keggerz Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 That is a slippery slope, though. Just because someone pays their entry fee does not give them full permission to hose up the integrity of the league. I don't see anything wrong with the trade...it's not like he traded BMarsh for Ronnie Brown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I don't see anything wrong with the trade...it's not like he traded BMarsh for Ronnie Brown I was addressing your post which seemed to indicate you feel an owner paying his/her entry fee entitles them to do whatever they want no matter what point in the season it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I was addressing your post which seemed to indicate you feel an owner paying his/her entry fee entitles them to do whatever they want no matter what point in the season it is. i do feel an owner should be allowed to finish out his season. They shouldn't get carte Blanche but they should follow the rules. If the league isn't happy with an owner then don't invite him back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony2345 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 i do feel an owner should be allowed to finish out his season. They shouldn't get carte Blanche but they should follow the rules. If the league isn't happy with an owner then don't invite him back. if there is no rule about not trading after being eliminated from the playoffs, then the teams can do whatever they want. In ym leagues, we do not give weekly high scores and there is no toilet bowl, so we made a rule thta once a team is eliminated from the playoffs, they're no longer allowed to trade. It is possible that these 2 are buddies, he helped him out, and understands fantasy and that people woudl question him, so he was ready with a response. There is not much you can do about it other than potentially not invite him back next season. I dont like the trade. Granted he may have gotten some guys he will be startign, but he also set up the other guy nice for when cutler comes back and murray has a very easy schedule rest of season. I've only vetoed one trade in about 20 season that ive commished and it was based off the response i got from an eliminated team handing over Chris Johnson last season when he was having monster games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausagekingchi Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) I said something in the message board and then received the following facebook message: him: How about you ask me why I dId a trade instead of assuming stuff me: Why did you do the trade him: Because if you look at my team all of my players were hurt including murray being shaken up so I got back sproles who was suppose to be the healthy starter this week, mcfadden who in the articles I read is suppose to be back this week. And two wrs which I need to have players in my lineup. For two players that produce if the team is doing something. With cutler out marshall has been doing average nothing really that special and murray has been shaken up with the cowboys starting to throw the ball a lot more. So for me the trade helped me. The other thing is if the league thought it was unfair there was the opportunity to veto it..I am a firm believer in not cheating in fantasy me: That makes no sense..McFadden Jennings and Sproles are all hurt Then he stopped responding..I talked to a bunch of the people in the league and half of them weren't even aware that they could veto. And btw, here is his roster before the trade. 12 team, standard scoring Romo, Alex Smith Murray, T-Rich, Brian Leonard, Peyton Hillis B-Marsh, Torey Smith, Terrence Williams, Percy Harvin, Kenny Stills Julius Thomas, Clay After seeing his entire roster I don't think this is that bad of a trade. His RB position is absolutely brutal. The only guy who is worth starting or even being on a roster is Murray. T-Rich belongs on the waiver wire, Brian Leonard is now a major afterthought because of Rainey's monster week and Peyton Hillis is no longer relevant with Brown back. I know McFadden is really banged up, but if he does suit up he is certainly more valuable than those three and Darren Sproles is still a potential starter (especially in a 12 team league, even if it isn't a ppr league). What those two players average point wise per game is an upgrade at his RB position since the only one who can get him points from his current group is Murray. The two for one on the WR actually is even from a point per game perspective as Amendola and Jennings combine for around 15pts/game as does Marshall. So from a strickly numbers standpoint this trade isn't nearly as one sided as it seems. All that being said I would never make this deal myself because I have no confidence in McFadden or Amendola being healthy, but that is a personal opinion/preference and not something that should be considered when talking collusion. Edited November 20, 2013 by sausagekingchi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I only see Jeffery outscoring Marshall twice out of the last four games. Weeks 9 & 10 Marshall seems to have prevailed by a respectable margin. 16 & 25 point performances vs. 11 & 12 point performances, in weeks 9 & 10 respectively. I think I flipped them when I compared, sorry, Marshall has outscored him by 5 over those 4 games. Still, even being that close pretty much makes my point. I think the point is, he has NO CHANCE AT THE PLAYOFFS. Why is he making trades? That's the bigger question IMO. If it's not a keeper and he's mathematically eliminated, I wouldn't want them allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 We always do even number for even number. Can you (seriously) help me understand why? If I want to trade Ridley, CJ?K and T Williams for Dez and J Gordon, and both owners agree to the trade as it really does help both teams... then why not? I have RB depth, and he has WR depth... sooooooo.... I'm confused. And, this exact trade went through our league this year. This week. Heck, one offer I turned down was Nicks & Torrey Smith for CJ?K. Are you saying the other owner would then be forced to throw in a player I (in essence) don't want and he may not want to get rid of from his team? I understand the spirit of the rule, however I don't understand how this is a good rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony2345 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Can you (seriously) help me understand why? If I want to trade Ridley, CJ?K and T Williams for Dez and J Gordon, and both owners agree to the trade as it really does help both teams... then why not? I have RB depth, and he has WR depth... sooooooo.... I'm confused. And, this exact trade went through our league this year. This week. Heck, one offer I turned down was Nicks & Torrey Smith for CJ?K. Are you saying the other owner would then be forced to throw in a player I (in essence) don't want and he may not want to get rid of from his team? I understand the spirit of the rule, however I don't understand how this is a good rule. it's not a good rule. there is absolutely no reason for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Can you (seriously) help me understand why? If I want to trade Ridley, CJ?K and T Williams for Dez and J Gordon, and both owners agree to the trade as it really does help both teams... then why not? I have RB depth, and he has WR depth... sooooooo.... I'm confused. And, this exact trade went through our league this year. This week. Heck, one offer I turned down was Nicks & Torrey Smith for CJ?K. Are you saying the other owner would then be forced to throw in a player I (in essence) don't want and he may not want to get rid of from his team? I understand the spirit of the rule, however I don't understand how this is a good rule. Most leagues have roster limits, and requiring the same number to swap avoids accidentally missing this. If both owners are at max (and they are pretty much morons if they aren't), and that trade happens, one guy has too many guys on the roster. In that case he would have to drop someone anyway, so he may as well throw it in on the trade. Most league automation doesn't play nicely with this either, so it avoids hassles like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Most league automation doesn't play nicely with this either, so it avoids hassles like that. Maybe this is where my disconnect is on this then... my local uses ESPN and we've never had an issue with "odd #" trades on the automation piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 i do feel an owner should be allowed to finish out his season. They shouldn't get carte Blanche but they should follow the rules. If the league isn't happy with an owner then don't invite him back. Oh, absolutely. Every team has the right to compete each week until officially eliminated. FA should remain an option to every owner even if/when they are only trying to play spoiler. No argument there. I just think teams that are mathematically eliminated from playoff contention should not be allowed to make trades in a re-draft because it opens the door for collusion and the potential for damaging the integrity of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) Most leagues have roster limits, and requiring the same number to swap avoids accidentally missing this. If both owners are at max (and they are pretty much morons if they aren't), and that trade happens, one guy has too many guys on the roster. In that case he would have to drop someone anyway, so he may as well throw it in on the trade. Most league automation doesn't play nicely with this either, so it avoids hassles like that. Thats a time where communication becomes even more important and the involved parties need to proactively accommodate the transaction. If I am at max roster cap(which I always am) I would never agree to a 2 for 3 trade unless I had already identified a third player on my roster I was prepared to quickly part with to facilitate the incoming transfer of 3 players not violating the roster cap. Simple. ETA: and I suppose I could just toss that player in to make it an even 3-3 deal but what if the other owner doesn't want that player or I don't necessarily want that owner getting that player? Can't automatically assume I can just stick the other owner with someone I am prepared to drop. Edited November 20, 2013 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Young leagues , they remind me of when I had my first beer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Maybe this is where my disconnect is on this then... my local uses ESPN and we've never had an issue with "odd #" trades on the automation piece. Ditto on CBS, so what league software doesn't play nice with it? I agree that forcing player for player trades, or worse yet position for position is wrong, and doesn't make sense (just like fixed positions don't make sense). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksimus Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 This is why it is a good idea to have a trade deadline at the middle of the season when all the teams are still pretty much in the hunt for the playoffs; it protects against shady trades like this late in the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 This is why it is a good idea to have a trade deadline at the middle of the season when all the teams are still pretty much in the hunt for the playoffs; it protects against shady trades like this late in the season. We also have a Toilet Bowl, and a high weekly score to try and earn back at least something. Late trades can still work for some leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Maybe this is where my disconnect is on this then... my local uses ESPN and we've never had an issue with "odd #" trades on the automation piece. Yeah they have an interesting way to handle it, you can drop a player as a condition of the trade, so if I get three and give two, I can send one to waivers instead of having to throw him in on the trade - to DB's point about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otis29 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 We also have a Toilet Bowl, and a high weekly score to try and earn back at least something. Late trades can still work for some leagues. Agreed, same in my league. Additionally, my league charges a fee if you lose that week's matchup. So there could be financial incentive for a non-playoff team to continue to work on their roster. 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.