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!
Maybe it's based on need?
It looks fine. What was their original draft position? Probably about the same.
If I have 5 decent QBs and 1 good WR, I would look to get another WR.
Did someone offer a undebatebly better WR for him and was turned down to do this trade instead? If not, then obviously it must be at market price, right?
Brady -- Nuff said.Holt - Bulger ?able, offense suckingWalker - knee issues, offense flailing latelyCalvin - not getting the snapsI can see why he wanted an extra WR option. Hope YOU weren't one of the vetoers.
tick dog said:
I have sworn to never again play in an owner votes league. Vetoing if you have the option is just good strategy, hell, if I had the option I'd just veto anything to lock teams up! Don't leave this to other owners.EDIT: Even worse is a league with commish veto, commissioned by someone who would even CONSIDER vetoing that deal. 
So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:I have sworn to never again play in an owner votes league. Vetoing if you have the option is just good strategy, hell, if I had the option I'd just veto anything to lock teams up! Don't leave this to other owners.EDIT: Even worse is a league with commish veto, commissioned by someone who would even CONSIDER vetoing that deal.
If you were the commish and you allowed that deal to go through you need to immediately step down and appoint someone who has a clue.There is a difference between bad trades/robbery and collusion.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:
You are correct. After the first week of that trade it would have been a bad trade/robbery. The next week it was collusion.If you were the commish and you allowed that deal to go through you need to immediately step down and appoint someone who has a clue.There is a difference between bad trades/robbery and collusion.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:
Uhm, no. I hope you're just joking here but it's pretty clear someone giving up Faulk in his prime for a kicker is sheer collusion. Nobody knows exactly where the line should be drawn but you're completely clueless. Doesn't mean you're lousy at fantasy football, just that you're an incompetent commish. Step down if there is anyone willing to take the job.You are correct. After the first week of that trade it would have been a bad trade/robbery. The next week it was collusion.If you were the commish and you allowed that deal to go through you need to immediately step down and appoint someone who has a clue.There is a difference between bad trades/robbery and collusion.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:I have sworn to never again play in an owner votes league. Vetoing if you have the option is just good strategy, hell, if I had the option I'd just veto anything to lock teams up! Don't leave this to other owners.EDIT: Even worse is a league with commish veto, commissioned by someone who would even CONSIDER vetoing that deal.
Apparently you did since you let it go through. So let me get this straight, you veto Manning for Berrian when there is no conspiracy to defraud money(no collusion) but you let Faulk for a backup kicker go through with no problem? Wow.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?tick dog said:
EDIT: Even worse is a league with commish veto, commissioned by someone who would even CONSIDER vetoing that deal.
Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.
Yes.
FYI, I've been a successful commish for two leagues for a combined dozen years with many saying that they are the best leagues they are in (and most are in multiple leagues) so I'm not worried about your personal comment. I looked at the averages and rankings of each player and a 5th ranked QB is worth lots more (especially considering most leagues only allow ONE starting QB) compared to a 20th-ranked WR on a good day. Now if you want to make the argument that it is based on need that is fair enough and a valid point as indicated earlier.
Really sheer collusion!If it was a undefeated team trading Faulk to a mathmatically eliminated team in a non dynasty league would it still be collusion?Uhm, no. I hope you're just joking here but it's pretty clear someone giving up Faulk in his prime for a kicker is sheer collusion. Nobody knows exactly where the line should be drawn but you're completely clueless. Doesn't mean you're lousy at fantasy football, just that you're an incompetent commish. Step down if there is anyone willing to take the job.You are correct. After the first week of that trade it would have been a bad trade/robbery. The next week it was collusion.If you were the commish and you allowed that deal to go through you need to immediately step down and appoint someone who has a clue.There is a difference between bad trades/robbery and collusion.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:
Quarterbacks always score more points than other positions. Except maybe kickers, which would explain why you let Faulk be traded for one. Do trades never take place in your league? A combined dozen years and you STILL have to ask if this trade is legit? Maybe if it was your first year but coming up on your thirteenth season? C'mon, get a clue. If you're still only looking at points scored and have yet to realize there is a LOT more to points scored then you've got a lot to learn.
To set the record straight, the guy that gave up Faulk said he really wanted the kicker because he felt he was really going to go off that week (like multiple 50+ yarders that are worth 1 pt. more every yard past 45). Then he didn't use him. At that time I was a new commish and was taking the approach of Colin Dowling (scroll above) that every trade should go through regardless. That was until the following week. Since then I try to view every trade objectively but am always on guard.Apparently you did since you let it go through. So let me get this straight, you veto Manning for Berrian when there is no conspiracy to defraud money(no collusion) but you let Faulk for a backup kicker go through with no problem? Wow.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?tick dog said:I have sworn to never again play in an owner votes league. Vetoing if you have the option is just good strategy, hell, if I had the option I'd just veto anything to lock teams up! Don't leave this to other owners.
EDIT: Even worse is a league with commish veto, commissioned by someone who would even CONSIDER vetoing that deal.
Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.
That's not how the trade went down. Look how it happened. I think that trade would have sounded the collusion alarm for most people. Generally I'm the type that lets everything slide, no matter how lopsided. But Faulk for a kicker, in those circumstances? Looks mighty fishy.Really sheer collusion!If it was a undefeated team trading Faulk to a mathmatically eliminated team in a non dynasty league would it still be collusion?Uhm, no. I hope you're just joking here but it's pretty clear someone giving up Faulk in his prime for a kicker is sheer collusion. Nobody knows exactly where the line should be drawn but you're completely clueless. Doesn't mean you're lousy at fantasy football, just that you're an incompetent commish. Step down if there is anyone willing to take the job.You are correct. After the first week of that trade it would have been a bad trade/robbery. The next week it was collusion.If you were the commish and you allowed that deal to go through you need to immediately step down and appoint someone who has a clue.There is a difference between bad trades/robbery and collusion.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:
Now you understand my penchant for skepticism. Anyway, I am NOT the commissioner of this league and was just exercising my right to protest like any owner to give it time for discussion. I appreciate your constructive input.That's not how the trade went down. Look how it happened. I think that trade would have sounded the collusion alarm for most people. Generally I'm the type that lets everything slide, no matter how lopsided. But Faulk for a kicker, in those circumstances? Looks mighty fishy.Really sheer collusion!If it was a undefeated team trading Faulk to a mathmatically eliminated team in a non dynasty league would it still be collusion?Uhm, no. I hope you're just joking here but it's pretty clear someone giving up Faulk in his prime for a kicker is sheer collusion. Nobody knows exactly where the line should be drawn but you're completely clueless. Doesn't mean you're lousy at fantasy football, just that you're an incompetent commish. Step down if there is anyone willing to take the job.You are correct. After the first week of that trade it would have been a bad trade/robbery. The next week it was collusion.If you were the commish and you allowed that deal to go through you need to immediately step down and appoint someone who has a clue.There is a difference between bad trades/robbery and collusion.Thanks, perhaps now you understand my penchant for skepticism. Anyway, I am NOT the commissioner of the Manning for Berrian trade and just exercised my right to protest it (every owner has that right) to mull it over. I thank you all for your constructive input.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:
You are wrong on several accounts here. First, I did not say they were "defrauding" a league. Second, I did not say it was "my" league. The original question posited was "do you think this trade is equitable?". Until you can get the facts straight you really shouldn't offer an opinion.
Of course that is not the example, but you implied that this trade is collusion regardless of circumstance by describing it as "sheer collusion". Of course it looks fishy, but I was trying to show a example where a "fishy" trade would not necessarily be collusion. There is a element of collusion "the agreement to defraud" that is necessary for collusion. My point is if you know they are defrauding then you don't have to ask. If you don't know then you can't prove it now can you?A completely even trade that both owners think will help one of them win in the future and they have agreed to split the winnings, is collusion. The fairness of the trade is irrelevant to proving collusion.That's not how the trade went down. Look how it happened. I think that trade would have sounded the collusion alarm for most people. Generally I'm the type that lets everything slide, no matter how lopsided. But Faulk for a kicker, in those circumstances? Looks mighty fishy.Really sheer collusion!If it was a undefeated team trading Faulk to a mathmatically eliminated team in a non dynasty league would it still be collusion?Uhm, no. I hope you're just joking here but it's pretty clear someone giving up Faulk in his prime for a kicker is sheer collusion. Nobody knows exactly where the line should be drawn but you're completely clueless. Doesn't mean you're lousy at fantasy football, just that you're an incompetent commish. Step down if there is anyone willing to take the job.You are correct. After the first week of that trade it would have been a bad trade/robbery. The next week it was collusion.If you were the commish and you allowed that deal to go through you need to immediately step down and appoint someone who has a clue.There is a difference between bad trades/robbery and collusion.So you just think that all trades should go through without any option for veto or protest?Let me give you an example why there needs to be some checks and balances. In one of the leagues where I am commissioner, years ago a guy traded Marshall Faulk at the height of his career to his best friend (for a kicker he didn't even use) so he could beat the top-ranked team. Then the following week they wanted to trade the players back so the original Faulk owner could use him against the same team. Now do you think that is legit?Regarding the two teams in the original trade of this thread, my team has already played against both and will not play them again.tick dog said:I have sworn to never again play in an owner votes league. Vetoing if you have the option is just good strategy, hell, if I had the option I'd just veto anything to lock teams up! Don't leave this to other owners.EDIT: Even worse is a league with commish veto, commissioned by someone who would even CONSIDER vetoing that deal.
So it's not your league? You're just in it, right. Oh hey helpful tip when you post something stupid and get called on it make sure to edit your posts too not just the Topic name.weasel3515 said:
A couple points:First you're looking at the players' values retrospectively. Umm, past performance does not guarantee future results. Maybe one guy thinks Berrian is a stud waiting to happen now that Gross Rexman is out. Maybe he thinks their schedule gets much easier. Maybe one guy thinks Eli's recent success is a mirage, or that Plax will eventually be too hurt to play, and wants to sell now at any cost. Looking just at averages and rankings is extremely short sighted.
