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 traded AP (Minn) for Steve Slaton (1 Viewer)

fbcrazy

Footballguy
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).

 
I guess Chris Taylor being put on IR today has Steve Slaton value skyrocketing.
News to me that Chris Taylor was any kind of threat to Slatons production. Slaton has been a great suprise this year. But I love the ADP side of the deal. That is a slam dunk IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MisfitBlondes said:
Your post isn't clear, did you get or give AP?
It doesn't really matter. This is a great thread. :loco:
I guess Chris Taylor being put on IR today has Steve Slaton value skyrocketing.
News to me that Chris Taylor was any kind of threat to Slatons production. Slaton has been a great suprise this year. But I love the ADP side of the deal. That is a slam dunk IMO.
:mellow:
:lmao: Great thread
OK...I am not a Fantasy Shark nor am I claiming to be the brightest bulb in the pack, but I feel like something is going right over my head with this whole thread.?? Is this a joke? And did the guy get AP or Slaton? ;)
 
MisfitBlondes said:
Your post isn't clear, did you get or give AP?
It doesn't really matter. This is a great thread. :lmao:
I guess Chris Taylor being put on IR today has Steve Slaton value skyrocketing.
News to me that Chris Taylor was any kind of threat to Slatons production. Slaton has been a great suprise this year. But I love the ADP side of the deal. That is a slam dunk IMO.
:mellow:
:lmao: Great thread
OK...I am not a Fantasy Shark nor am I claiming to be the brightest bulb in the pack, but I feel like something is going right over my head with this whole thread.?? Is this a joke? And did the guy get AP or Slaton? :thumbup:
I'm hoping he got AP
 
Not sure what the big deal is here. Peterson has 75.6 pts to Slatons 73 pts in my league (and Slaton has played 1 less game). I'm sure on paper AP is the hotter name to have but so far this season they are about the same (with Slaton having a higher PPG).

 
Not sure what the big deal is here. Peterson has 75.6 pts to Slatons 73 pts in my league (and Slaton has played 1 less game). I'm sure on paper AP is the hotter name to have but so far this season they are about the same (with Slaton having a higher PPG).
While i wouldnt trade AD for Slaton, would anyone really be shocked if Slaton ends up with a similar amont of points as AD? As long as the Vikings lack a passing game, teams will continue to stack the line againt Peterson. Not to mention AD is probably a bigger injury risk with his running style and the amount of carries he gets.
 
Not sure what the big deal is here. Peterson has 75.6 pts to Slatons 73 pts in my league (and Slaton has played 1 less game). I'm sure on paper AP is the hotter name to have but so far this season they are about the same (with Slaton having a higher PPG).
Its not what they've done so far, its the potential for the rest of the year. Watch AD's numbers during the fantasy playoffs, if you got him on your team, you are golden.
 
In a PPR league, I'd probably say the owner who got Slaton got the better end of this deal. I think Slaton wins more games for you than AP does this year. He has a better chance to really help you on a given week. Talent-wise, it isn't close, but this isn't the NFL.

 
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:rolleyes: :thumbup: :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:goodposting: :goodposting: :goodposting:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=

 
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:goodposting: :football: :clap:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
crazy trade, but it is these types of trades that can win championships, not skill just through dumb luck. I traded Caddy away for T. Jones last year, bad trade for me until Caddy blew his knee out, the next day. lol
 
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:football: :clap: :clap:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
Nicely played, sir :goodposting:
 
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:goodposting: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
Yeah, well at least I have an opinion on this trade....it sucks!! Obviously all you have is a Friday night full of searching for MY old threads...... Do you think it's a good trade...Slaton for AP? Or do you prefer to use to search function again and simply comment on someone else's opinion???

These are the kind of sucker trades that ruin leagues and take out all the fun......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
I can tell you what the other owner was thinking.....,"I can't believe this moron is gonna trade me AP for Steve Slaton".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
I can tell you what the other owner was thinking.....,"I can't believe this moron is gonna trade me AP for Steve Slaton".
:goodposting:
 
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:thumbup: :yes: :clap:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
Yeah, well at least I have an opinion on this trade....it sucks!! Obviously all you have is a Friday night full of searching for MY old threads...... Do you think it's a good trade...Slaton for AP? Or do you prefer to use to search function again and simply comment on someone else's opinion???

These are the kind of sucker trades that ruin leagues and take out all the fun......
Jeebus H, you're right here posting of FBG with me on a Friday night so don't go getting your surname all hard thinking you're better than anyone else here at this time.And of course I don't think it's a good trade, name value alone should garner more in return, but let's try and be realistic. No one in their right mind thought we'd be six games into the season and see Steve Slaton average the same amount of points as Peterson is per game. If we did, he would have an ADP of around 1.03 instead of being a WW gem.

And considering Houston looks to be a good offense, is not coached by an idiot, is already past their bye week and is not QB'ed by an 80 year old man that can't get 8 out of the box, (4 things Peterson can't claim) it's quite possible that Slaton stays on pace with ADP and, in turn, out scores him rest of the way because of the extra week on the docket.

 
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
Yeah, well at least I have an opinion on this trade....it sucks!! Obviously all you have is a Friday night full of searching for MY old threads...... Do you think it's a good trade...Slaton for AP? Or do you prefer to use to search function again and simply comment on someone else's opinion???

These are the kind of sucker trades that ruin leagues and take out all the fun......
Jeebus H, you're right here posting of FBG with me on a Friday night so don't go getting your surname all hard thinking you're better than anyone else here at this time.And of course I don't think it's a good trade, name value alone should garner more in return, but let's try and be realistic. No one in their right mind thought we'd be six games into the season and see Steve Slaton average the same amount of points as Peterson is per game. If we did, he would have an ADP of around 1.03 instead of being a WW gem.

And considering Houston looks to be a good offense, is not coached by an idiot, is already past their bye week and is not QB'ed by an 80 year old man that can't get 8 out of the box, (4 things Peterson can't claim) it's quite possible that Slaton stays on pace with ADP and, in turn, out scores him rest of the way because of the extra week on the docket.
Now, was that so hard....finally admitting that some of these trades (including this one) are just plain BAD. I do agree that the "points" are about even and anything is possible going forward....but based on this logic...I could now trade Tim Hightower and Correll Buckhalter for Brian Westbrook and Joseph Addai and it would be relatively even based on "points so far" and "anything possible". Plus, if you got Westy and Addai...you could argue there is no guarantee that either one can stay healthy. Is this trade ok? Absolutely not.

Now, what to do with people in your league who make such trades? That's for another thread.....

And for the record, I'm saving up for a big Saturday night!!!! :bag:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
Yeah, well at least I have an opinion on this trade....it sucks!! Obviously all you have is a Friday night full of searching for MY old threads...... Do you think it's a good trade...Slaton for AP? Or do you prefer to use to search function again and simply comment on someone else's opinion???

These are the kind of sucker trades that ruin leagues and take out all the fun......
Jeebus H, you're right here posting of FBG with me on a Friday night so don't go getting your surname all hard thinking you're better than anyone else here at this time.And of course I don't think it's a good trade, name value alone should garner more in return, but let's try and be realistic. No one in their right mind thought we'd be six games into the season and see Steve Slaton average the same amount of points as Peterson is per game. If we did, he would have an ADP of around 1.03 instead of being a WW gem.

And considering Houston looks to be a good offense, is not coached by an idiot, is already past their bye week and is not QB'ed by an 80 year old man that can't get 8 out of the box, (4 things Peterson can't claim) it's quite possible that Slaton stays on pace with ADP and, in turn, out scores him rest of the way because of the extra week on the docket.
Now, was that so hard....finally admitting that some of these trades (including this one) are just plain BAD. I do agree that the "points" are about even and anything is possible going forward....but based on this logic...I could now trade Tim Hightower and Correll Buckhalter for Brian Westbrook and Joseph Addai and it would be relatively even based on "points so far" and "anything possible". Plus, if you got Westy and Addai...you could argue there is no guarantee that either one can stay healthy. Is this trade ok? Absolutely not.

Now, what to do with people in your league who make such trades? That's for another thread.....

And for the record, I'm saving up for a big Saturday night!!!! :bag:
Actually, the answer is easy. You trade with them.
 
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
Yeah, well at least I have an opinion on this trade....it sucks!! Obviously all you have is a Friday night full of searching for MY old threads...... Do you think it's a good trade...Slaton for AP? Or do you prefer to use to search function again and simply comment on someone else's opinion???

These are the kind of sucker trades that ruin leagues and take out all the fun......
Jeebus H, you're right here posting of FBG with me on a Friday night so don't go getting your surname all hard thinking you're better than anyone else here at this time.And of course I don't think it's a good trade, name value alone should garner more in return, but let's try and be realistic. No one in their right mind thought we'd be six games into the season and see Steve Slaton average the same amount of points as Peterson is per game. If we did, he would have an ADP of around 1.03 instead of being a WW gem.

And considering Houston looks to be a good offense, is not coached by an idiot, is already past their bye week and is not QB'ed by an 80 year old man that can't get 8 out of the box, (4 things Peterson can't claim) it's quite possible that Slaton stays on pace with ADP and, in turn, out scores him rest of the way because of the extra week on the docket.
Now, was that so hard....finally admitting that some of these trades (including this one) are just plain BAD. I do agree that the "points" are about even and anything is possible going forward....but based on this logic...I could now trade Tim Hightower and Correll Buckhalter for Brian Westbrook and Joseph Addai and it would be relatively even based on "points so far" and "anything possible". Plus, if you got Westy and Addai...you could argue there is no guarantee that either one can stay healthy. Is this trade ok? Absolutely not.

[b]Now, what to do with people in your league who make such trades? That's for another thread.....

And for the record, I'm saving up for a big Saturday night!!!! :bag:
Actually, the answer is easy. You trade with them.
:doh: LOL...now why didn't I think of that!!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I don't understand is if you're going to make a bonehead trade why not get some more value? Slaton and Cotchery/Evans/something :excited:

 
billjohnson said:
Limp Ditka said:
billjohnson said:
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Of course we all know billjohnson is the utmost authority on trades the Shark Pool has to offer. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=427673&hl=
Yeah, well at least I have an opinion on this trade....it sucks!! Obviously all you have is a Friday night full of searching for MY old threads...... Do you think it's a good trade...Slaton for AP? Or do you prefer to use to search function again and simply comment on someone else's opinion???

These are the kind of sucker trades that ruin leagues and take out all the fun......
I agree with you dude. It's really not fair that guy pawned off 3 yards and a cloud of bust Peterson for Slanton.
 
What I don't understand is if you're going to make a bonehead trade why not get some more value? Slaton and Cotchery/Evans/something :clap:
:clap: I mean if the guy was dumb enough to take AP off your hands he was probably dumb enough to give you another player or two on top of it.

 
I get a kick out of this stuff. Each side claiming the trade is so one sided - that's how you know it's a pretty decent trade. Look, it's fantasy football, nobody knows how it's going to turn out. That's the fun of it!

For instance this year I offered Rodgers, Roddy White and Coles to get TO and Delhomme in week 2. The TO owner laughed at me. Now he's begging me to make that same trade and I won't do it.

The point is all trade values are just a guess. Nobody REALLY knows how it's going to pan out. We all claim that WE know best but really we're just a bunch of tools.

That's why trades should never be allowed to be vetoed. If 2 owners agree on the value of a trade, so be it.

 
Very funny , ADP is a stud for now and for the future while Slaton is a one year wonder .

Wow what a steal for the one getting ADP.

If its a redraft so so , but in a keeper od dynasty terrible trade.

 
billjohnson said:
My question isn't is it a good deal...it's an awesome deal. The following is some background

1. I'm the commish in the league

2. 12 person league and the guy (who OFFERED ) the trade to me is not in my division,nor my conference.

3. Both teams are 4-2

My concern is the following. Many of the teams think the trade should not have been approved since it's so one sided.

I'm getting blistered on the boards because it's (unfair). My job as commish is not to judge a trade as fair or unfair. I look at if their is "collusion" or if a team is tanking or giving up on the season. Since, both teams are 4-2 and leading their respective divisions, neither of those points is apparent. What was the other owner thinking is beyond me, but that's not my job.

I spoke to another commish in another league I'm in and he totally agrees with my assessment. I'm curious what others think (when their not in my league).
Wow...so you trade away probably your best player....screw yourself of any chance to win the whole league....screw everyone in the "other" division of a fair chance to win the division....and you're all excited b/c there was no collusion. There doesn't have to be collusion when there are suckers to be had.......congrats!!

:wub: :rolleyes: :clap:
 
I'm sorry, I received A/P...gave up Slaton and I'm the commish of the league, so I ultimately "approve" the trade.
If your league requires commish approval for trades, then the commish trades need to be approved by co-commishes. I'm against having the commish approve trades, but those that like this process should at least have a committee of at least 3 to determine these things, not one person. In the leagues I commish, a trade can only get vetoed if someone objects to a trade and calls a vote. Below is our rule for vetosIt takes 75% to veto trades instead of league majority (6 when there are 2 teams involved in a trade, and 5 when there are 3). If there are only 2 teams involved, that equates to 7.5, so we round up to 8. We should always round up when it's .5 or greater and round down when < .5. If there are 3 teams, then 75% of 9 is 6.75, so that would be 7 votes required. As you know, teams involved in the trade cannot vote. This lessens the likely hood that trades are vetoed because of league prejudice, meaning, that guy is ahead of me in the standings, so I will veto it. All members must vote unless their vote wouldn't affect the outcome. In other words, 75% has already been reached without their vote. In the event a vote is needed from someone who is out of town or unavailable to vote, the traded players may reside on their new team until a majority vote is reached. All veto votes are to be on the message board instead of by poll and that each owner who voted to veto a trade must post their reason why they vetoed a trade, or their vote is changed to a no.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry, I received A/P...gave up Slaton and I'm the commish of the league, so I ultimately "approve" the trade.
If your league requires commish approval for trades, then the commish trades need to be approved by co-commishes. I'm against having the commish approve trades, but those that like this process should at least have a committee of at least 3 to determine these things, not one person. In the leagues I commish, a trade can only get vetoed if someone objects to a trade and calls a vote. Below is our rule for vetosIt takes 75% to veto trades instead of league majority (6 when there are 2 teams involved in a trade, and 5 when there are 3). If there are only 2 teams involved, that equates to 7.5, so we round up to 8. We should always round up when it's .5 or greater and round down when < .5. If there are 3 teams, then 75% of 9 is 8.25, so that would be 8 votes required. As you know, teams involved in the trade cannot vote. This lessens the likely hood that trades are vetoed because of league prejudice, meaning, that guy is ahead of me in the standings, so I will veto it. All members must vote unless their vote wouldn't affect the outcome. In other words, 75% has already been reached without their vote. In the event a vote is needed from someone who is out of town or unavailable to vote, the traded players may reside on their new team until a majority vote is reached. All veto votes are to be on the message board instead of by poll and that each owner who voted to veto a trade must post their reason why they vetoed a trade, or their vote is changed to a no.
And anyone that protests this trade, or votes against it should be escorted to the nearest window and pushed out of it. There is perceived value and there is real time value, and right now no one can dispute that the real time value of these two players is about equal. It's the OP's fault for not playing on the perceived value of the player, and getting more in return, but he can not be faulted for getting equal value based on what has happened so far.
 
And anyone that protests this trade, or votes against it should be escorted to the nearest window and pushed out of it.
There's even a word for it: defenestration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
don't be so closeminded. name recognition doesn't mean jack when there are so many variables to consider. Could he have made the other guy sweeten the deal a little w/ a WR2? Probably. But to say that ADP is so much better than Slaton this year ... FANTASYWISE, is just foolish. It's about points boys, not name recognition. You want to sell more boxes of Wheaties ... well, then ADP is your man.

let's look at what seems to be:

is ADP running all over the place like last year? Not really. Why? Because the passing game is such a joke that opponents focus on stopping the run. He's still getting a very good YPC average, but opponents have done a better job of keeping him in check.

What about Slaton? Well, he's on a much more balanced offense. He's got a decent QB and a game-breaker WR on offense... their TE isn't too shabby either. The O-line is good enough to create some space. All of this adds up to a team that can move the chains.

So i don't fault this guy in trading for ADP .... i DO fault him in not asking for more. Regardless, I like Slaton's upside more than ADP's based solely on their teams.

 
I should forward this thread to the guys in my league, who slammed me for getting AJohnson-Mendenhall for Slaton-Griese after Week 3 (before FWP got hurt and Griese lost his job).

Maybe they'll drink some of this Slaton kool-aid and realize this wasn't such a lopsided deal after all.

Come to think of it ... I think I got screwed. :rolleyes: ;)

 
I'm sorry, I received A/P...gave up Slaton and I'm the commish of the league, so I ultimately "approve" the trade.
If your league requires commish approval for trades, then the commish trades need to be approved by co-commishes. I'm against having the commish approve trades, but those that like this process should at least have a committee of at least 3 to determine these things, not one person. In the leagues I commish, a trade can only get vetoed if someone objects to a trade and calls a vote. Below is our rule for vetosIt takes 75% to veto trades instead of league majority (6 when there are 2 teams involved in a trade, and 5 when there are 3). If there are only 2 teams involved, that equates to 7.5, so we round up to 8. We should always round up when it's .5 or greater and round down when < .5. If there are 3 teams, then 75% of 9 is 8.25, so that would be 8 votes required. As you know, teams involved in the trade cannot vote. This lessens the likely hood that trades are vetoed because of league prejudice, meaning, that guy is ahead of me in the standings, so I will veto it. All members must vote unless their vote wouldn't affect the outcome. In other words, 75% has already been reached without their vote. In the event a vote is needed from someone who is out of town or unavailable to vote, the traded players may reside on their new team until a majority vote is reached. All veto votes are to be on the message board instead of by poll and that each owner who voted to veto a trade must post their reason why they vetoed a trade, or their vote is changed to a no.
And anyone that protests this trade, or votes against it should be escorted to the nearest window and pushed out of it. There is perceived value and there is real time value, and right now no one can dispute that the real time value of these two players is about equal. It's the OP's fault for not playing on the perceived value of the player, and getting more in return, but he can not be faulted for getting equal value based on what has happened so far.
In my post I corrected 75% of 9 to be 6.75, not 8.25. I then had to go to all my leagues and correct it also.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top