M33ZY Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I gave Cedric Benson and Mike Tolbert and got Ray Rice and Sam Bradford (throw in) i think it is even for both sides and i am taking a huge risk buying low on rice. someone else in the league wanted rice but was lowballing way more, and might think it is unfair. what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikinglion Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I wouldn't protest it if it was in my league. I like Rice better, but both Benson and Tolbert seems a reasonable price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M33ZY Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 ugh. people in my league are making an issue out of it like i cheated. i have a conscience so i want both teams to get a good deal out of this and i dont want people to think i absolutely ripped the other team off. i am also commish and put every single trade through as soon as i see it, because i believe teams have their own personal reasons for doing a trade that might not be obvious. (btw i only veto for obvious collusion, i.e chris johnson for mark clayton, haven't vetoed one yet)...i think i should explain the trade rules in a big writeup to the league but before i do... am i right on this one huddlers? any feedback is appreciated Cedric Benson and Mike Tolbert for Ray Rice...already dropped Bradford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles28 Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 My opinion on trades is that unless there is evidence of collusion, or the trade is obviously ridiculous (like Peyton Manning for Matt Leinart), it should not be vetoed. Owners should be able to make changes that they feel upgrade their own roster. In any given trade most people will look at one side as getting more benefit than the other. In this case I would not have given up Rice for those two guys, but maybe the other owner is down on Rice and thinks that Benson has more upside since he doesn't really share the backfield... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAE Commish Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Fair trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M33ZY Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 Thanks for the input guys..i'll try to explain it to my league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParLawGod Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) Show them this thread if needed...I also think it was a fair trade. Edited October 7, 2010 by ParLawGod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krans Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I think it's fair as well BUT My general view on trades is this. I don't believe in vetoes. Obviously collusion is one thing, but hopefully if you're in a league with friends no one is a big enough douchebag to worry about that. But if it's a factor I guess it's one argument. The reason I don't believe in vetoing is similar to what others have said earlier -- Everyone has their own team and should be able to do what they want. So what if there is one guy who has a "rep" for trading away stupidly or giving up players, he can be the AL Davis of the league first one to get to him should be fair game. In the NFL, lots of trades aren't seen as "equal" by other teams in the league but they don't have much of a say in it and it comes down to the two teams involved in the trade that matter. People made a big fuss last season when I bought low on Forte. Everyone whined about it but you know what? he sucked for most of the year and it ended up working out better for the guy everyone was criticizing. So you never know what will happen. Let people decide what to do with their own teams, that's why it's fantasy football, that's why it's fun. Vetoing is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 You can also bring up that McGahee had more carries, looking like the RB#1 until he got hurt last week. Something weird going on there... But ya, this trade should not be an issue. I'd be pissed off if I was on the Rice side, was down on him, and wasn't allowed to trade him away. It's not like it's a ridiculous trade by any means. People evaluate differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter1108 Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I gave Cedric Benson and Mike Tolbert and got Ray Rice and Sam Bradford (throw in) Seems quite fair to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AoDay Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Yea it's fair. People value the branded players too much these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M33ZY Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 Thanks for the replies everybody...talked to league and most people are cool with it except maybe a couple. One of the main reasons i made the trade was cause two of my starting RB's have the same bye, Week 6. The issue with the league seemed to be the ADP but i explained that when the season starts, that doesn't matter anymore. (For example Arian Foster has gone from fourth round to first round value etc.) Here are the two teams after the trade, both 1-3. Start 1 qb, 2 rb, 1 rb/wr, 2 wr, 1 te, 1 D, 1 K Team 1: QB Vick, Gradkowski RB DWilliams, Rice, Torain, McFadden, Bush WR Marshall, Jennings, Murphy, Floyd, Tate TE Celek D Falcons K Rackers Team 2 QB Schaub RB Benson, Bradshaw, Tolbert, Darby WR Fitzgerald, Ochocinco, Moore, Manningham, Williams (SEA) TE VDavis, Carlson D Bengals, Texans K Kaeding 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.