Is This A Fair Trade for Ray Rice?

[jbran23]

The guy trading Rice needs WR help in the worst way. His #1 WR is Pierre Garcon if that gives you an idea. He was offered Hakeem Nicks and Clinton Portis for Rice. Is it fair? Veto worthy?

[yolkix]

The person getting Rice is deff getting the better end of the deal but I dont know that i would veto this since it is apparent the guy needs help at WR.

[0-16 Again]

hell no it is not fair but unless you can prove someone is cheating you can't vote

 

as long as both teams feel they are improving their teams it does not matter if a trade is fair or not

 

help

 

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=332137

[lkirc]

No trade is veto worthy unless you know that owners are working together to stack one team.

 

Everyone has different ideas of player's value going forward.

 

A fair trade is any trade both owners believe, based on their valuation of the players involved, makes their team better. You said it yourself that the Rice owner needs WR help in the "worst way". This trade helps him in that regard. Right?

 

Owners should be able to manage their teams however they want.

[jbran23]

Well, I would be the person getting Rice and I wasnt even the one who offered the trade. It was offered to me. Given the fact that I am super deep at WR (teams in my sig.) I really want this trade to go through but given my leagues track record of vetoing trades I give it about a 20% chance. Does anyone have vetoing guidelines I could post in my league?

[0-16 Again]

Guidelines are simple:

 

If no one is cheating

if both teams believe they are improving their team

 

NO WAY anyone can veto

 

It is not about whether you think it is fair, it is about what the owners of the teams feel is the best thing to do with the team THEY control

Edited September 24, 2010 by 0-16 Again

[lkirc]

Guidelines are simple:

 

If no one is cheating

if both teams believe they are improving their team

 

NO WAY anyone can veto

 

It is not about whether you think it is fair, it is about what the owners of the teams feel is the best thing to do with the team THEY control

 

This all depends on what the league rules state. Most leagues that vote on trades (which I will never be a part of) state simply that each trade must be "approved" by a certain majority. They don't usually spell out what criteria those voters should use.

 

If you are worried about a veto because of your league history and "really" want this trade to go through, then sweeten the deal for the other owner to make it more likely it won't be vetoed.

[teewhy237]

Not really much else to add here. I don't know why leagues have the veto option in the first place. There's to many factors that can sway a vote. As already stated, if cheating can't be proved, then you can't veto.

[jbran23]

This all depends on what the league rules state. Most leagues that vote on trades (which I will never be a part of) state simply that each trade must be "approved" by a certain majority. They don't usually spell out what criteria those voters should use.

 

If you are worried about a veto because of your league history and "really" want this trade to go through, then sweeten the deal for the other owner to make it more likely it won't be vetoed.

 

How do the leagues that you are in handle trades?

 

The thing is, I shouldnt have to sweeten the deal when that was the trade offered to ME. lol. So I should be like, well I know you offered me this trade but I dont think its good enough so Im going to throw in an extra player just to be nice. I hear what you are saying though.

[lkirc]

That is exactly what you should do.

 

"Hey buddy, I like your offer, but I am willing to offer you a little more to make sure these idiots don't veto this trade........"

 

How my leagues handle trades is we all put our big boy pants on and run our own teams however we want to. Everyone pays the same amount of money and everyone is trying to win. As a commish, I do have the power to veto trades, but never have had to use that power. If a trade appears way out of whack, I ask both owners to tell me why they feel the trade makes their team better. I have also sugeested to owners to sweeten a deal for the integrity of the league. They usually are willing to listen to reason and make subtle adjustements for the sake of league peace.

[jbran23]

Thanks for the advice Ikirc.

 

Our league definitely needs to change our trading policies. There have been numerous trades in the past to get vetoed because A) people were worried it made on team too strong so they were worried their team would have a harder time winning or 2) they are looking at just the fantasy points for each player and not understanding the true value the players hold to each team. You end up not being able to do a deal that both teams involved want to make because no one else in the league wants it to happen.

Edited September 24, 2010 by jbran23

[teewhy237]

Completely agree with you Ikirc. My buddy runs 3 of the 4 leagues I'm in and are run the same way with the exception of requesting other players be thrown in to make it look good. If a trade looks suspicious, teams involved are asked to post on board how the trade is supposed to improve the respective teams. Leagues with voting panels and such are nothing but Chaos waiting to happen because we all have different opinions on what a players worth.

[lkirc]

Your league does have to change their trade policy or eventually there will be a controversy that will tear the league apart. Voting doesn't work for the reasons you stated. It is human nature to have your own best interests at heart. If you think a trade makes your division rival stronger and you have a chance to block it you will vote against it. You will probably make some calls to your league mates to try to get them to vote against it as well. Think this may make some people mad?

 

If you have a strong commish who people trust, turn it over to him/her to deal with these situations. You obviously can't make these changes this season, but start talking about them for next year...

 

Good luck.

[jbran23]

Out of any of your opinions if you saw this trade would you automatically assume something shady was going on? Im just getting my argument ready for when and if it gets vetoed.

[angelitto]

i am a skins fan and portis is at best a flex starter who trips on grass and goes down. Nicks has proven he can catch TDs but Steve smith is still getting more targets, even in the redzone, but eli and him havent been able to connect.

 

So:

 

Looking at the future i see portis losing carries to williams but getting the redzone touches on an average offense. Nicks has potential to be a WR1 but with the injuries i dont think he will and will be outproduced by smith from here on out. On the other hand, Rice has faced two of the toughest defenses and his QB didnt help him at all by throwing all those picks. Now, i see rice getting back into form.

 

Therefore:

 

by a large margin Rice >>> portis/nicks

 

Now if it was someone along the lines of forte/PT/mccoy/mendenhall instead of portis than it would be a fair trade.

[flemingd]

Out of any of your opinions if you saw this trade would you automatically assume something shady was going on? Im just getting my argument ready for when and if it gets vetoed.

The only way I'd assume something shady was if one of the players involved was out for the year/career - and even then only in a redraft. There is no sure thing in FF so you have to let owners work within what they believe.

[flemingd]

i am a skins fan and portis is at best a flex starter who trips on grass and goes down. Nicks has proven he can catch TDs but Steve smith is still getting more targets, even in the redzone, but eli and him havent been able to connect.

 

So:

 

Looking at the future i see portis losing carries to williams but getting the redzone touches on an average offense. Nicks has potential to be a WR1 but with the injuries i dont think he will and will be outproduced by smith from here on out. On the other hand, Rice has faced two of the toughest defenses and his QB didnt help him at all by throwing all those picks. Now, i see rice getting back into form.

 

Therefore:

 

by a large margin Rice >>> portis/nicks

 

Now if it was someone along the lines of forte/PT/mccoy/mendenhall instead of portis than it would be a fair trade.

I am a Baltimore fan and I see Rice as a #2 RB with a potentially beastly schedule, a QB that's not protecting him with a downfield passing attack, and under a coaching staff that has shown signs of going with whoever has the hot hand on any given day. On the flip side, I see Nicks as the next great WR. Check what Plaxico did in this system with a much younger Eli operating it. Nicks is younger, faster, and just as athletic as Plaxico was - and has a much better QB throwing him the ball. Throw in Portis who, although probably washed up, is still the only semblance of a RB in WAS (note the 2 TD's this weekend - strong flex numbers).

 

So

 

Looking at the future, I see Rice at risk for losing goal line carries to either McGahee or McClain, plain old workload if McClain/McGahee gets hot (happened multiple times last year), and catches due to the fact that Rice gets so much more attention as a receiver with no real deep passing game in town. On the other hand, Nicks has produced 4 TD's in two weeks despite an injury that cost him a full week of practice, looks like the kind of physical presence that CB's are going to struggle with handling all year (and next, and next), in an offense that cannot generate much with the running game and therefore is going to be throwing a lot anyway - and a very competent QB with long history of making his WR into fantasy monsters.

 

Therefore:

 

I say this trade is Hicks/Portis > Rice by a hair.

 

See the problem?

[angelitto]

I am a Baltimore fan and I see Rice as a #2 RB with a potentially beastly schedule, a QB that's not protecting him with a downfield passing attack, and under a coaching staff that has shown signs of going with whoever has the hot hand on any given day. On the flip side, I see Nicks as the next great WR. Check what Plaxico did in this system with a much younger Eli operating it. Nicks is younger, faster, and just as athletic as Plaxico was - and has a much better QB throwing him the ball. Throw in Portis who, although probably washed up, is still the only semblance of a RB in WAS (note the 2 TD's this weekend - strong flex numbers).

 

So

 

Looking at the future, I see Rice at risk for losing goal line carries to either McGahee or McClain, plain old workload if McClain/McGahee gets hot (happened multiple times last year), and catches due to the fact that Rice gets so much more attention as a receiver with no real deep passing game in town. On the other hand, Nicks has produced 4 TD's in two weeks despite an injury that cost him a full week of practice, looks like the kind of physical presence that CB's are going to struggle with handling all year (and next, and next), in an offense that cannot generate much with the running game and therefore is going to be throwing a lot anyway - and a very competent QB with long history of making his WR into fantasy monsters.

 

Therefore:

 

I say this trade is Hicks/Portis > Rice by a hair.

 

See the problem?

 

so then you would give up Rice for portis and nicks??? personally, if this was really your team. you would hit the accept button and rely on portis as your RB2?

 

I was offered MJD/colston for AP. I turned it down because although i thought it was about even i didnt need colston.

[flemingd]

so then you would give up Rice for portis and nicks??? personally, if this was really your team. you would hit the accept button and rely on portis as your RB2?

 

I was offered MJD/colston for AP. I turned it down because although i thought it was about even i didnt need colston.

If I had Garcon as my #1 WR and this was putting points into my starting lineup I would hit accept in under 3 seconds, especially if I had a decent RB alternative on the bench.

[jbran23]

Love your opinions from both perspectives guys but the question in this thread has actually shifted from whether its a fair trade to whether its a vetoable trade? More than likely my league is going to shoot it down and I want an argument ready for when they do.

[angelitto]

honestly, i am leaning towards it being vetoed because Rice is a big name and top 5 pick in redraft leagues. You could argue by telling them to stop looking at just the name and really look into the value of both guys as it stands right now. I do agree with fleming that anything can happen in FF. and you can also say that it wasnt you who came up with the trade therefore the other owner must know what he is doing, probably overvaluing portis. lol imo

[flemingd]

Love your opinions from both perspectives guys but the question in this thread has actually shifted from whether its a fair trade to whether its a vetoable trade? More than likely my league is going to shoot it down and I want an argument ready for when they do.

Because it puts points in the other guy's lineup.

 

Because it's my (his) team and you have to allow me to run it as such.

 

Because if you don't it's my last year in this league.

 

Because the guy that traded Forte for DeSean Jackson and Miles Austin after week 2 last year (and got ridiculed - for about 2 weeks) said to allow it.

 

Take your pick.

Edited September 24, 2010 by flemingd

[lkirc]

Love your opinions from both perspectives guys but the question in this thread has actually shifted from whether its a fair trade to whether its a vetoable trade? More than likely my league is going to shoot it down and I want an argument ready for when they do.

 

Rather than wait for the veto, just make the trade more equitable to avaoid a problem. don't be so greedy.