Avernus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) okay, I can't believe I'm posting one of these... Team A trades: C. West T Yeldon T Kelce Team B trades: A. Gates Wat!? Edited November 8, 2015 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 okay, I can't believe I'm posting one of these... Team A trades: C. West T Yeldon T Kelce Team B trades: A. Gates Wat!? Needs to be overturned ASAP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Is team A starting West or Yeldon? Looks like they really like Gates way more than Kelce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 Needs to be overturned ASAP! Okay, I just woke up and thought maybe I was being delusional... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 This is a ridiculous trade. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Okay, I just woke up and thought maybe I was being delusional... Nope, there's no way to even remotely try to sell that trade as being close to fair. Wouldn't be fair in redraft, dynasty, keeper or any other league you could possibly conjure up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) No veto. Eta..it does seem ridiculous Edited November 8, 2015 by HowboutthemCowboys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I was wondering if Team A was desperate for a TE, but then I looked more closely and saw him giving up Kelce as well. I would ask Team A to give any kind of logical reasoning for wanting to do this. Could it be as ridiculously stupid as trying to fill a bye week for Kelce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksimus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Maybe he was high when he made the trade...or his phone did it. ...I wouldn't veto it. Edited November 8, 2015 by Macksimus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 With so many teams on byes, makes me wonder if they were planning to swap the players back next week. Maybe Team A needed a TE and Team B needed running backs this week. Hard to tell without knowing the remaining rosters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jduke24 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Maybe he was high when he made the trade...or his phone did it. Hahahahaha well he'll be crying to get it overturned soon enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I can't believe that someone would put it out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 yeah, I don't go for veto's but looked at it like it made no sense and the team who got the major haul for Gates is likely losing to me this week....regardless of him starting Yeldon and also the guy getting Gates has Gronk already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 With so many teams on byes, makes me wonder if they were planning to swap the players back next week. Maybe Team A needed a TE and Team B needed running backs this week. Hard to tell without knowing the remaining rosters. they can't swap players back next week, they have to wait 2 weeks before being able to trade any player back to the original team... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 it just looks like Team A who already has a strong team is helping Team B....I can't explain any sort of logic in trading all of that for Gates.... I posted on the site that they must be trolling.... either way, I don't call for trades to get veto'd, but haven't seen one of these in awhile... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksimus Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 With so many teams on byes, makes me wonder if they were planning to swap the players back next week. Maybe Team A needed a TE and Team B needed running backs this week. Hard to tell without knowing the remaining rosters. I've seen this before, but it was one team trading all of it's players that were on byes for players on another team. Arron Rodgers and Jordy Nelson were among the players that were on byes. I vetoed that trade. It was obvious what was happening, but If it didn't involve top players like Rodgers and Nelson and they traded somebody that wasn't on a bye, I probably would have let it slide. It just depends on the circumstance. It also didn't help that these two owners were best friends. ...needless to say, they weren't invited back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Y'all get TE points multiplied by age? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Maybe dude is stacked at RB as Yeldon and West are his depth. My thought process is someone in SD has to catch it with Allen and now Floyd out. I'd rather have Gates over Kelce ROS. Just my 2 cents, but it could greatly break the balance of the rest the league - not that it's terms for vetoing a trade tho. Edit: he has Gronk - does the FLX spot allow TEs? If so I can see why he offered only if he has 2 weekly starters locked in at RB Edited November 10, 2015 by Shorttynaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I am always big on not stopping trades unless it's obviously collusion. However there is nothing that can be said to justify this trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 10, 2015 Author Share Posted November 10, 2015 Maybe dude is stacked at RB as Yeldon and West are his depth. My thought process is someone in SD has to catch it with Allen and now Floyd out. I'd rather have Gates over Kelce ROS. Just my 2 cents, but it could greatly break the balance of the rest the league - not that it's terms for vetoing a trade tho. Edit: he has Gronk - does the FLX spot allow TEs? If so I can see why he offered only if he has 2 weekly starters locked in at RB He now has Forsett, Ivory and Langford.....not exactly "stacked" since Langford is good for another week or two at best... the trade went through, no veto but it is kinda ridiculous and I still don't have Gates over Kelce....regardless, neither can be on a Gronk level and Gronk is the only TE I would give up a top 5 TE and two starting RB's for....but that is all opinion.... still looks like he is helping dude out when I look at their rosters....I'm not in the business of "balancing out the league"....I'm in the business of winning....hate to sound hardcore about it, but it's not like it's a free league for charity.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) He now has Forsett, Ivory and Langford.....not exactly "stacked" since Langford is good for another week or two at best... the trade went through, no veto but it is kinda ridiculous and I still don't have Gates over Kelce....regardless, neither can be on a Gronk level and Gronk is the only TE I would give up a top 5 TE and two starting RB's for....but that is all opinion.... still looks like he is helping dude out when I look at their rosters....I'm not in the business of "balancing out the league"....I'm in the business of winning....hate to sound hardcore about it, but it's not like it's a free league for charity.. That trade should have been stopped. There is no explanation that would justify that trade. The guy who agreed to give Kelce, West, and Yeldon for Gates would not be welcome back if it were my leage. Edited November 10, 2015 by Finn5033 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Just keep an eye out for a possible trade-back. That is the trade I'd stop as roster sharing to avoid byes is clear collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) I suppose it's all a matter of opinion. Do I think it was an unbalanced trade, hell yeah. But me personally, when I move players from my bench - I pretty much write them off as 'throw ins' to sweeten the deal. Personally - I'd rather have Gates (depending on my record as Gates is on bye this week) over Kelce ROS as I think (baring injury) Gates will finish the 'fantasy' season from here on out as the #2 TE in the game - behind only Gronk (which he has). Would dude ever start Yeldon? No - not over Forsett/Ivory (and Langford depending how long Forte is out). Would he ever start West? Probably not. The way I view the trade is Kelce for Gates (as the one receiving Gates) and now I got two open roster spots where I can make two adds this week. It all boils down to how you perceive a trade. Me, I look at it as Gates for Kelce in which I'd rather have Gates. If you put a value to each player involved, well then simple math wins out. I'd probably bitch if that was proposed/accepted in my league - but I wouldn't have veto'd it if I were the commissioner. Baracus makes a great point though - if there are any trade backs, yeah - I'd probably shoot that one down as at that point it's clear they were trying to get one over on bye week players.. Edited November 10, 2015 by Shorttynaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I suppose it's all a matter of opinion. Do I think it was an unbalanced trade, hell yeah. But me personally, when I move players from my bench - I pretty much write them off as 'throw ins' to sweeten the deal. Personally - I'd rather have Gates (depending on my record as Gates is on bye this week) over Kelce ROS as I think (baring injury) Gates will finish the 'fantasy' season from here on out as the #2 TE in the game - behind only Gronk (which he has). Would dude ever start Yeldon? No - not over Forsett/Ivory (and Langford depending how long Forte is out). Would he ever start West? Probably not. The way I view the trade is Kelce for Gates (as the one receiving Gates) and now I got two open roster spots where I can make two adds this week. It all boils down to how you perceive a trade. Me, I look at it as Gates for Kelce in which I'd rather have Gates. If you put a value to each player involved, well then simple math wins out. I'd probably bitch if that was proposed/accepted in my league - but I wouldn't have veto'd it if I were the commissioner. Baracus makes a great point though - if there are any trade backs, yeah - I'd probably shoot that one down as at that point it's clear they were trying to get one over on bye week players.. As the boys on ESPN Monday night countdown would say, C'Mon man 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 10, 2015 Author Share Posted November 10, 2015 I suppose it's all a matter of opinion. Do I think it was an unbalanced trade, hell yeah. But me personally, when I move players from my bench - I pretty much write them off as 'throw ins' to sweeten the deal. Personally - I'd rather have Gates (depending on my record as Gates is on bye this week) over Kelce ROS as I think (baring injury) Gates will finish the 'fantasy' season from here on out as the #2 TE in the game - behind only Gronk (which he has). Would dude ever start Yeldon? No - not over Forsett/Ivory (and Langford depending how long Forte is out). Would he ever start West? Probably not. The way I view the trade is Kelce for Gates (as the one receiving Gates) and now I got two open roster spots where I can make two adds this week. It all boils down to how you perceive a trade. Me, I look at it as Gates for Kelce in which I'd rather have Gates. If you put a value to each player involved, well then simple math wins out. I'd probably bitch if that was proposed/accepted in my league - but I wouldn't have veto'd it if I were the commissioner. Baracus makes a great point though - if there are any trade backs, yeah - I'd probably shoot that one down as at that point it's clear they were trying to get one over on bye week players.. Haha...I dunno man....he still traded two starting RB's as a throw in...if he wanted to clear roster space, he could have thrown in two other chumps who hold less value... 1 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.