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.

I hate to post another one of these threads but.... (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hue G

Footballguy
OK, here's the deal a trade between two brothers at the trade deadline

brother #1 trades Fred Taylor to brother #2 for Derrick Ward

Brother #1 is out of the playoff picture so he's done brother #2 is in and has Brandon Jacobs so now he gets Ward IF is goes through

My question is that it's a 12 team league and after 5 veto votes from other owners the decision lay on myself (I'm the commish) well we got the 5 votes, I could have voted but I didn't.

Do I veto this trade? Does it seem that bad?

 
:bye: @ "unfair".
Player values are perfectly fair. But trade still smells of collusion. Who said it was unfair? My league has rules against collusion, not stupid trades. If that trade was done I would overturn not cuz it was unfair but cuz it is 100% collusion (unless the guy getting Taylor also owns MJD).
 
LOL @ owners in the hunt being upset that another one in the hunt makes a move. THis happens in so many leagues and other start to scream like babies. It's a fair trade as both are back up's, but Fred Taylor maybe getting a few more carries (if healthy). This is a minor trade and to get upset at this means those leagues members need to find a new hobby as FF is clearly too much for them to handle.

Of course, the two being brothers led them to an easier time of them talking and negotiating. The fault is on the league allowing the two siblings, not on them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:popcorn: @ "unfair".
Player values are perfectly fair. But trade still smells of collusion. Who said it was unfair? My league has rules against collusion, not stupid trades. If that trade was done I would overturn not cuz it was unfair but cuz it is 100% collusion (unless the guy getting Taylor also owns MJD).
Read the title of the thread:
I hate to post another one of these threads but...., unfair trade need opinions
 
How is this unfair or potential collusion? There's not a huge difference between Ward and Taylor according to most rankings.

Is it collusion now for an owner to trade for a RB that backs up someone already on his roster?

Please let this stand.

 
How is this unfair or potential collusion? There's not a huge difference between Ward and Taylor according to most rankings.Is it collusion now for an owner to trade for a RB that backs up someone already on his roster?Please let this stand.
Cuz Jacobs may not play this weekend and team in the hunt needs him.
 
OK, here's the deal a trade between two brothers at the trade deadlinebrother #1 trades Fred Taylor to brother #2 for Derrick WardBrother #1 is out of the playoff picture so he's done brother #2 is in and has Brandon Jacobs so now he gets Ward IF is goes throughMy question is that it's a 12 team league and after 5 veto votes from other owners the decision lay on myself (I'm the commish) well we got the 5 votes, I could have voted but I didn't.Do I veto this trade? Does it seem that bad?
Fair trade on paper but the fact that one is out of the playoff picture and the other is in is a little off. I think there was a thread floating around earlier about the problem in redraft leagues of a team out of the playoff picture trading w/ one that is in the playoff hunt. Tough to say what to do though since it is within the trade deadline.
 
OK, here's the deal a trade between two brothers at the trade deadline

brother #1 trades Fred Taylor to brother #2 for Derrick Ward

Brother #1 is out of the playoff picture so he's done brother #2 is in and has Brandon Jacobs so now he gets Ward IF is goes through

My question is that it's a 12 team league and after 5 veto votes from other owners the decision lay on myself (I'm the commish) well we got the 5 votes, I could have voted but I didn't.

Do I veto this trade? Does it seem that bad?
Did you word this correctly? In your 2nd line, you are saying that the brother out of playoff contention is receiving Derrick Ward in the trade. Then in the next line you are saying that the brother in playoff contention is receiving Derrick Ward.I assume Brother #2 is the one trading Fred Taylor to Brother #1 for Derrick Ward since that is the only thing that could be construed as unfair here.

I think there is collusion here (since Fred Taylor sucks based on his production this season, while Ward posts decent numbers in a similar role), but this trade is not that inequitable to veto. Like others have said, your trade deadline should be earlier (or perhaps there should be a new rule next season stating that any team out of the playoff picture is not allowed to trade).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fair trade that circumstantial evidence suggests was a result of collusion. Certainly warrants further review...

 
If it's not a keeper league, the team out of the playoffs should not be allowed to trade. Period.

The guy needed Ward since Jacobs might sit...he's still in contention.

I'd veto it.

 
OK, here's the deal a trade between two brothers at the trade deadline



brother #1 trades Fred Taylor to brother #2 for Derrick Ward

Brother #1 is out of the playoff picture so he's done brother #2 is in and has Brandon Jacobs so now he gets Ward IF is goes through

My question is that it's a 12 team league and after 5 veto votes from other owners the decision lay on myself (I'm the commish) well we got the 5 votes, I could have voted but I didn't.

Do I veto this trade? Does it seem that bad?
Is this a misprint? If Fred Taylor is traded to brother #2, then that means brother #2 receives Fred Taylor. Assuming it is...its a fair trade on the surface with likely collusion in my opinion considering all the circumstances (brothers, Jacobs hurt, #1 is out of the playoffs)

In my league we do a similar veto system with the commish deciding supposedly based on the reaction from the league and the circumstances. I don't need 100% proof to overturn the trade. If something looks fishy I'll ask them to first explain their positions. If brother #1 can't explain why in the world he would want Fred Taylor, I'll tell them to rework the deal. Maybe brother #1 has MJD, like a previous poster said. Or maybe he wants to turn around and trade him to the MJD owner.

In my league, I was just offered steve smith for cotchery. I have no idea why the other owner would propose this, but I gladly accepted. Mabye he was down on smith after two bad games. Maybe he likes cotchery's playoff schedule. It's obviously not collusion (unless he didn't tell me he was trying to help me out!) Its hard to figure out intent, which is why having a ruling commissioner (and maybe a backup or two) is a good idea.

 
How is this unfair or potential collusion? There's not a huge difference between Ward and Taylor according to most rankings.Is it collusion now for an owner to trade for a RB that backs up someone already on his roster?Please let this stand.
Cuz Jacobs may not play this weekend and team in the hunt needs him.
In response to blackjack23, I agree this trade isn't that horrible. It just stinks since a team out of contention is making a trade that everyone knows is not improving his team since Ward has produced almost 4 points a game better than Taylor in most leagues (while both have similar roles as the #2 RB to a stud), but Ward obviously is the better RB if his starter gets hurt (given that he is on the #1 rushing offense in the league).So, while I have no problem with people making bad trades.... I don't like the fact that a trade like this is being made in week 12. I would let it stand as commish, but I would fix it so that this situation is not possible in future season since everyone knows it was done as a favor and not to improve both teams.
 
if you are going to allow trades this late in the season and allow hopeless teams to trade, then this is exactly the kind of trade I would expect to see happen. Its not against any rules and if this trade is vetoed, you pretty much have to veto all trades late in the season. I would let it go and fix the rules for next season.

 
If these guys are cheating as you suspect, why not just boot them from the league? How is stopping a trade a deterrent for cheaters? Why would you want cheaters in your league?

Tha's why I've never understood the whole voting on trades thing. Of course there will be winners and losers to most trades, thats inevitable. Are you voting to stop unbalanced trades or are you voting to stop collusion? If you want to stop unbalanced trades, maybe you should look at each owners starting lineup each week to make sure you agree with who they are starting too. If you are voting to stop collusion, again why would you want cheaters in your pool? Never mind voting, if they are colluding give them the boot.

 
answer this and you will find your answer....

Would you have allowed this trade in week 1 or week 2?

it is not up to you or anyone else to factor in the circumstances (he has Jacobs) or time of the season when it comes to deciding if a trade should be allowed or not.....

 
If these guys are cheating as you suspect, why not just boot them from the league? How is stopping a trade a deterrent for cheaters? Why would you want cheaters in your league?

Tha's why I've never understood the whole voting on trades thing. Of course there will be winners and losers to most trades, thats inevitable. Are you voting to stop unbalanced trades or are you voting to stop collusion? If you want to stop unbalanced trades, maybe you should look at each owners starting lineup each week to make sure you agree with who they are starting too. If you are voting to stop collusion, again why would you want cheaters in your pool? Never mind voting, if they are colluding give them the boot.
That's more or less where I'm at. I think if a vote is made it should be for whether collusion is going on and further punishment is required.For the OP, as commish you need to go to both owners separately and ask them to explain in their own words how the trade is to their own team's advantage. Then you need to decide if you believe them or if you think they colluded. I tend to favor the test of "could a reasonable person believe this trade is to his benefit, and that it took place at a reasonable market value." That doesn't mean do I agree with them, but is it believable to me that someone else could believe it.

 
Very even trade. Both players have equal value.

We created a consolation braket in my main league that determines the draft order of the teams that don't make the playoffs. So, whoever wins the consolation braket gets the 1st overall pick and the 2nd place gets the 2nd pick, and so on. It worked out great as every team has an interest in maintaning and improving their team up until the very end.

 
In terms of pure player value the trade is fine.

The fact that the team that's out of the playoffs is sending an important handcuff to a playoff team is a problem. In my leagues we have a standing rule & reminders go out every year that trading stops at the deadline or when you're eliminated from the playoffs, whichever comes first. If there's nothing like this in place in your league than I don't really see a clear rationale for undoing it.

I'm also confused by you refusing to vote. If you didn't think the trade was within the spirit of the rules, voting against it seems to be the way to have taken care of it within your rules.

 
Many people have said they think the trade is fair value. While I agree that voting shouldn't be based on value, you can use this to determine if collusion might be going on. Can any of you say WHY you think Fred Taylor is equal value? In my league, Ward has over twice the points. Ward has all the upside. Honestly, who here would take Taylor over Ward? If you would, I've got a spot for you next year. This trade is very suspicious. If the Taylor receiver can't defend his side he shouldn't be invited back next year.

 
Fair....

Here's what you call collusion, or an unfair trade. This trade was accepted in my league last night, and promptly vetoed!!

Owner #1 is 4-8 and out of it. He offers Marion Barber III to Owner #2(his dad, who is 6-6 and still has a chance to finish in the $$$) for JASON ELAM!!!

 
Fair....Here's what you call collusion, or an unfair trade. This trade was accepted in my league last night, and promptly vetoed!!Owner #1 is 4-8 and out of it. He offers Marion Barber III to Owner #2(his dad, who is 6-6 and still has a chance to finish in the $$$) for JASON ELAM!!!
Ha. That doesn't mean that collusion can't be subtle.
 
Seems fair to me. The fact that the one person has Jacobs and might need Ward (or Bradshaw) this weekend does not make the trade collusion. Fred Taylor had 12 carries last week and Ward had 11. Taylor has consistently continued to get carries and Ward has not. Ward will likely once again share the load this weekend even with Jacobs out.

Not only is this perfectly fair and not collusion, it is very likely that in the long run Taylor will be more valuable for the rest of the year.

 
If these guys are cheating as you suspect, why not just boot them from the league? How is stopping a trade a deterrent for cheaters? Why would you want cheaters in your league?

Tha's why I've never understood the whole voting on trades thing. Of course there will be winners and losers to most trades, thats inevitable. Are you voting to stop unbalanced trades or are you voting to stop collusion? If you want to stop unbalanced trades, maybe you should look at each owners starting lineup each week to make sure you agree with who they are starting too. If you are voting to stop collusion, again why would you want cheaters in your pool? Never mind voting, if they are colluding give them the boot.
That's more or less where I'm at. I think if a vote is made it should be for whether collusion is going on and further punishment is required.For the OP, as commish you need to go to both owners separately and ask them to explain in their own words how the trade is to their own team's advantage. Then you need to decide if you believe them or if you think they colluded. I tend to favor the test of "could a reasonable person believe this trade is to his benefit, and that it took place at a reasonable market value." That doesn't mean do I agree with them, but is it believable to me that someone else could believe it.
Greg...you are usually spot on with many of your replies, but in this case I can't agree with the last part of your post...I do not think a commish has to get with owners and make them publicly justify why they want to trade....they do not hve to justify why they think it is an advantage to their team......if you came to me and asked me to do that I would say "none of your business"....or "maybe I know somethng you don't and I ain't gonna tell you".....if nothing else, all I have to say is "I think player A has will outperform player B".....or " to me player A has more value than player B"....are you going to argue with me about that.....because then it just comes down to an opinion.....and whose to say your opinion as commish is better than mine......a commish's job is to protect the league from wrong doing (collusion) and then you step in, not to make a team justify every trade that is made.....and especially just because we think Jacobs may not play and he is trying to get a handcuff or something.....

if you're the commish and you think it is a clear case of collusion, step in.....otherwise stay the #### out

the timing of the trade (late season) and circumstances (Jacobs on a roster/injury) should have nothing to do with this trade...

 
In terms of pure player value the trade is fine.

The fact that the team that's out of the playoffs is sending an important handcuff to a playoff team is a problem. In my leagues we have a standing rule & reminders go out every year that trading stops at the deadline or when you're eliminated from the playoffs, whichever comes first. If there's nothing like this in place in your league than I don't really see a clear rationale for undoing it.

I'm also confused by you refusing to vote. If you didn't think the trade was within the spirit of the rules, voting against it seems to be the way to have taken care of it within your rules.
the fact that one of the owners has Jacobs has nothing to do with the trade.......you can't allow that to become part of the equation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top