Unfair trade in my league

[ForzaPackers]

There is an unfair trade going on between 2 owners in my league, 1 lad just in the league to help out the other I think.

Just a question about the trades, it says if the majority of owners vote against it, the trade won't go through. There are 14 teams in the league and from speaking to others it would seem at least 6 have voted against it, I'm just wondering if 7 voted against it is that enough to have it overturned??

As there is 14 in the league then 7 would be the majority when you take away the 2 people involved in the trade, or would it need 8 to vote against it anyway?

 

And does the trade automatically stop when the majority vote against it or does it stay pending until the final trade review date regardless and would fall through then??

 

Thanks

[CowboysDiehard]

First...welcome to the huddle. Second, you'll find there isn't much sympathy for trade disputes around here. The basic assumption is that all the members of a leage are adults, and so these types of rules are unnecessary.

 

"it says if the majority of owners vote against it, the trade won't go through"

 

If the rule simply states a majority of owners must vote against it, then I would think you need 8 votes to overturn it. Else, if I'm the commish, it stands.

[BA Baracus]

I hate it when other owners can vote on trade approval. The only trade that should be dissallowed is one that is collusion. That is easily enforced by any commissioner with at least one ball in his sack.

[Big Country]

Would be curious as to what is being deemed "unfair"?

 

But, on the strict rules interpretation, I would say you need 8 votes. I'd suggest amending the rules (if you keep voting for trades in)for future to read that it is a majority of the owners not involved in the trade.

[ForzaPackers]

The trade is Randall Cobb, Michael Vick, Vincent Brown and Eddie Lacy for Torrey Smith, Matt Stafford, Chris Givens and Steven Jackson.

 

The lads involved done an unfair trade last season. It was Peterson for 2 bums so obviously 1 lad is looking after both teams.

I think with this trade he is trying to throw people off with the 2 WRs involved in it but he'd be improving alot at QB and RB but WR would stay the same

[Nostack]

That trade is fine. Get over it.

[ForzaPackers]

That trade is fine. Get over it.

 

 

Nothing to get over, if it goes through grand by me, couldn't care less.

Just alot of the people in the league weren't happy with it cos of this persons history of unfair trades with the same mate so just thought I'd find out the story with trades and how many votes it takes to overturn it as at least 7 said to me its not a fair trade

[Chuckyone]

That trade is fine. Get over it.

 

 

So you would give up Torrey Smith, Matt Stafford, Chris Givens and Steven Jackson for Randall Cobb, Michael Vick, Vincent Brown and Eddie Lacy?

 

I want you in my league.

[Chuckyone]

The trade has just enough to try and mask collusion, but it's not a fair trade if between two owners who've made trades with issues in the past imo. Something doesn't smell right.

 

If I was commish (and I have two balls) the majority rule would be the majority of owners NOT involved in the trade. If it's not in writing then I guess you'll just have to hope the commish has enough balls to define the majority ruling and put it in writing now. If owners don't like it they can quit and go elsewhere.

[delfamdelfam]

Cobb > Smith, but only in ppr, in standard they are closer

Brown = Givens, Givens slightly better IMO

Vick < Stafford

Lacy < Jackson, but not by much

 

To me the trade seems fine, the Stafford side is getting a slightly better deal but Lacy has upside equal to Jackson, Smith can be just as good as Cobb, Brown can be better than Givens, and if Vick stays healthy he can have more FF points than Stafford.

 

How can you veto this?

Edited August 30, 2013 by delfamdelfam

[electricrelish]

OMG! This trade is the most clear classic case of collusion I've ever seen in my LIFETIME!!! I'm not even in the league, and it's got my blood boiling., If you can't see it then you're a COMPLETE MORAN!!!

Edited August 30, 2013 by electricrelish

[electricrelish]

oops, I misread the trade. It's fine afterall. Nevermind.

[Chuckyone]

Cobb > Smith, but only in ppr, in standard they are closer

Brown = Givens, Givens slightly better IMO

Vick < Stafford

Lacy < Jackson, but not by much

 

To me the trade seems fine, the Stafford side is getting a slightly better deal but Lacy has upside equal to Jackson, Smith can be just as good as Cobb, Brown can be better than Givens, and if Vick stays healthy he can have more FF points than Stafford.

 

How can you veto this?

 

Didn't say I'd nix it. Just that I'd define the majority rules voting rule as not including the two involved in the trade.

 

Cobb > Smith but not by alot, even in PPR he could end up only marginally better as being #1 without Jennings taking coverage could show him to be a lame duck.

Stafford > Vick by quite bit unless you are basing the trade on unproven "potential" to be better this year. Last year he sucked.

Jackson > Lacy by a mile and I'm amused you say they have the same upside this year

Givens > V.Brown because Brown hasn't even played and Givens had 80 targets last year, how many Brown have?

 

The trade obviously favors one over another unless you are on the receiving end of Stafford, Jackson, Smith and Givens, and wish to argue "potential" over reality and even then it's still bairly even imo. Trading 4 guys with proven histories last year for 4 guys with only 1 having a prior year worth a damn isn't a fair trade. Especially if it's between guys who made questionable trades in the past.

 

I wouldn't nix it as commish because it has just enough based on unproven "potential" to MAYBE end up as a fair trade benefiting both sides by year end. But I think intellectual honesty says it's not a fair trade. If you guys would give up proven for potential that's fine, I still want you in my league to trade with though.

[dolphindan1]

So you would give up Torrey Smith, Matt Stafford, Chris Givens and Steven Jackson for Randall Cobb, Michael Vick, Vincent Brown and Eddie Lacy?

 

I want you in my league.

 

 

It doesnt matter what someone outside the league would do...the trade is a fair trade...YOu have no idea how much one owner values a player....Like I said in another thread...Just because an owner is stupid doesnt make the trade veteoable....Maybe the owner getting Brown is expecting a big year and wants to take that chance....If he accepts the trade good for the other owner....I love finding out what teams owners root for who they suspect will have a good year...Make my trading easier....Now if an owner was giving up AP and Calvin for Nick Novak then I may have an issue

[ForzaPackers]

I agree with chuckyone here, Stafford should get alot more pts than Vick, Steven Jackson should get alot more pts than Lacy.

The 2 WRs I think are even and thats just in the trade to try and throw people off.

 

If it was 2 owners without a history of this stuff I'd leave it be but it annoys me cos the same lad is always involved in dodgy trades.

Last year these same 2 owners traded Adrian Peterson for Chris Givens and Sidney Rice, the lad who got Peterson is the same lad getting Stafford etc. in this years one. I have no doubt this lad has both team logins and is looking after both teams.

I changed the trading to league manager veto to block the trade and he benched all his players in protest

[ForzaPackers]

The trade has just enough to try and mask collusion, but it's not a fair trade if between two owners who've made trades with issues in the past imo. Something doesn't smell right.

 

If I was commish (and I have two balls) the majority rule would be the majority of owners NOT involved in the trade. If it's not in writing then I guess you'll just have to hope the commish has enough balls to define the majority ruling and put it in writing now. If owners don't like it they can quit and go elsewhere.

 

 

I am the leagues manager but I don't see any setting I can change to make the trades the majority of owners not involved in the trade. The only options I see are votes from other managers or league manager veto.

 

Also now it seems 8 people have voted against it in a 14 team league so the trade should have been cancelled but it still says pending until Saturday

[BA Baracus]

You gotta remember that people value players differently. I wouldn't do the trade if I were the SJax owner, but I also think that Cobb is overrated and I really like Torrey Smith. I wouldn't call this collusion.

 

AP for two bums does sound like collusion. Owners guilty of collusion should be booted IMO. There is no greater display of disrespect toward your league mates than intentionally upsetting the competitive balance of the league.

 

On the other hand, if my league mates voted down a non-collusive trade, I would probably tell them to go chives themselves, dump my whole team to FA, and quit. "Not a fair trade" is a seriously chives claim.

[ForzaPackers]

You gotta remember that people value players differently. I wouldn't do the trade if I were the SJax owner, but I also think that Cobb is overrated and I really like Torrey Smith. I wouldn't call this collusion.

 

AP for two bums does sound like collusion. Owners guilty of collusion should be booted IMO. There is no greater display of disrespect toward your league mates than intentionally upsetting the competitive balance of the league.

 

On the other hand, if my league mates voted down a non-collusive trade, I would probably tell them to go chives themselves, dump my whole team to FA, and quit. "Not a fair trade" is a seriously chives claim.

 

 

If the trade was between any of the 2 other owners in the league I would let it be and not vote against it but its cos of who is doing the trade. Like I said these same lads were involved in the ridiculous Peterson trade last year and this is clearly 2 lads working together to make 1 team stronger and trying to make it not too obvious

[flemingd]

This isn't even in the zip code of collusion, or unfair, or whatever other horsechives you want to mask your vote with.

[jrobertz]

This trade doesn't seem like collusion, but with the past history of these two doing things I can understand the issue you have. I don't see where you posted the scoring and both teams rosters that would also help in evaluating the trade.

[BA Baracus]

If the trade was between any of the 2 other owners in the league I would let it be and not vote against it but its cos of who is doing the trade. Like I said these same lads were involved in the ridiculous Peterson trade last year and this is clearly 2 lads working together to make 1 team stronger and trying to make it not too obvious

 

 

I hear ya man. If you guys don't trust these two jokers to behave as gentlemen, my advice is to kick their asses out.

[Big Country]

If the trade was between any of the 2 other owners in the league I would let it be and not vote against it but its cos of who is doing the trade. Like I said these same lads were involved in the ridiculous Peterson trade last year and this is clearly 2 lads working together to make 1 team stronger and trying to make it not too obvious

 

 

IMO this trade is far from collussion.

 

As to your point as the concern being because of the trade last year, then this whole situation is 100% your fault for not removing those two owners from the league. Since they've been allowed to stay in the league, you have to judge this trade based on the merits of this trade. You've already stated that if this was between any two different owners you'd have no problem with it, thus if it would be a fair enough trade for any other two owners, it is a fair trade for these two owners.

[ForzaPackers]

IMO this trade is far from collussion.

 

As to your point as the concern being because of the trade last year, then this whole situation is 100% your fault for not removing those two owners from the league. Since they've been allowed to stay in the league, you have to judge this trade based on the merits of this trade. You've already stated that if this was between any two different owners you'd have no problem with it, thus if it would be a fair enough trade for any other two owners, it is a fair trade for these two owners.

 

 

Well I think its borderline fair/unfair trade and if any of the other teams done it I'd be giving them the benefit of the doubt and thinking maybe to leave it be as it was an offer that was accepted properly but because its people with a history of cheating I didn't want it to go through as its one lad helping the other out.

Yes maybe I should have kicked them out of the league for this year but the lad is a mate and we have good banter about the league and we would be rivals in the league as I'm the one he wants to beat the most and hes the one I'd like to beat the most, so didn't want to take that out of the league. Thing is I go about things in it fairly while he clearly does not.

 

It may not be the most ridiculous trade anyway but 1 team was defo getting stronger. Over the course of the season I'd expect Stafford to score 100 more pts than Vick.

Eddie Lacy is unproven and Green Bay don't like to run the ball too much while I expect Steven Jackson to get a good few TDs and carries for Atlanta. I'd say Steven Jackson would get about 40+ more pts over the season.

 

I'd expect Cobb to get about 20 more pts than Smith and then Vincent Brown and Chris Givens to be about level. Even though its not an unbelievable amount I think this trade was improving the cheating team by about 120 pts

[ForzaPackers]

This trade doesn't seem like collusion, but with the past history of these two doing things I can understand the issue you have. I don't see where you posted the scoring and both teams rosters that would also help in evaluating the trade.

 

 

Its just a standard scoring league non-PPR and 1 pt for every 10 yards and 6 for TD etc.

 

Ttheir rosters for them positions are:

QB M Vick, B Weeden

RB A Peterson, D Wilson, E Lacy, R Hillam, D Thomas

WR Andre Johnson, R Cobb, D Avery, Vincent Brown

 

QB M Stafford, C Palmer

RB Steven Jackson, Chris Johnson, Marshawn Lynch

WR D Amendola, T Smith, A Dobson, C Givens, S Rice, K Wright

[Chuckyone]

I

Last year these same 2 owners traded Adrian Peterson for Chris Givens and Sidney Rice, the lad who got Peterson is the same lad getting Stafford etc. in this years one.

 

 

Peterson for Givens and Rice last year, then this trade this year between the same two guys?

 

Oh hell that's totally above board, the guy who acquired Givens and Rice received "potential" for fugg sakes and that's worth ALOT. I mean come on the guy who received Givens and Rice probably rated them higher than you or I that's all.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Chuckyone