Commish Question (1 Viewer)

[Fantaholic]

I feel that this is a silly question, but I need to hear from some outsiders to confirm. I approved a trade involving Tom Brady and Reggie Bush for Drew Brees and Frank Gore.

Seemed pretty fair to me, however I've been getting all kinds of flack from the league saying that this was lop-sided. We all live in New England and all love Brady and the Pats, so I think that this is clouding the league's judgement a bit. Do any of you think that this trade is unfair in any way?

 

[Ignoramus]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

 

[tomarken]

That trade is perfectly fair.

 

[renesauz]

Wrong forum for one.

For another...it isn't your job to judge whether a trade is even or not, but whether there was cheating or not.

FWIW...I see nothing wrong with this trade. While most would say the Brady recipiant got the upper hand, a strong argument could be made for it's fairness. Rosters and PPR or not have to be looked at...but based on the limited info here, there's no reason not to approve it.

 

[the rover]

You're right. It's a silly question.

 

[Black]

I feel that this is a silly question, but I need to hear from some outsiders to confirm. I trade was approved a trade involving Tom Brady and Reggie Bush for Drew Brees and Frank Gore. Seemed pretty fair to me, however I've been getting all kinds of flack from the league saying that this was lop-sided. We all live in New England and all love Brady and the Pats, so I think that this is clouding the league's judgement a bit. Do you any of you think that this trade is unfair in any way?

Look at what rounds they are drafted in this year.Brees 3rd, Gore 1st/2ndBrady 1st, Reggie Bush 3rd/4th.seems fair.

 

[Fantaholic]

Wrong forum for one.

For another...it isn't your job to judge whether a trade is even or not, but whether there was cheating or not.

FWIW...I see nothing wrong with this trade. While most would say the Brady recipiant got the upper hand, a strong argument could be made for it's fairness. Rosters and PPR or not have to be looked at...but based on the limited info here, there's no reason not to approve it.

Just to clarify. I would never veto a trade like this. I'm just looking for thoughts out there that as to why there should even be a question about this trade.

 

[Jersey35]

First off, I'm not sure why this is considered the wrong forum.

But, based on what you've indicated, there's no collusion occuring so the trade needed to be approved.

Now, is the trade a relatively even trade? You betcha!

 

[comfortably numb]

Wrong forum for one.

For another...it isn't your job to judge whether a trade is even or not, but whether there was cheating or not.

FWIW...I see nothing wrong with this trade. While most would say the Brady recipiant got the upper hand, a strong argument could be made for it's fairness. Rosters and PPR or not have to be looked at...but based on the limited info here, there's no reason not to approve it.

Just to clarify. I would never veto a trade like this. I'm just looking for thoughts out there that as to why there should even be a question about this trade.

There shouldn't be, but they probably feel 1 team gave the best QB coming of one of the best seasons in recent memory and one seriously hyped RB.As a commish, anytime someone asks me about a lopsided deal and whether it should stand, I ask them for the evidence the 2 teams are cheating, otherwise I don't want to entertain anything else.

 

[AnonymousBob]

People whine about all kinds of things. More power to them but they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[brednbuddah]

nothing wrong with this trade.

 

[-baller]

frankly, I thought the brees recipient got the better deal, and I'm a brady owner.

not that I'd ever trade him....

 

[StackTheLine]

frankly, I thought the brees recipient got the better deal, and I'm a brady owner.not that I'd ever trade him....

Acreed.

 

[Kai's Hero]

I feel that this is a silly question, but I need to hear from some outsiders to confirm. I approved a trade involving Tom Brady and Reggie Bush for Drew Brees and Frank Gore. Seemed pretty fair to me, however I've been getting all kinds of flack from the league saying that this was lop-sided. We all live in New England and all love Brady and the Pats, so I think that this is clouding the league's judgement a bit. Do any of you think that this trade is unfair in any way?

I would rather have Brees and Gore in my line up than Brady and Bush. You're welcome.

 

[OU#1]

All trades should go through unless collusion can be proven. PERIOD

 

[Varmint]

All trades should go through unless collusion can be proven. PERIOD

absolutely....In 10 years as a Commissioner I have never even considered vetoing a trade.

The Commissioner is not there to make sure that trades are "fair".

What is "fair" to one may not be "fair" to another.

A Commissioner is there to make sure that there is no "collusion"......or "cheating"

..and if you have owners who would "cheat"....you need new owners.

 

[Pipes]

According to a typical cheat sheet this trade is #1 QB and #17 RB for the #4 QB and #6 RB and people are complaining?

 

[GregR_2]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could. That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This trade is ridiculous. It's totally unfair. One side is making out like a bandit.

I'm not really sure which side that is...but when I figure it out I'll be even more upset.

 

[the rover]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could. That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point of the post you responded to.

 

[Pictus Cat]

All kinds of leagues and how owners want trades handled.

My league will cry, but veto votes are rare.

Trade is fine to me.

Not even close to cheating.

I'ld take the Brees side I think.

Scoring would be nice.

 

[sterjs]

I feel that this is a silly question, but I need to hear from some outsiders to confirm. I approved a trade involving Tom Brady and Reggie Bush for Drew Brees and Frank Gore. Seemed pretty fair to me, however I've been getting all kinds of flack from the league saying that this was lop-sided. We all live in New England and all love Brady and the Pats, so I think that this is clouding the league's judgement a bit. Do any of you think that this trade is unfair in any way?

The league is ######ed, nothing sketchy about this trade.

 

[Keepers]

I rather be on the Brees/Gore side of the trade.

 

[comfortably numb]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could. That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point of the post you responded to.

:whoosh:

 

[zed2283]

All trades should go through unless collusion can be proven. PERIOD

:whoosh: All future trade questions should refer to this posting first. I don't know why people even ask.

 

[Horses Mouth]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could. That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

:whoosh:

 

[mightyeskimo]

I feel that this is a silly question, but I need to hear from some outsiders to confirm. I approved a trade involving Tom Brady and Reggie Bush for Drew Brees and Frank Gore. Seemed pretty fair to me, however I've been getting all kinds of flack from the league saying that this was lop-sided. We all live in New England and all love Brady and the Pats, so I think that this is clouding the league's judgement a bit. Do any of you think that this trade is unfair in any way?

I don't see anything wrong with this deal. Lopsided deals happen all the time.

 

[Balance]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could. That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

Dude?

 

[GregR_2]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could. That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

Dude?

I don't get the comments back at me. What did I say that wasn't spot on?

 

[jhib]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could. That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

Dude?

I don't get the comments back at me. What did I say that wasn't spot on?

Nothing, really. Good advice.Just trying reading Ignoramus' post again, this time with a tone of sarcasm.

 

[Fantaholic]

Thanks for all your responses guys. I just wanted to confirm that the masses believed that this trade was completely legit.

 

[GregR_2]

The best way to judge if a trade is fair is to figure out how many fantasy points each player involved in the trade will score this season. Once you know that, it should be pretty easy to see who is getting the short end of the stick.

Small nitpick. No, actually, as I start to type more, large nitpick. That isn't a good way to evaluate a trade.You need to consider the entire roster and resulting starting lineups before and after, not the total points of the players traded. I can trade you a 300 point QB for a 180 point TE. It could be that trade will end up being a -30 points on the year for my team and a +30 for you... or it could end up being a +30 for me and a -30 for you, or it could end up that both of us improve by 30 points (which would make it a very even deal). It would depend entirely on what else changes in our starting lineup because of the trade. Even a straight adding up like you suggest of VBD value won't work. How good the starter that you're replacing, or how bad the backup you now may have to start, also play a role.

And that still doesn't take into account other things, like averting risk of injury, or an even bigger thing like the true market value of the players. If no one is wanting to trade away RBs, you are going to have to give up more for one than if there are 3 RB rich teams who are all looking to trade one to upgrade some other position.

To give a real life example, a few years back some of the owners in my league complained when I traded Duce Staley (originally an 8th round pick) for Jeff Garcia (originally a 2nd round pick) I told them, "Name a single team in the league that Garcia is an upgrade for at QB, who can afford to give up a better RB than Staley." There wasn't one. Staley was by far the best RB this team was going to be able to get for Garcia (who was his bench QB as his backup was Bledsoe who ended up #1 that year).

In short, he traded Garcia for the absolute most any team would give him. That's the definition of an owner having made the best trade for himself that he could.

That's part of the problem with how people evaluate trades. They try to judge them by what they think a nameless"someone" SHOULD be willing to give up, rather than judging it by what real owners actually ARE willing to give up. And it's one reason I won't play in a league that allows owners to cast vetoes.

Dude?

I don't get the comments back at me. What did I say that wasn't spot on?

Nothing, really. Good advice.Just trying reading Ignoramus' post again, this time with a tone of sarcasm.

I see people seriously espousing or using that way of evaluating trades a lot, including on this board. So I see no reason to think he isn't in earnest when he suggests it. If he meant it as sarcasm he should have included some wording that at least suggests it.Further, for this specific situation, what he said isn't a horrible way of evaluating the trade, so again, no reason I see he shouldn't be taken seriously. My nitpick is more with the wording that implies it is a good method for evaluating trades in general. In this specific case, since both sides are giving/getting the same positions of QB and RB and it is probably safe to assume all the players are starters based on ADP, then doing what he said actually does get you a decent start in evaluating the trade. Though it still misses stuff like what Brady's true market value might be in this league.