prove collusion, then beyond just reversing the trade, you kick them out on the spot too.

 

Anyways, back to where I think your situation could turn into casual collusion, with parties even being unaware that you're doing it... It's one thing to voice your displeasure and even say in jest that people are making the guy too strong by not looking at how it affects his team, but there's a fine line there between that and making it even an unspoken agreement that you aren't going to allow him to trade freely, by basically boycotting all your trades with him... It's a huge difference of letting owners come to that conclusion even with a bit of influence from vocal parties, than to try to really influence them to boycott trades with the guy.

 

It's kind of a grey area really, but I always look at it as whether I could accept it being done to me if the shoe was on the other foot. In this case, you don't want the good owner to see that people are actively working against him together (which is the essence of collusion, working together rather than against ALL other parties, other than mutually agreed upon trades of course)...

Edited December 19, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[stevegrab]

If I had an easy way to post it I would.

 

I will say this, for what it is worth. We use CBS sports for our League, and according to them, after the draft he had about a 17% chance of winning the League. After the initial round of trading prior to week 1, his chances went up to over 20%. by October 20th, not sure which Week in the season that is, his chances were up to about 37%. By the end of the trading period, in mid-November, he was sitting in at close to a 50-50 shot of winning the championship.

 

Each trade saw his chances go up with everyone he was trading with going down.

 

LIke I said, for what it is worth, those were the numbers.

 

 

I play in a league run on CBS Sports and have never seen this rating of teams chances to win a title before. Regardless, if the info is as accurate as their "guru" numbers and weekly game previews (which are terrible), I give them zero credibility.

 

The problem most have with this thread is they crop up all the time, is this fair, should that be allowed, what should we do about xxxxx. I understand you're looking for opinions, and most say "yep it can happen all the owners who made trades contributed to it."

 

What feedback and thoughts are you looking for? It often seems that people only want somebody to come out and say "hell no, don't allow that!" (and some people have said that in jest).

 

Ursa (and others) make good points. But you seem to want a different answer.

[kalel3475]

I play in a league run on CBS Sports and have never seen this rating of teams chances to win a title before. Regardless, if the info is as accurate as their "guru" numbers and weekly game previews (which are terrible), I give them zero credibility.

 

The problem most have with this thread is they crop up all the time, is this fair, should that be allowed, what should we do about xxxxx. I understand you're looking for opinions, and most say "yep it can happen all the owners who made trades contributed to it."

 

What feedback and thoughts are you looking for? It often seems that people only want somebody to come out and say "hell no, don't allow that!" (and some people have said that in jest).

 

Ursa (and others) make good points. But you seem to want a different answer.

 

Fair questions to be sure.

 

I asked the question, "Should this team exist?" with a particular "answer" in mind. This is true. However, I was intentionally vague about details at first because I wanted to see what perspective people would respond from. Maybe this was a mistake. But as I stated in a couple of threads, nearly everyone who knows Fantasy football who isn't in this League immediately wants to know what the heck is going on when they see this team's roster. They wonder HOW such a team came into existence. One person stated, "If I was in that League, he (the owner of the team in question) would be tired of me by now with all the ranting..."

 

So as for what "answers" I was looking for, I guess a general reaction to a line up of that caliber existing for ANY reason in a 12 team league. Forgetting the rules on trading and all of that, does the existence of this particular team say anything about the league as a whole, besides that this ONE owner is on top of his game? Based on some of the posts here, it would seem to suggest that the majority of the other 11 owners are incompetent at best or colluders at worst. Knowing the players involved, I would say the former as opposed to the later.

 

What about this question? Does anyone here have a team in their league of at least 12 teams and 16 roster spots that is as dominate as the lineup I have presented here?

 

Right now, according to our point system, he has the Top QB, the top 3 RB, the 2nd and 9th ranked WR, and the 5th ranked TE, based on total points scored for the year.

 

Two of these he actually drafted in Rice and Welker, meaning that other league owners traded him the other 5 top scorers in the league, forgetting the fact that he actually traded Welker away and got him back later.

 

Has anything like this happened in one of your leagues of like size and roster numbers?