this is a ridiculous trade that totally ruins the balance of a league. If I was one of the other teams in the league I would demand it be overturned, the rules changed so it would never happen again, or I would leave at the end of the season. who wants to see all their hard work ruined by some guy just punt on a season and hand 4 great players to my competitor for nothing? incredible how many are defending such a competitive balance ruiner. you should trade back and put rules in place that whole-sale fire sales that effectively decide leagues will never be allowed
I disagree that this type of trade could decide a league. The 4 players I received (Stafford, CJ2K, S. Smith, and Fitz) have all been underperforming this year (I got Stafford before his most recent game), and are bigger in name than they are in actual production. As I stated in one of my earlier posts, I sent Fitz back to the original owner as a way of balancing the trade out. So in the end the trade broke down like this:Leshoure for CJ2K - I find this trade pretty even. 4 weeks ago, this would be a perfectly acceptable trade. I made it after Leshoure's 3 TD game, so when you factor that he can be kept for $12 next year, while CJ2K would cost $52 to keep (of a $200 auction budget), I think this grades out pretty fairly.T. Smith for S. Smith - T. Smith was one WR position better at the time of the trade, and they were drafted for essentially the same price. While I agree T. Smith likely won't be kept, he's been a better receiver and is younger so the chances of him being keepworthy are slightly higher.Richardson and Hillman for Stafford - At the time of the trade, Stafford was the 12th QB in a 12-QB system, where QBs in general score less points (1 pt per 50 yards, 6 per TD, no fractional scoring). This is the most lopsided part of the deal, but I don't think it throws it into "unconscionable" territory.Again, I made no bones about the deal having me as a clear winner, and I was still likely getting significantly more value even when considering keeper values. But I didn't think it was significantly more lopsided then the Luck owner getting Sproles, S. Johnson, and A. Brown in week 6 when all 3 were still productive. Luck was only okay at that time, but the consensus opinion is that he was eventually going to be good, which is why I let the trade stand, even though I thought the owner getting him gave up way too much. That trade received no protest from anyone else in the league. My main point was that a precedent was set with that trade that I used to justify my own. Perhaps I was wrong in that, but I don't feel as such. I think the fact that it was a 4 for 4 definitely contributed to the outrage, as well as the fact that I completed another such trade the same week, sending AP (kept for $36 next year) and Lafell for Lynch, Marshall, and Keller. Even now I debate the ethics of poaching last place teams for current year value. This thread has brought up a lot of good points on both sides, as well as some excellent suggestions for means of curbing such activity.
