FastSteve Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 League I play in 10 team. Hybrid PPR with every 5 catches 3 points, start 2 QB, 2 RB, the flex is NON RB Alex Smith & Matt Forte for RG3 & LeVeon Bell Both QB will be nothing more than the backup's in this 2 starting QB league. So would you call this a BS trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gballi15 Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Touchy subject haha. No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 League I play in 10 team. Hybrid PPR with every 5 catches 3 points, start 2 QB, 2 RB, the flex is NON RB Alex Smith & Matt Forte for RG3 & LeVeon Bell Both QB will be nothing more than the backup's in this 2 starting QB league. So would you call this a BS trade? Why do you think this trade is BS? I see one owner trading for safer steady options while the other is taking larger risks for potential upside. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeonardPart6 Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Touchy subject haha. No. Very touchy subject lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Seriously - WTF??? Def. and I need to start some sort of commissioner certification program before we let all these young guys feel they have the power to make decisions for all teams. I would like to hear the reasoning on why this trade should be vetoed - and no, I don't wanna hear "cause two people are making their teams better, me not being one of them.' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotpimp Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 It's not far-fetched.. seems legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastSteve Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 Seriously - WTF??? Def. and I need to start some sort of commissioner certification program before we let all these young guys feel they have the power to make decisions for all teams. I would like to hear the reasoning on why this trade should be vetoed - and no, I don't wanna hear "cause two people are making their teams better, me not being one of them.' I am not some "young" guy & I would never veto some trade because I felt another team was getting better & mine is not one of them. I am actually the commissioner in another league I play in & would like to find some way to stop people from veto'n for that reason. You have no clue what you are running your mouth about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastSteve Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 Here is what I left out. The people involved in the trade are husband & wife. And here is what someone else had to say which agree with This trade is so ridiculous lopsided, and the QB's are nothing more than window dressing. In a comparison the consensus have Bell as an overall 5 to 8th pick (with being out). Forte comes in around 32-42 based on format. Charles ranking would have made this trade realistic as ranking are about the same (would address the issue that will be brought up about the team's situation which was drafted that way). Factor in Forte was not even the 1st RB drafted on his team while Bell was drafted 1st identifies the value ranking by the drafters. As for the window dressing one could argue RG3 is the winner based the upside that Smith does not have. I believe if this trade was put up on an ESPN Fantasy show it would be ripped apart. For this, I completely veto this trade and another deal of this nature will make me consider discontinuing playing in such a league. This is my view I must express on this. *** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpingJehosaphat Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Post the two teams' rosters and the reason why you think you should veto it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeonardPart6 Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Not everyone asking about vetoing trades is a commissioner either. Some leagues have every owner vote and trades are only vetoed if the majority of owners vote that way, otherwise the trade goes through. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastSteve Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 Post the two teams' rosters and the reason why you think you should veto it. Look up for reasoning. Is roster really important considering that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpingJehosaphat Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 "RG3 has the upside Alex Smith doesn't have" ... and Alex Smith doesn't have the low floor/downside/injury risk that RG3 has. Forte also has a 3-week production lead on Bell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpingJehosaphat Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Look up for reasoning. Is roster really important considering that? Yes!!! Otherwise you're just arguing about potential production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastSteve Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) "RG3 has the upside Alex Smith doesn't have" ... and Alex Smith doesn't have the low floor/downside/injury risk that RG3 has. Forte also has a 3-week production lead on Bell. OK, I understand that. Which the person that made that statement did bring up to me personally but still made such statement. However do you feel this a veto'able trade based on collusion given the facts? Edited September 7, 2016 by FastSteve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpingJehosaphat Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) OK, I understand that. However do you feel this a veto'able trade based on collusion given the facts? Hell no!! If this were in the middle of the season, you can look at their actual performances and evaluate. But we're in the preseason. And how are you going to prove collusion without looking at both rosters? Edited September 7, 2016 by JumpingJehosaphat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotpimp Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) The real reason people are pissed is because it is the husband and wife trading because that could very well be husband and husband as the wife is a trojan horse host for the husband to pull levers and push buttons of the management of the Wife's team. So the husband receives Bell? Either way, you talk to both parties and let them know that this seems fishy to let fly do it behind the scenes first. There is no way to tell if this trade in the end gives anyone a distinct advantage so I don't know that I would Veto, but husband and wife trades especially this early should be questioned with those two parties. Edited September 7, 2016 by robotpimp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Again, on the surface it looks like someone wants safe and steady rather then boom or bust. That being said, I avoid leagues with married couples owning separate teams. No matter what they do there is always going to be the appearance of a conflict of interest. He/She didn't start this WR in his/her lineup against him/her cause their married. The trade is one sided/collusion. He/She is running his/her team! If you know the people and don't think they would do anything shady I would approve the trade. Otherwise you are going to have to approach them for their individual reasonings in order to be able to provide them to the masses. Good luck with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastSteve Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 OK start 2 QB, RB, WR, D/ST & K, the flex is WR/TE, the bench is 5 with no IR Team with Forte QB Derick Carr, Matt Ryan, Alex Smith RB LaMarr Miller, Forte DeAngelo Williams TJ Yeldon WR Julio Jones Amari Cooper Jarvis Landry Josh Gordon TE Gary Barnidge Jared Cook K Justin Tucker Josh Brown D/ST KC BUF Team with Bell QB Aaron Rodgers Jameis Winston RG3 RB LeVeon Bell Jamaal Charles Jeremey Langford Ameer Abdullah WR Kelvin Benjamin Jordam Matthews Allen Hurns TE Jason Witten Tyler Eifert Zach Ertz K Cairo Satnos Blair Walsh D/ST LAR BAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Team with Bell really does need a start these next couple weeks with Bell suspension and JC looking like he's sitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotpimp Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 looks even more legit with Charles and Bell on the same squad not starting week1. I'd be desperate too. Maybe Charles makes more sense maybe not because if Sunday Andy say's Charles is going to suit up Bell team now has Forte and Charles to choose from which match-up-wise would make more sense than carrying Bell with all the questions surrounding that Langford/Abdullah backfield. I would not Veto this trade and probably let it go. I mean the Forte team has DeAngelo it couldn't make more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotpimp Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Team with Bell really does need a start these next couple weeks with Bell suspension and JC looking like he's sitting. exactly.. very legit when you look at both teams needs. Homeboy that's mad and wants to quit the league needs to chill the F out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpingJehosaphat Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 looks even more legit with Charles and Bell on the same squad not starting week1. I'd be desperate too. Maybe Charles makes more sense maybe not because if Sunday Andy say's Charles is going to suit up Bell team now has Forte and Charles to choose from which match-up-wise would make more sense than carrying Bell with all the questions surrounding that Langford/Abdullah backfield. I would not Veto this trade and probably let it go. I mean the Forte team has DeAngelo it couldn't make more sense. Yep. There is reasoning behind the trade and both teams benefit. Context is important when evaluating trades. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I would veto because two people are making their teams better, me not being one of them 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotpimp Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I would veto because two people are making their teams better, me not being one of them haha. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpingJehosaphat Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Other owners are pissed because the husband-wife owners has the advantage in being able to talk to each other all the time. Now the other owners could start talking to the wife more but there might be some accusations of, ahem, other improprieties. 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.