What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

commish question on trade (1 Viewer)

BustedKnuckles

Footballguy
This is a trade that 2 owners in our league have offered each other...i am just looking for insight as to whether this trade is acceptable or not...any time L.T is involved you have to really pay attention value wise...my opinion is the team in this trade that ends up with L.T makes out the most as the other team basically trades L.T away for L.White as the rest of the players kind of even themselves out.

Any thoughts would be welcome as this trade has yet to be approved, thanks guys.

TEAM A

·Davenport, Najeh RB PIT

·Gonzalez, Tony TE KC

·Harrison, Marvin WR IND

·Holmes, Priest RB KC

·Taylor, Fred RB JAC

·White, LenDale RB TEN

·Wright, Jason RB CLE

TEAM B

Alexander, Shaun RB SEA

·Grant, Ryan RB GB

·Green, Ahman RB HOU

·Johnson, Chad WR CIN

·Morency, Vernand RB GB

·Tomlinson, LaDainian RB SD

·Turner, Michael RB SD

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a trade that 2 owners in our league have offered each other...i am just looking for insight as to whether this trade is acceptable or not...any time L.T is involved you have to really pay attention value wise...my opinion is the team in this trade that ends up with L.T makes out the most as the other team basically trades L.T away for L.White as the rest of the players kind of even themselves out.Any thoughts would be welcome as this trade has yet to be approved, thanks guys. TEAM A·Davenport, Najeh RB PIT·Gonzalez, Tony TE KC·Harrison, Marvin WR IND·Holmes, Priest RB KC·Taylor, Fred RB JAC·White, LenDale RB TEN·Wright, Jason RB CLETEAM BAlexander, Shaun RB SEA·Grant, Ryan RB GB·Green, Ahman RB HOU·Johnson, Chad WR CIN·Morency, Vernand RB GB·Tomlinson, LaDainian RB SD·Turner, Michael RB SD
Whaddya mean, is it "acceptable"? Are you asking if you should vote against it for the purposes of preventing it from occuring? Aboslutely not. I don't see any proof here that this is collusion or "tanking" by either team. It doesn't matter if you think one team is getting a "better" deal, the only reason you veto a trade is when "cheating" is involved.EDIT: You just posted that TEAM B is out of contention - that DOES suggest that we look a little deeper before judging. Anything else we should know? For example, is this dynasty/keeper? Does TEAM B need a TE?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You wasted your time bringing this here.

Guarantee you the consensus will be let it alone.

And the consensus will be correct.

 
redraft? dynasty? keeper?

what are starting requirements? rest of the roster?

all of those would help put it into context.

on the surface, i'd rather have the LT side of the deal, but you have to let this one go.

 
You wasted your time bringing this here.Guarantee you the consensus will be let it alone.And the consensus will be correct.
Thats fine and i agree the trade is ok...there are 3 of us who decide on the trades just so no funny stuff can happen, i just asked so i can tell the other 2 commish`s i agree the trade is fair.If the consenses is it`s ok than great...thanks for your time.
 
Personally, I think this trade is bogus but would have to let it through too. LT? I know he's having a down year so far but come playoff time he'll be relied upon heavily.

 
Nothing conclusive here in my opinion
Let me mention that team B is bsically out of playoff contention...team A is still in it.
Well, that changes things slightly. Basically out of playoff contention or completely out of playoff contention?I've been commish for 14 years and I can tell you that there is not one team, that is completely out of playoff contention in week 10, that is looking to make a legitimate trade. Can you veto it? No. Should you maybe reconsider your trade deadline, possibly.
 
LEAVE IT ALONE .. you are not allowed to MICRO MANAGE another mans team .. terrible
Relax bro`...just getting a general feel as L.T is involved and the guy who`s trading him away needs a miracle to make the playoffs...the trade makes no sense as far as helping him.
 
This is the email he sent to me from the other commish after i said it was fair trade in my eyes... :lmao:

I totally disagree. This is as one sided a trade as I've ever seen...and trust me I've been involved in many one sided deals.

What is John giving up to get LT, Alexander and Chad Johnson?

Davenport, Najeh RB PIT Back UP Running Back.

·Gonzalez, Tony TE KC Tight End...enough said.

·Harrison, Marvin WR IND Injured Wide Receiver

·Holmes, Priest RB KC Back up RB, who's got the nod the rest of the way...but he's on hit away from being back on IR

·Taylor, Fred RB JAC Running back by committe

·White, LenDale RB TEN This guy is OK

·Wright, Jason RB CLE Give me a break... Jamal Lewis's #####!

I don't like this one at all, I'm not saying I'm going to vote no, but we really need to look at this...Rei is all done and he's dumping without eveing knowing he's dumpoing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't fathom moving LT and Chad Johnson for what he got in return in that deal. Did the LT owner shop him around to the entire league? Surely someone would have paid more...looks pretty bad to me...

 
What does team B gain from this? If they are out of the playoff picture and you're playing in a redraft, this becomes a harder question to answer. If it's a keeper/dynasty or if team B is not mathematically eliminated from the playoff picture I see absolutely no reason why you would even think twice about a veto.

It's not the worst trade I've ever seen.

 
BustedKnuckles said:
This is a trade that 2 owners in our league have offered each other...i am just looking for insight as to whether this trade is acceptable or not...any time L.T is involved you have to really pay attention value wise...my opinion is the team in this trade that ends up with L.T makes out the most as the other team basically trades L.T away for L.White as the rest of the players kind of even themselves out.Any thoughts would be welcome as this trade has yet to be approved, thanks guys. TEAM A·Davenport, Najeh RB PIT·Gonzalez, Tony TE KC·Harrison, Marvin WR IND·Holmes, Priest RB KC·Taylor, Fred RB JAC·White, LenDale RB TEN·Wright, Jason RB CLETEAM BAlexander, Shaun RB SEA·Grant, Ryan RB GB·Green, Ahman RB HOU·Johnson, Chad WR CIN·Morency, Vernand RB GB·Tomlinson, LaDainian RB SD·Turner, Michael RB SD
Looks like a DUMP of players to me to help someone out or someone is ABSOLUTELY clueless - lol. 1. M.Harrison is hurt / garbage this year & P.Holmes wont last more than 1 game.2. Basically Team A is giving up Gonzalez / White for C.J / LT, not to mention that Grant has potential to be good.Not an even TRADE at all, not even close if you look deep enough.
 
What does team B gain from this? If they are out of the playoff picture and you're playing in a redraft, this becomes a harder question to answer. If it's a keeper/dynasty or if team B is not mathematically eliminated from the playoff picture I see absolutely no reason why you would even think twice about a veto. It's not the worst trade I've ever seen.
It`s a re-draft with up to 2 franchise players optional.the guy who owns L.T is in second to last place....he would have to run the table and get help.The guy who wants L.T said he`s looking to add L.T so he can franchise him .
 
How anyone can look at this trade and say it should be vetoed is beyond me. No one except the OP knows who else is on the roster, scoring system or ANYTHING else about the league. Even if you gave me all the information about the teams, owners, what place each owner is in, scoring system, shoe size, etc. I would still allow the trade. We had a very "lopsided" trade a few weeks ago in my big money league where an owner gave up FWP and Steve Smith to get Adrian Peterson. At that time people were saying the guy that gave away FWP and SS got screwed. Looks like that turned out ok for him. Unless you have a crystal ball and know that Harrison will not return to form, Holmes won't light it up, Fatdale won't finish the rest of the season as a top 10 back (I think he will), Alexander will return to form, etc., etc., etc. Then you should NOT veto the trade.

Also, just a hunch but does this other commish who does not like the trade happen to be in the same division as the owner who is getting the better end? Does he play him over the rest of the season? Is he on the fringe of making the playoffs and needs someone to lose? Sounds like sour grapes to me. That's usually what it is when people start to cry about a trade.

Good luck but if you can't trust the guys in your league then they shouldn't be in the league. If they are not cheating then it's not collusion. It's just a difference of opinion on player's worth.

 
How anyone can look at this trade and say it should be vetoed is beyond me. No one except the OP knows who else is on the roster, scoring system or ANYTHING else about the league. Even if you gave me all the information about the teams, owners, what place each owner is in, scoring system, shoe size, etc. I would still allow the trade. We had a very "lopsided" trade a few weeks ago in my big money league where an owner gave up FWP and Steve Smith to get Adrian Peterson. At that time people were saying the guy that gave away FWP and SS got screwed. Looks like that turned out ok for him. Unless you have a crystal ball and know that Harrison will not return to form, Holmes won't light it up, Fatdale won't finish the rest of the season as a top 10 back (I think he will), Alexander will return to form, etc., etc., etc. Then you should NOT veto the trade.

Also, just a hunch but does this other commish who does not like the trade happen to be in the same division as the owner who is getting the better end? Does he play him over the rest of the season? Is he on the fringe of making the playoffs and needs someone to lose? Sounds like sour grapes to me. That's usually what it is when people start to cry about a trade.

Good luck but if you can't trust the guys in your league then they shouldn't be in the league. If they are not cheating then it's not collusion. It's just a difference of opinion on player's worth.
What week was this, if it was with-in the past 4 weeks, that looks very fair to me!! Just my opinion.Fantasy football is all about guessing what they will do in the future and what have they done l8tly. So, yes I think 9 out of 10 ppl in FF would agree that SA is done, MH is done (& even if hes not, Wayne is the man in IND), and Fatdale WILL NOT finish in the TOP 10.

To let a trade like this go thru, is not being FAIR to the rest of the league that cannot vote. If its a trade that seems fishy, unfair, or just toooooo close to call - then let everyone in the LEAGUE except for the "2" players involved VOTE on it. That will help give you peace of mind and that way everyone is involved and you will know first hand if ppl are going to burst their bubble!

Good Luck!

 
BustedKnuckles said:
This is a trade that 2 owners in our league have offered each other...i am just looking for insight as to whether this trade is acceptable or not...any time L.T is involved you have to really pay attention value wise...my opinion is the team in this trade that ends up with L.T makes out the most as the other team basically trades L.T away for L.White as the rest of the players kind of even themselves out.Any thoughts would be welcome as this trade has yet to be approved, thanks guys. TEAM A·Davenport, Najeh RB PIT·Gonzalez, Tony TE KC·Harrison, Marvin WR IND·Holmes, Priest RB KC·Taylor, Fred RB JAC·White, LenDale RB TEN·Wright, Jason RB CLETEAM BAlexander, Shaun RB SEA·Grant, Ryan RB GB·Green, Ahman RB HOU·Johnson, Chad WR CIN·Morency, Vernand RB GB·Tomlinson, LaDainian RB SD·Turner, Michael RB SD
I would usually follow the typical posting line here by saying to leave it alone but this is either collusion or Team B's owner is very, very stupid. Sometimes in fantasy sports you must give more perceived value then you get in return because you are hurting in other areas but if Team B is virtually eliminated then this is fishy. Team A is giving 2 studs (White & Gonzo), 1 injured ex-stud and 4 backup RBs to get 2 Super Studs, 3 starting RBs and 2 backup RBs. In our money league either one of two things would occur here....we veto the deal or if the owner of Team B is really just this stupid and has shown a habit for making poor trades like this then he would be voted out of the league! A trade need not be equal but the owner needs to be attempting to better this team otherwise in this instance it is BS.
 
What does team B gain from this? If they are out of the playoff picture and you're playing in a redraft, this becomes a harder question to answer. If it's a keeper/dynasty or if team B is not mathematically eliminated from the playoff picture I see absolutely no reason why you would even think twice about a veto. It's not the worst trade I've ever seen.
It`s a re-draft with up to 2 franchise players optional.the guy who owns L.T is in second to last place....he would have to run the table and get help.The guy who wants L.T said he`s looking to add L.T so he can franchise him .
I see no reason to stop this from going through.
 
How anyone can look at this trade and say it should be vetoed is beyond me. No one except the OP knows who else is on the roster, scoring system or ANYTHING else about the league. Even if you gave me all the information about the teams, owners, what place each owner is in, scoring system, shoe size, etc. I would still allow the trade. We had a very "lopsided" trade a few weeks ago in my big money league where an owner gave up FWP and Steve Smith to get Adrian Peterson. At that time people were saying the guy that gave away FWP and SS got screwed. Looks like that turned out ok for him. Unless you have a crystal ball and know that Harrison will not return to form, Holmes won't light it up, Fatdale won't finish the rest of the season as a top 10 back (I think he will), Alexander will return to form, etc., etc., etc. Then you should NOT veto the trade.

Also, just a hunch but does this other commish who does not like the trade happen to be in the same division as the owner who is getting the better end? Does he play him over the rest of the season? Is he on the fringe of making the playoffs and needs someone to lose? Sounds like sour grapes to me. That's usually what it is when people start to cry about a trade.

Good luck but if you can't trust the guys in your league then they shouldn't be in the league. If they are not cheating then it's not collusion. It's just a difference of opinion on player's worth.
What week was this, if it was with-in the past 4 weeks, that looks very fair to me!! Just my opinion.Fantasy football is all about guessing what they will do in the future and what have they done l8tly. So, yes I think 9 out of 10 ppl in FF would agree that SA is done, MH is done (& even if hes not, Wayne is the man in IND), and Fatdale WILL NOT finish in the TOP 10.

To let a trade like this go thru, is not being FAIR to the rest of the league that cannot vote. If its a trade that seems fishy, unfair, or just toooooo close to call - then let everyone in the LEAGUE except for the "2" players involved VOTE on it. That will help give you peace of mind and that way everyone is involved and you will know first hand if ppl are going to burst their bubble!

Good Luck!
Kind of proved my point here. You are saying it should have been vetoed in week 3 but not in week 8? And this is because YOUR perception of the players has changed? That's what makes it fair now but not then? Also FWIW in our scoring system White is currently 15th. Ahead of him are Ronnie Brown, who he will pass. LJ who he will possible pass because of injury and Lamont Jordan who is also hurt and he will most likely pass. That efectively puts him in 12th and 20 points from 10th place. Maybe not as far fetched as you think.

ETA I am not the only one that thinks Fatty will be good the rest of the way in http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=362159

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Fatty will be good the rest of the way as well but Ryan Grant could be even better with the schedule they have.

 
I think Fatty will be good the rest of the way as well but Ryan Grant could be even better with the schedule they have.
Sure he could. My whole point was not that the trade is 100% even. My point is that everyone values players differently and no one knows what will happen in the future. Just because you might not make the same trade gives you no right to veto.
 
I think Fatty will be good the rest of the way as well but Ryan Grant could be even better with the schedule they have.
Sure he could. My whole point was not that the trade is 100% even. My point is that everyone values players differently and no one knows what will happen in the future. Just because you might not make the same trade gives you no right to veto.
When money is involved owner's will collude...fact of life. Just as leagues have rules about certain undroppable players there is a double standard that should be used when trading those same players. I may think Ryan Grant is the greatest thing on earth but trading him straight up for LT would be insane. Using that same example....if two weeks ago I suddenly traded LJ for Ryan Grant it may seem like a shark move now but it should have been vetoed then! Ultimately at the end of all this we all have different opinions and as such I believe no single person should be able to veto a trade.... we always play in 12 team, two division leagues and we require 6 vetoes to void a trade. The theory is that at least one member of the opposite division must agree with the veto and not just members of one particular division who doesn't like the power shift. Since using this policy we have only had one voided trade in the past 6-7 years and that was this past year in baseball when an owner traded Johan for Suppan & Aaron Hill.
 
Bad Trade.

Sounds like a 2 keeper with option to draft instead of keep.

2nd to last looking to be trading into contention for last next year.

I would get his money for next year now.

If he is willing to do that, thank the donor. No worries.

If he says he is not coming back, this adds to the probability of collusion.

Ultimately, you have to ask your league if this is the kind of trades you want in it. Set a precedent.

Better is to have owners that won't take or make these trades in the first place.

Bad owners ruin leagues.

Don't get too upset to start over without him when nobody wants to take his team.

Get some one that is better than half your league and ethical to replace him for the startover.

PS: A fun aside is to have a clown league to send these guys too. Don't play in it, but check in for the ridiculous stories now and then (so and so traded for all players from the same NFL team, the league combined to make two uber teams...)

 
I agree. Bad trade. Especially since one team is out of playoff contention.

This is a tank job. Harrison and Holmes are smokescreens.

 
I think Fatty will be good the rest of the way as well but Ryan Grant could be even better with the schedule they have.
Sure he could. My whole point was not that the trade is 100% even. My point is that everyone values players differently and no one knows what will happen in the future. Just because you might not make the same trade gives you no right to veto.
When money is involved owner's will collude...fact of life. Just as leagues have rules about certain undroppable players there is a double standard that should be used when trading those same players. I may think Ryan Grant is the greatest thing on earth but trading him straight up for LT would be insane. Using that same example....if two weeks ago I suddenly traded LJ for Ryan Grant it may seem like a shark move now but it should have been vetoed then! Ultimately at the end of all this we all have different opinions and as such I believe no single person should be able to veto a trade.... we always play in 12 team, two division leagues and we require 6 vetoes to void a trade. The theory is that at least one member of the opposite division must agree with the veto and not just members of one particular division who doesn't like the power shift. Since using this policy we have only had one voided trade in the past 6-7 years and that was this past year in baseball when an owner traded Johan for Suppan & Aaron Hill.
So you agree that the ADP for FWP and Steve Smith trade should have been vetoed in week 3? Yikes.No offense meant here but I am so glad that I don't play in any leagues with owners like you guys who feel like thier opinion is more important than the person who owns the team. I am quite sure the people who disagree with me would never want to be in a league that I commish with such a hands off attitude either. Two very different schools of thought of the kind of leagues we want to be in I guess.
 
BustedKnuckles said:
Fantaholic said:
Nothing conclusive here in my opinion
Let me mention that team B is bsically out of playoff contention...team A is still in it.
than this is the league fault for not having a rule in place that stops owner from trading who are out of the playoff picture
 
In our redraft league we have a rule that as soon as a team is eliminated from play-off contention, they are barred from making trades. They can still make waiver and free agent moves until the end of the regular season. If this is a redraft league then this is indeed a dump trade, because the eliminated team cannot benefit. That being said, if this is a dynasty league then it becomes harder to judge.

 
Bogus Trade.

Veto is right away.

A good commish can look at the team that is getting the better deal.

If it's a team that is done trading good players to teams left...RED FLAG!

If a better team wants LD, they should give a lot for him.

They have much more to give. They just tried to pull a fast one on you and the rest of the league.

Send them packing.

When a better team kills on a deal like that, it is very simple.

Veto it.

If they want LD they need to give something for him.

That is one of the most bogus deals I've seen.

Playoff team steals all the good players of a bottom finisher.

His team is better, correct?

Then he can give something.

That one deal would ruin the league.

The best advice I can give you after years and years as commish?

Look who is getting the better deal.

Better teams can give more, because they have more.

Tell them to go back to the drawing board. And come up with something more fair to the rest of the league.

Another red flag is the 7 for 7.

No one can possibly grasp it all. In this case one team is trying to take all of his good players and give him the 7 he would have to drop.

Bogus.

Tell them they can submit it with less players.

Easy call for me. once I check the standings.

 
Seems a little lopsided. I know all leagues are different, but it would take a lot more than that to pry LT away from the owner my league.

 
This is the email he sent to me from the other commish after i said it was fair trade in my eyes... :yes:

I don't like this one at all, I'm not saying I'm going to vote no, but we really need to look at this...Rei is all done and he's dumping without eveing knowing he's dumpoing.
If he doesn't know it, then it's obviously NOT collusion. End of inquiry.
 
If he doesn't know it, then it's obviously NOT collusion. End of inquiry.

Is there a rule that trades can only be vetoed when collusion is present?

I hope not.

It is a bogus trade that completely ruins the league.

Veto it.

 
This is one of the worst trades I've ever seen. First, I would confront both owners individually about the trade. I would have no problem vetoing it after that.

 
Today, I'd rather have Team B but tomorrow that could change.

Would you want your league to veto this trade for you?

Why shouldn't we give each owner the opportunity to manage or mismanage their team anyway they think is right for their team? Isn't that what happens in the NFL?

The only question should be,,,Is it collusion??? NO

Is it mismanagement??? Probably but we shouldn't be able to legislate against that unless you want to crawl up the shorts of every lopsided trade and in reality there is no such thing as a completely equal trade. Additionally, even the trade that looks "fair" in "your" eyes today won't stay that way and one team will emerge as the winner of the "fair" trade.

Everybody stop being the trade/thought police unless you think that it's OK for the league to pull this crap on you.

Fact is that everybody had a chance to trade for the Team B/LT and nobody else did it. But that makes the league unbalanced....so what, it will be harder for you to win your league. Nobody is saying that the rest of your league can't go after another owner in a similar situation that will mismanage his team as well.

 
If Team B is out of playoff contention, and you can keep 2 franchise players, what exactly is he getting in this trade to give away LT and Chad Johnson as his 2 franchise players?

 
Trade was approved and i`ll tell you why....it actually made the team getting L.T weaker heading into the playoffs...he has no other rb`s besides L.T and his schedule is brutal and he faces tenn. in the first round. The other team gets L.White who has a cakewalk leading into the playoff`s if he makes it(highly unlikely)...in IMO team A kinda screwed himself but will have L.T to franchise. Chad J is no lock to light it up as he has`nt done much so far.

 
Trade was approved and i`ll tell you why....it actually made the team getting L.T weaker heading into the playoffs...he has no other rb`s besides L.T and his schedule is brutal and he faces tenn. in the first round. The other team gets L.White who has a cakewalk leading into the playoff`s if he makes it(highly unlikely)...in IMO team A kinda screwed himself but will have L.T to franchise. Chad J is no lock to light it up as he has`nt done much so far.
Glad to hear you guys came to your senses.ETA: actually this reasoning kind of pisses me off. you think the trade helps Team LT and you want to veto. Now that you decide it hurt Team LT is is approved? That is some self serving commissioner action.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to thank everyone for your input as it help a great deal...this is why i love this site.......knowledgeable football fans...good job guys(and ladies) :lol:

 
Trade was approved and i`ll tell you why....it actually made the team getting L.T weaker heading into the playoffs...he has no other rb`s besides L.T and his schedule is brutal and he faces tenn. in the first round. The other team gets L.White who has a cakewalk leading into the playoff`s if he makes it(highly unlikely)...in IMO team A kinda screwed himself but will have L.T to franchise. Chad J is no lock to light it up as he has`nt done much so far.
Glad to hear you guys came to your senses.ETA: actually this reasoning kind of pisses me off. you think the trade helps Team LT and you want to veto. Now that you decide it hurt Team LT is is approved? That is some self serving commissioner action.
whatever..........they wanted to trade and according to alot of people it was a fair trade...if the team`s want to ''mis-manage'' than have at it i guess...as long as it is not cheating...i personally think it was a risky trade.We did`nt approve it because it was a risky trade but because it was`nt collusion.I guess one cant win either way.
 
Trade was approved and i`ll tell you why....it actually made the team getting L.T weaker heading into the playoffs...he has no other rb`s besides L.T and his schedule is brutal and he faces tenn. in the first round. The other team gets L.White who has a cakewalk leading into the playoff`s if he makes it(highly unlikely)...in IMO team A kinda screwed himself but will have L.T to franchise. Chad J is no lock to light it up as he has`nt done much so far.
Glad to hear you guys came to your senses.ETA: actually this reasoning kind of pisses me off. you think the trade helps Team LT and you want to veto. Now that you decide it hurt Team LT is is approved? That is some self serving commissioner action.
whatever..........they wanted to trade and according to alot of people it was a fair trade...if the team`s want to ''mis-manage'' than have at it i guess...as long as it is not cheating...i personally think it was a risky trade.We did`nt approve it because it was a risky trade but because it was`nt collusion.I guess one cant win either way.
Sorry I wasn't going after you. You originally posted it was ok from the beginning. This other guy who had a vote said it was unfair until he saw it played to his advantage or at least that's what it sounds like to me.
 
Trade was approved and i`ll tell you why....it actually made the team getting L.T weaker heading into the playoffs...he has no other rb`s besides L.T and his schedule is brutal and he faces tenn. in the first round. The other team gets L.White who has a cakewalk leading into the playoff`s if he makes it(highly unlikely)...in IMO team A kinda screwed himself but will have L.T to franchise. Chad J is no lock to light it up as he has`nt done much so far.
Glad to hear you guys came to your senses.ETA: actually this reasoning kind of pisses me off. you think the trade helps Team LT and you want to veto. Now that you decide it hurt Team LT is is approved? That is some self serving commissioner action.
whatever..........they wanted to trade and according to alot of people it was a fair trade...if the team`s want to ''mis-manage'' than have at it i guess...as long as it is not cheating...i personally think it was a risky trade.We did`nt approve it because it was a risky trade but because it was`nt collusion.I guess one cant win either way.
Sorry I wasn't going after you. You originally posted it was ok from the beginning. This other guy who had a vote said it was unfair until he saw it played to his advantage or at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Maybe i said it wrong...i was looking for a reason to approve it even though it had a funny smell to it and we (3 commish`s)decided that it was`nt cheating and if team A want`s to weaken his playoff chances thats his business and it only helps the other teams in contention as a side note,so as a commish he did nothing wrong but as a fellow player he only helped me by getting weaker in the playoffs...it is stratagy after all right???
 
Trade was approved and i`ll tell you why....it actually made the team getting L.T weaker heading into the playoffs...he has no other rb`s besides L.T and his schedule is brutal and he faces tenn. in the first round. The other team gets L.White who has a cakewalk leading into the playoff`s if he makes it(highly unlikely)...in IMO team A kinda screwed himself but will have L.T to franchise. Chad J is no lock to light it up as he has`nt done much so far.
Glad to hear you guys came to your senses.ETA: actually this reasoning kind of pisses me off. you think the trade helps Team LT and you want to veto. Now that you decide it hurt Team LT is is approved? That is some self serving commissioner action.
whatever..........they wanted to trade and according to alot of people it was a fair trade...if the team`s want to ''mis-manage'' than have at it i guess...as long as it is not cheating...i personally think it was a risky trade.We did`nt approve it because it was a risky trade but because it was`nt collusion.

I guess one cant win either way.
Sorry I wasn't going after you. You originally posted it was ok from the beginning. This other guy who had a vote said it was unfair until he saw it played to his advantage or at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Maybe i said it wrong...i was looking for a reason to approve it even though it had a funny smell to it and we (3 commish`s)decided that it was`nt cheating and if team A want`s to weaken his playoff chances thats his business and it only helps the other teams in contention as a side note,so as a commish he did nothing wrong but as a fellow player he only helped me by getting weaker in the playoffs...it is stratagy after all right???
You are over managing your league and you are doing it backward. What do you mean you are looking for a reason to approve the trade? Are the 3 commissioners the gods of fantasy football that know all? Let your owners manage their own teams and keep your nose out of it.
 
Trade was approved and i`ll tell you why....it actually made the team getting L.T weaker heading into the playoffs...he has no other rb`s besides L.T and his schedule is brutal and he faces tenn. in the first round. The other team gets L.White who has a cakewalk leading into the playoff`s if he makes it(highly unlikely)...in IMO team A kinda screwed himself but will have L.T to franchise. Chad J is no lock to light it up as he has`nt done much so far.
Glad to hear you guys came to your senses.ETA: actually this reasoning kind of pisses me off. you think the trade helps Team LT and you want to veto. Now that you decide it hurt Team LT is is approved? That is some self serving commissioner action.
whatever..........they wanted to trade and according to alot of people it was a fair trade...if the team`s want to ''mis-manage'' than have at it i guess...as long as it is not cheating...i personally think it was a risky trade.We did`nt approve it because it was a risky trade but because it was`nt collusion.

I guess one cant win either way.
Sorry I wasn't going after you. You originally posted it was ok from the beginning. This other guy who had a vote said it was unfair until he saw it played to his advantage or at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Maybe i said it wrong...i was looking for a reason to approve it even though it had a funny smell to it and we (3 commish`s)decided that it was`nt cheating and if team A want`s to weaken his playoff chances thats his business and it only helps the other teams in contention as a side note,so as a commish he did nothing wrong but as a fellow player he only helped me by getting weaker in the playoffs...it is stratagy after all right???
You are over managing your league and you are doing it backward. What do you mean you are looking for a reason to approve the trade? Are the 3 commissioners the gods of fantasy football that know all? Let your owners manage their own teams and keep your nose out of it.
One of the other commish`s DID NOT LIKE THIS TRADE....i saw nothing wrong with it(are you following me ?)so i was looking for something to present to the other commish so he would not have a problem with it...i told him i did`nt see anything that looked like cheating between the 2 owners involved and added that if team A wants to weaken his team thats HIS decision , so what the heck it only benefits the other teams in the long run...whats the big deal with saying that???? It had nothing to do with the final decision. We (the commish`s )didnt force these guys to do this trade, they came up with it all on there own.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top