BearBroncos Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I need to get everyones perspective on this trade in my 5 man keeper league. Keep in mind, no PPR with standard scoring with a little friendly for the QB. The commish traded Fitz and McCoy and his 5th round for MJD and a 15th. The guy he traded with is a rookie to FF, taking over a decent team from last year (wasn't great). I felt that this was a HORRID trade for the owner of MJD in that Fitz will probably be, at best a top 10 WR and McCoy might be in the top 15 and the 5th he might get a a decent TE. If he had added a second, I might buy off on this. Does anyone find this trade as horrible as I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I need to get everyones perspective on this trade in my 5 man keeper league. Keep in mind, no PPR with standard scoring with a little friendly for the QB. The commish traded Fitz and McCoy and his 5th round for MJD and a 15th. The guy he traded with is a rookie to FF, taking over a decent team from last year (wasn't great). I felt that this was a HORRID trade for the owner of MJD in that Fitz will probably be, at best a top 10 WR and McCoy might be in the top 15 and the 5th he might get a a decent TE. If he had added a second, I might buy off on this. Does anyone find this trade as horrible as I do? IMO, the rookie got the better end of this deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonGhost Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 yeah i tend to agree. Depending on who he gets in the 5th round the rookie seems to have the edge. Fitz is a thoroughbred he will get his regardless of who throws him the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 not even close to a bad deal. nothing to make a stink about at all. i'm a firm believer in 2 owners being able to do whatever they want with their teams, but even if people want to play the whole "competitive balance of the league" card, this is nowhere near the worst trade i've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted August 16, 2010 Author Share Posted August 16, 2010 Maybe I'm bitter but IMHO, MJD is in the top 3 while Fitz is losing value with either QB at the helm and McCoy, well, he's just not impressive. and a 5th in a 12 man league, 5 player keeper isn't very deep. Maybe a 2nd or 3rd with the deal might be more palletable. BTW, his initial keepers he had slated were MJD, Brees, Ward, Ricky Williams, and Sanchez. Okay, I'm bitter I guess. When were trying to build up this league we have other players raping the n00bs and then they lose their bum off and don't return. Hard to build long term players this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soupcam Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 This just goes to show that any trade, no matter how balanced it may seem to others, will cause someone to cry foul. Everything you say in your post is just your personal opinion ("Fitz is losing value", McCoy, well, he's just not impressive"). What does your opinion on these players have to do with it? Look at it from a redraft ADP perspective: MJD is going round 1 top 4 pick. Fitz is going very early in Round 2. McCoy is going Round 3. So one guy is trading a 1st round player and a 15th round pick for a 2nd round player, a third round player, and a 5th round pick. And you think the guy getting the 2nd, 3rd and 5th is getting ripped off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) this trade isn't a rape job. especially since you laid out his keepers, it makes even more sense for him. i would rather keep fitz, mccoy, brees, ward, and williams than keep sanchez when i already had brees. would i prefer the MJD side on value alone? yep. do i think it's remotely unfair? absolutely not. Edited August 16, 2010 by rhippens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Is this before or after keepers are locked in? If before, are there costs for keepers and/or time limits on how long players can be kept? If before, what were the likely keepers before the trade, what are they after the trade/ Lineup requirements? Need that info to fully evaluate the trade, but given his list of keepers in your follow up post and assuming it is not a start 2 QB league, I can certainly understand his unloading MJD for multiple starters and a significant pick improvement. Probably not the approach I would take, but an understandable move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted August 16, 2010 Author Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) Is this before or after keepers are locked in? Before If before, are there costs for keepers and/or time limits on how long players can be kept? There are. Actually here is the conudrum and before I started venting, I should had spelled this out. Currently, but soon to change (per the commish), we can assign a 2 1 years, 2 2 years and 1 3 year contract. The cost is what the players were drafted at initially example being AP was drafted in 08 in the second but under a 3 year contract so he cost to hold him is a second round. The commish decided to change the rules to make it easier to understand for n00b players so now he has changed the rules that 5 players will cost you to hold are your 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th round picks. If you only hold 4, you lose your 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th, etc. Romo and MJD would have under the old rules would have costed him 2 1st round picks to hold. Now, it will cost him his 2nd and 4th rounds. If before, what were the likely keepers before the trade, what are they after the trade/ Lineup requirements? Line up requirments are: 1QB 2RB 2WR 1TE 1FLX (QB/WR/RB/TE/K/D) 1K 1D Original keepers under previous rules; MM: Rogers (2nd), AP, Marshall (8th), Romo (1st) & Fitz (3rd or 4th) Semp: Brees (2nd), Ward (4th), Sanchez(10th), R. Williams (9th), MJD (1st) I think what pisses me off is that we discussed these rule changes on Friday which I apposed but I was out gunned then this trade happened on Sunday. As I said, I'm probably bitter but I see some hanky panky going on. Sorry for leaving out, well, some pretty important information regarding the trade in general. Fixed Brees which was drafted in the 2nd. Edited August 16, 2010 by BearBroncos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) . When were trying to build up this league we have other players raping the n00bs and then they lose their bum off and don't return. Hard to build long term players this way. Owners like that need to be shot on sight. Edited August 16, 2010 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted August 16, 2010 Author Share Posted August 16, 2010 Owners like that need to be shot on sight. ROLF, nah, your okay taz! Dynasty is a whole different ball game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I don't see anything wrong with this trade either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted August 16, 2010 Author Share Posted August 16, 2010 I think I'm just PO'd about the rule change that now allows him to keep MJD without costing an additional 1st round pick. And, I'm venting! Sorry for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I think I'm just PO'd about the rule change that now allows him to keep MJD without costing an additional 1st round pick. And, I'm venting! Sorry for that! You're not gonna care when MJD pulls a Forte this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojanmojo Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 This trade is fine. Only extremely rarely should trades be overturned. Owners should be free to make bad trades as long as no collusion is occuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted August 17, 2010 Author Share Posted August 17, 2010 This trade is fine. Only extremely rarely should trades be overturned. Owners should be free to make bad trades as long as no collusion is occuring. I never suggested that the trade be over turned. I just thought it was crappy. But I'm less bitter today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onbrake Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 rookie wins this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 BearBroncos seems to have come around on this but I cast my vote with the majority: move along, people...nothing to see here. 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.