What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Big Ben for Pierre Thomas? (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ice Cream Man

Footballguy
I think I'm voiding this trade. But I'd like to know what other people think of it. The player giving up Ben also has Manning/Pennington (excess QBs), and has McGahee/Jamal at RB (max start 2 RBs.. and both have already had their bye weeks, so I don't see a need at RB).

Now I know one can't expect trades to reflect player value, but here's the deal: Ben was a 2 round pick and Thomas was a free agent (waiver wire). That's pretty unbalancing right there. This trade just looks bad. But on top of that, in our league, free agents that were not drafted originally cannot be retained for next season -- so Pierre's value looks almost negligible, even in the case that Deuce retires/becomes ineffective for 2009. As a new owner, it's possible the owner doesn't know this rule. My first step is to talk to him about this.

But even in the case he was knowledgeable about the rule, has anyone vetoed a trade that is just unbalancing, even if not collusive?

 
How sure are you that Thomas is going to assume Reggie's role? I would let things unfold to see who will see the bulk of the action in N.O.

 
Big Ben was dropped a couple weeks ago in my auction league for Kyle Orton. This might have been a dumb move (and it probably was) but thus far the results are good. Point being, sitting on a guy all year because he should be worth more doesn't help your team win now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark Kamenski can you prove its collusion? if not, you cannot guarantee that Thomas won't do a Melwede Moore and explode for huge fantasy points, can you ?

A Commish cannot keep teams from making "bad" trades and you might think this one is, but you cannot overturn it unless you know they're trying to cheat

 
Mark Kamenski can you prove its collusion? if not, you cannot guarantee that Thomas won't do a Melwede Moore and explode for huge fantasy points, can you ?A Commish cannot keep teams from making "bad" trades and you might think this one is, but you cannot overturn it unless you know they're trying to cheat
:goodposting: Look, you can do a lot of things as commish, but that doesnt mean you SHOULD do them. You cant fix "stupid", right? And who's to say this one wont pan out for the guy getting Thomas down the line. I mean, its the freaking Saints...so who the hell knows.If there is no obvious collusion, you gotta let this one stand. If you get involved here, where does it end? And as a commish...that's toxic.
 
I guess you have to consider what's best for the owner. Sitting Ben behind Peyton or potentially starting Pierre while Bush is hurt.

 
I think I'm voiding this trade. But I'd like to know what other people think of it. The player giving up Ben also has Manning/Pennington (excess QBs), and has McGahee/Jamal at RB (max start 2 RBs.. and both have already had their bye weeks, so I don't see a need at RB).

Now I know one can't expect trades to reflect player value, but here's the deal: Ben was a 2 round pick and Thomas was a free agent (waiver wire). That's pretty unbalancing right there. This trade just looks bad. But on top of that, in our league, free agents that were not drafted originally cannot be retained for next season -- so Pierre's value looks almost negligible, even in the case that Deuce retires/becomes ineffective for 2009. As a new owner, it's possible the owner doesn't know this rule. My first step is to talk to him about this.

But even in the case he was knowledgeable about the rule, has anyone vetoed a trade that is just unbalancing, even if not collusive?
Probably THE biggest mistake in FF. Once the draft is over, none of that matters. And who are you to judge if his RB's are good enough? Let HIM run HIS team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While it looks bad to you, the two owners who made the trade apparently did so because they felt the trade improved their own team, right now. They aren't looking back to the draft and/or waiver wire to compare these two players and neither should you. Unless you can definatively prove collusion, you need to let it ride. One of these guys may look like a genius in a few weeks, you never know.

FWIW, I think this trade looks fine.

As commissioner, it is imperative that you make sure you don't micromanage everything, including other peoples teams. Every owner is entitled to make his or her own mistakes.

One other note: You did not mention if veto's are covered in your league rules. If they are not, you cannot do anything about this trade. Your rules should also clearly spell out when it is appropriate for the commissioner to intervene on the leagues behalf. If they don't, it should be addressed with specific rule changes prior to next year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"free agents that were not drafted originally cannot be retained for next season"

dumb rule. Glad mine doesn't do that or I would have lost Roddy.

 
"free agents that were not drafted originally cannot be retained for next season"dumb rule. Glad mine doesn't do that or I would have lost Roddy.
Yeah, I found this rule odd also. Apparently the only way you are rewarded for working the waiver wire is whatever production you can get out of the players this year. If they are a stud, you don't get to reap the rewards into the future for finding them. Everyone gets a shot at them next year. What if they are a better keeper than the ones you drafted?
 
I can't count the number of times that I've posted disparraging comments in a "should I void this trade" thread.

Having said that, this one actually approaches de facto evidence of collusion. If you assume that it's fine, what if an owner trades Drew Brees for Michael Bush? Is there ever a trade which on it's face can't be approved?

As a commish, I would reluctantly approve this trade, but it's reasonable to question it.

 
I can't count the number of times that I've posted disparraging comments in a "should I void this trade" thread.Having said that, this one actually approaches de facto evidence of collusion. If you assume that it's fine, what if an owner trades Drew Brees for Michael Bush? Is there ever a trade which on it's face can't be approved? As a commish, I would reluctantly approve this trade, but it's reasonable to question it.
Come on.. Big Ben is NOT Drew Brees. And Piere Thomas is NOT Michael Bush. Pierre might be huge while Reggie misses time, and the guy giving up Ben was already set at QB. Your example is apples and oranges.Besides. If Brees was putting up Ben's numbers, and both fargas and McFadden were hurt, then YES I could see the trade you mentioned too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top