Married couple make trade (1 Viewer)

[nkowal]

Why would anyone play in any league with chicks?

I think thats a brash generalization. Personally, I never have, and probably never will play with a woman. But I'm sure in the world there are women who are diehard sports fans. I'm sure there's some who subscribe to football guys. If they are reading the same articles as us, why segregate from them? Also, there are lots of people who play in family leagues, and leagues for fun. If you want a super-competitive leage, MOST of the time women will not be involved, but to ask the question or give a thumbs down to women playing fantasy sports is a little short sighted.

It's a horrible generalization he's making. My wife plays in one league with me, for money. She got 2nd place last year and is currently in first place this year.

 

[habsfan]

Why would anyone play in any league with chicks?

I think thats a brash generalization. Personally, I never have, and probably never will play with a woman. But I'm sure in the world there are women who are diehard sports fans. I'm sure there's some who subscribe to football guys. If they are reading the same articles as us, why segregate from them? Also, there are lots of people who play in family leagues, and leagues for fun. If you want a super-competitive leage, MOST of the time women will not be involved, but to ask the question or give a thumbs down to women playing fantasy sports is a little short sighted.

Believe it or not, some women bring a rather fresh approach to FF with a level-headed attitude that isn't clouded by an excess of "football knowledge" or strong opinions. Some are very good and others, not so much - just like us guys...

 

[habsfan]

Why would anyone play in any league with chicks?

I know....they make stupid picks like Rodgers in the first or second and follow it up with guys like Newton like in the 14th round and ####....then instead of hanging on to a scrub like Newton in case Rodgers gets hurt, they actually trade Newton to try and improve their team at another position.....crazy

You're right. SHE made a great trade. I agree with you there. The husband.... meh.... not so much.

I think she made a terrible trade. She should have kept Cam and sold Rodgers for even more...

 

[T J]

What can I tell ya?

I think this one stinks. Can't prove it, but it passes the "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck" test from my perspective.

I also think most of you rationalizing the trade as being fair would likely not make the trade yourself.

Just because the "numbers" equal out, does not make it a good trade for the husband. You make the assumption that he's making a push for the playoffs, despite being 0-5, and that the guy feels he has better shot with Newton/Ingram than with Fitzpatrick/Foster. Maybe he does feel that way, and if so, power to him.

I don't know of many owners that would make that trade if they were actually trying to win. Add in that the trade was made with his wife and that's all I really need to know in reaching the conclusion I did. Could I prove it. Probably not. Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

I'm not allowing or disallowing anything so who cares what I think? I'm just a guy with an opinion on an anonymous message board and my opinion is that they colluded.

You know how people say "opinions can't be wrong, they're just opinions"? Your opinion is wrong.

The husband and wife were allowed to enter the league. Check. There does not appear to be any rule banning a team with a record of XX from making trades. Check. The players involved are of COMPLETELY equal value. Check. No collusion.

There's absolutely nothing different about a husband/wife combo than any of the more typical situations where you're playing in a league with your best friend, but the remaining owners are guys you don't know as well. The husband/wife have no more additional incentive to collude.

Whoa dude.I went out of my way NOT to call others wrong. I happen to think I'm 100 percent right that they did collude. Where do you get off any way?

And you're crazy if you don't think there's any difference. That's probably the worst attempt at an argument I've read in this thread.

For starters, the finances stay within the household if one or both of them were to win. And do YOU know how they say "follow the money"? Well....

Secondly, they have sex with each other. I'm know I'm not banging my best friend. Maybe you do, but I know I'm not.

Those are two pretty big differences if you ask me and plenty of motive.

I love that you think you're 100% right that they colluded, but have no evidence to offer other than the fact that there was a trade that went down. And that was a trade that multiple (objective) people on this site have called fair and balanced, and one that makes sense for both teams.Shut this thread down, this is horrible and shouldn't be talked about anymore.

Well, I wouldn't be putting myself out there like I am if I didn't think I was 100 percent right. Hopefully you approach things in your life with the same conviction. It'll take you far. But y'all are cracking me up getting so worked up. So what? I think they colluded. For my part, I enjoy a good debate so if you don't like the thread, don't revisit.

Go ahead, lay it out why you think they colluded... none of us seem to see it. I'm wondering what it is you are seeing that we are all missing.

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

and my bad TJ...your conviction had me in the mindset that you were were the OP and involved in the league....lost that in the discussion and didn't pay attention....

so while I appreciate you defending your position, I really do think you thought more people would agree with you and it is clearly not the case....

my thoughts are that it is attitudes and close minded opinions like this that can damage a league....before people start assuming things and jumping to conclusions (like I just did by thinking you were the OP) they need to take a look at stuff.....because if somebody utters collusion and it is unjustified, the damage is already really done and it can damage the league....

 

[T J]

Why would anyone play in any league with chicks?

I think thats a brash generalization. Personally, I never have, and probably never will play with a woman. But I'm sure in the world there are women who are diehard sports fans. I'm sure there's some who subscribe to football guys. If they are reading the same articles as us, why segregate from them? Also, there are lots of people who play in family leagues, and leagues for fun. If you want a super-competitive leage, MOST of the time women will not be involved, but to ask the question or give a thumbs down to women playing fantasy sports is a little short sighted.

It's a horrible generalization he's making. My wife plays in one league with me, for money. She got 2nd place last year and is currently in first place this year.

For the record - I have never made that generalization. My part in this thread is based solely on the collusion aspect. Just wanted to add that disclaimer.

 

[nkowal]

What can I tell ya?

I think this one stinks. Can't prove it, but it passes the "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck" test from my perspective.

I also think most of you rationalizing the trade as being fair would likely not make the trade yourself.

Just because the "numbers" equal out, does not make it a good trade for the husband. You make the assumption that he's making a push for the playoffs, despite being 0-5, and that the guy feels he has better shot with Newton/Ingram than with Fitzpatrick/Foster. Maybe he does feel that way, and if so, power to him.

I don't know of many owners that would make that trade if they were actually trying to win. Add in that the trade was made with his wife and that's all I really need to know in reaching the conclusion I did. Could I prove it. Probably not. Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

I'm not allowing or disallowing anything so who cares what I think? I'm just a guy with an opinion on an anonymous message board and my opinion is that they colluded.

You know how people say "opinions can't be wrong, they're just opinions"? Your opinion is wrong.

The husband and wife were allowed to enter the league. Check. There does not appear to be any rule banning a team with a record of XX from making trades. Check. The players involved are of COMPLETELY equal value. Check. No collusion.

There's absolutely nothing different about a husband/wife combo than any of the more typical situations where you're playing in a league with your best friend, but the remaining owners are guys you don't know as well. The husband/wife have no more additional incentive to collude.

Whoa dude.I went out of my way NOT to call others wrong. I happen to think I'm 100 percent right that they did collude. Where do you get off any way?

And you're crazy if you don't think there's any difference. That's probably the worst attempt at an argument I've read in this thread.

For starters, the finances stay within the household if one or both of them were to win. And do YOU know how they say "follow the money"? Well....

Secondly, they have sex with each other. I'm know I'm not banging my best friend. Maybe you do, but I know I'm not.

Those are two pretty big differences if you ask me and plenty of motive.

I love that you think you're 100% right that they colluded, but have no evidence to offer other than the fact that there was a trade that went down. And that was a trade that multiple (objective) people on this site have called fair and balanced, and one that makes sense for both teams.Shut this thread down, this is horrible and shouldn't be talked about anymore.

Well, I wouldn't be putting myself out there like I am if I didn't think I was 100 percent right. Hopefully you approach things in your life with the same conviction. It'll take you far. But y'all are cracking me up getting so worked up. So what? I think they colluded. For my part, I enjoy a good debate so if you don't like the thread, don't revisit.

Go ahead, lay it out why you think they colluded... none of us seem to see it. I'm wondering what it is you are seeing that we are all missing.

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You're simply stating conclusions as your reasons. Why was it evident that he was stacking her lineup?Yes, it's okay to disagree but you keep stating how obvious it is and how certain you are, but you can't offer any reason why.

Imagine a prosecutor telling the jury that "it genuinely seems pretty evidence that he commited the murder" without offering anything more.

That is a conclusion!

 

[nkowal]

Why would anyone play in any league with chicks?

I think thats a brash generalization. Personally, I never have, and probably never will play with a woman. But I'm sure in the world there are women who are diehard sports fans. I'm sure there's some who subscribe to football guys. If they are reading the same articles as us, why segregate from them? Also, there are lots of people who play in family leagues, and leagues for fun. If you want a super-competitive leage, MOST of the time women will not be involved, but to ask the question or give a thumbs down to women playing fantasy sports is a little short sighted.

It's a horrible generalization he's making. My wife plays in one league with me, for money. She got 2nd place last year and is currently in first place this year.

For the record - I have never made that generalization. My part in this thread is based solely on the collusion aspect. Just wanted to add that disclaimer.

Understood, different person.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You haven't been pretty clear, though. You just keep insinuating that this deal is bad for the husband, and that most people wouldn't make that trade if they were in his shoes. Everyone seems to disagree with you, though, so perhaps you should explain exactly why it's such a bad deal for him. Sure, his wife's starting lineup improved - that is frequently the point of trades, after all - and you could easily argue that his did, too. She had a stud player rotting on her bench, and was able to deal that strength to another owner in a mutually beneficial deal. Like I said, it's a textbook case of a good FF trade. I stand by my belief that if they weren't married you wouldn't have any problem with this deal. The fact that they are married should be irrelevant if you're allowing them to own separate teams.

 

[T J]

and my bad TJ...your conviction had me in the mindset that you were were the OP and involved in the league....lost that in the discussion and didn't pay attention....so while I appreciate you defending your position, I really do think you thought more people would agree with you and it is clearly not the case....my thoughts are that it is attitudes and close minded opinions like this that can damage a league....before people start assuming things and jumping to conclusions (like I just did by thinking you were the OP) they need to take a look at stuff.....because if somebody utters collusion and it is unjustified, the damage is already really done and it can damage the league....

No worries. I don't think having a husband & wife as separate owners in the same league is a good idea in the first place, especially in a money league. Because whether they actually colluded or didn't, there's at least one person (me) out there who thinks they did and you're right, that's enough in some cases to ruin a league. Best just to avoid it going in.

 

[T J]

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You haven't been pretty clear, though. You just keep insinuating that this deal is bad for the husband, and that most people wouldn't make that trade if they were in his shoes. Everyone seems to disagree with you, though, so perhaps you should explain exactly why it's such a bad deal for him. Sure, his wife's starting lineup improved - that is frequently the point of trades, after all - and you could easily argue that his did, too. She had a stud player rotting on her bench, and was able to deal that strength to another owner in a mutually beneficial deal. Like I said, it's a textbook case of a good FF trade. I stand by my belief that if they weren't married you wouldn't have any problem with this deal. The fact that they are married should be irrelevant if you're allowing them to own separate teams.

So you'd make the trade if you were the husband then right? Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree in that case, 'cause I most definitely would not, not even close. And maybe that's the disconnect. I legitimately see it as that bad, if you take it on face that both teams are "allegedly" trying to win. Then you pile on the 0-5 and the fact that he's shtupping his trade partner, and well........Sorry if I'm missing something. Did I?

 

[fatmnkypants]

probably not a good idea to play in leagues with both husband and wife, or at least make a rule they can't trade with each other just to avoid any uncertainity

I agree with everything you said.....but they can't trade? The husband/wife owners came to be after one of our founding memebers, the commissioners father, lost his battle with cancer. The commishes sister took over his team. It was an honorary thing at first, that just seemed to stick(she's a pretty astute fantasy player)The part that seems fishy is the husbands 0-5(0-6 after this week) start......why make a trade unless you're trying to help your wife out.Her I trust, him....not so much.

I started 0-7 once, was down and out- made a trade I thought would help my team, but that other owners were saying I was helping out the other guy because I was out of it- and that trade helped me win the next 7 games in row and make the playoffs.. Why make a trade you ask? Because it's never over till it's over... maybe he goes on a run and salvages the season.

 

[nkowal]

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You haven't been pretty clear, though. You just keep insinuating that this deal is bad for the husband, and that most people wouldn't make that trade if they were in his shoes. Everyone seems to disagree with you, though, so perhaps you should explain exactly why it's such a bad deal for him. Sure, his wife's starting lineup improved - that is frequently the point of trades, after all - and you could easily argue that his did, too. She had a stud player rotting on her bench, and was able to deal that strength to another owner in a mutually beneficial deal. Like I said, it's a textbook case of a good FF trade. I stand by my belief that if they weren't married you wouldn't have any problem with this deal. The fact that they are married should be irrelevant if you're allowing them to own separate teams.

So you'd make the trade if you were the husband then right? Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree in that case, 'cause I most definitely would not, not even close. And maybe that's the disconnect. I legitimately see it as that bad, if you take it on face that both teams are "allegedly" trying to win. Then you pile on the 0-5 and the fact that he's shtupping his trade partner, and well........Sorry if I'm missing something. Did I?

Your argument essentially boils down to this:1) I would not have made this trade

2) The 2 owners are husband and wife

Therefore, collusion.

There's a huge logical disconnect there for most of us. Disagreeing with whether a trade should be made doesn't mean there is collusion.

 

[tim_whatley]

Why would anyone play in any league with chicks?

I think thats a brash generalization. Personally, I never have, and probably never will play with a woman. But I'm sure in the world there are women who are diehard sports fans. I'm sure there's some who subscribe to football guys. If they are reading the same articles as us, why segregate from them? Also, there are lots of people who play in family leagues, and leagues for fun. If you want a super-competitive leage, MOST of the time women will not be involved, but to ask the question or give a thumbs down to women playing fantasy sports is a little short sighted.

I dont necessarily disagree. I freely and fully admit to being a short-sided, egotistical, chauvinistic jack###. I don't care how much a gal "knows sports" or "likes football" I don't want to play in a league with her. I also don't much care for playing golf with women either, even though I admit there are thousands of women who are better golfers than me.Like I said, I'm a jerk but it's just the way I feel.

 

[T J]

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You haven't been pretty clear, though. You just keep insinuating that this deal is bad for the husband, and that most people wouldn't make that trade if they were in his shoes. Everyone seems to disagree with you, though, so perhaps you should explain exactly why it's such a bad deal for him. Sure, his wife's starting lineup improved - that is frequently the point of trades, after all - and you could easily argue that his did, too. She had a stud player rotting on her bench, and was able to deal that strength to another owner in a mutually beneficial deal. Like I said, it's a textbook case of a good FF trade. I stand by my belief that if they weren't married you wouldn't have any problem with this deal. The fact that they are married should be irrelevant if you're allowing them to own separate teams.

So you'd make the trade if you were the husband then right? Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree in that case, 'cause I most definitely would not, not even close. And maybe that's the disconnect. I legitimately see it as that bad, if you take it on face that both teams are "allegedly" trying to win. Then you pile on the 0-5 and the fact that he's shtupping his trade partner, and well........Sorry if I'm missing something. Did I?

Your argument essentially boils down to this:1) I would not have made this trade

2) The 2 owners are husband and wife

Therefore, collusion.

There's a huge logical disconnect there for most of us. Disagreeing with whether a trade should be made doesn't mean there is collusion.

Yes and yes. And the fact that the person I felt got the short end of the deal was 0-5.In my mind this is in fact why I've reached the conclusion I have. Is the disconnect really that huge? I'm surprised. My viewpoint seems perfectly logical to me.

 

[tim_whatley]

In my mind this is in fact why I've reached the conclusion I have. Is the disconnect really that huge? I'm surprised. My viewpoint seems perfectly logical to me.

For some reason this makes me laugh.

 

[nkowal]

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You haven't been pretty clear, though. You just keep insinuating that this deal is bad for the husband, and that most people wouldn't make that trade if they were in his shoes. Everyone seems to disagree with you, though, so perhaps you should explain exactly why it's such a bad deal for him. Sure, his wife's starting lineup improved - that is frequently the point of trades, after all - and you could easily argue that his did, too. She had a stud player rotting on her bench, and was able to deal that strength to another owner in a mutually beneficial deal. Like I said, it's a textbook case of a good FF trade. I stand by my belief that if they weren't married you wouldn't have any problem with this deal. The fact that they are married should be irrelevant if you're allowing them to own separate teams.

So you'd make the trade if you were the husband then right? Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree in that case, 'cause I most definitely would not, not even close. And maybe that's the disconnect. I legitimately see it as that bad, if you take it on face that both teams are "allegedly" trying to win. Then you pile on the 0-5 and the fact that he's shtupping his trade partner, and well........Sorry if I'm missing something. Did I?

Your argument essentially boils down to this:1) I would not have made this trade

2) The 2 owners are husband and wife

Therefore, collusion.

There's a huge logical disconnect there for most of us. Disagreeing with whether a trade should be made doesn't mean there is collusion.

Yes and yes. And the fact that the person I felt got the short end of the deal was 0-5.In my mind this is in fact why I've reached the conclusion I have. Is the disconnect really that huge? I'm surprised. My viewpoint seems perfectly logical to me.

To me, it is a big jump to say that there is collusion. I guess our minds work different. It's just the way I think - I'm very much "is there evidence/support for something?" type of person. A relationship isn't enough for me, thats inconsequential.Regarding one team being 0-5 - if anything I'd say that's more reason to give a trade leeway. I guess it helps the wife's team in that regard, but at 0-5 your team clearly isn't working out and you need to make some moves and take some risks. With my 1-4 (soon to be 1-5) I just did exactly that, took a shot on people because obviously keeping the team together wasn't working.

Anyway, cheers to the discussion, probably my last post on the thread.

 

[tim_whatley]

probably?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You haven't been pretty clear, though. You just keep insinuating that this deal is bad for the husband, and that most people wouldn't make that trade if they were in his shoes. Everyone seems to disagree with you, though, so perhaps you should explain exactly why it's such a bad deal for him. Sure, his wife's starting lineup improved - that is frequently the point of trades, after all - and you could easily argue that his did, too. She had a stud player rotting on her bench, and was able to deal that strength to another owner in a mutually beneficial deal. Like I said, it's a textbook case of a good FF trade. I stand by my belief that if they weren't married you wouldn't have any problem with this deal. The fact that they are married should be irrelevant if you're allowing them to own separate teams.

So you'd make the trade if you were the husband then right? Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree in that case, 'cause I most definitely would not, not even close. And maybe that's the disconnect. I legitimately see it as that bad, if you take it on face that both teams are "allegedly" trying to win. Then you pile on the 0-5 and the fact that he's shtupping his trade partner, and well........Sorry if I'm missing something. Did I?

Well, you missed the part where I asked you to explain exactly why you think this deal is "that bad" for the husband. You just keep saying it's bad but not saying why.Not knowing anything else about scoring, rosters, etc., I would almost certainly make that deal if I was him. I think many people would. It's a great, fair trade for both sides. None of us have any idea why you "definitely would not, not even close." That's probably the disconnect, I said upthread that it seems like you have a strange valuation of at least one of the players in this deal if you think it's that bad.

 

[nkowal]

probably?

Nothing is ever 100%

 

[Limp Ditka]

In my mind this is in fact why I've reached the conclusion I have. Is the disconnect really that huge? I'm surprised. My viewpoint seems perfectly logical to me.

For some reason this makes me laugh.

If you want a really good laugh, go look in the mirror and check out the guy that's completely insecure with his masculinity.

 

[CalBear]

The whole point of the initial thread was to bring up the married 0-5 husband's trade to his 3-2 wife. You cannot take the married aspect out of the equation.

Look, you have two choices: Don't allow married people into the league, or let them manage their teams. If you let them into the league, you have to allow trades like this.

 

[Pnishthm]

NO PISSING IN THE SHARK POOL!!!!!!!!

 

[Flying Elvis]

Lots of threads 'round here about "bad" trades where "guppies" get "fleeced" and all I can think when I see one is . . .

Where do these posters buy the crystal balls?

I could use one.

 

[baconisgood]

probably not a good idea to play in leagues with both husband and wife, or at least make a rule they can't trade with each other just to avoid any uncertainity

I agree with everything you said.....but they can't trade? The husband/wife owners came to be after one of our founding memebers, the commissioners father, lost his battle with cancer. The commishes sister took over his team. It was an honorary thing at first, that just seemed to stick(she's a pretty astute fantasy player)The part that seems fishy is the husbands 0-5(0-6 after this week) start......why make a trade unless you're trying to help your wife out.Her I trust, him....not so much.

What is an 0-5 team supposed to do? Nothing? Hes doing exactly what he should do- picking up two high upside players for 1 high uspide player. If it is a keeper/dynasty league its a good trade for him in a lot of ways, and if its a redraft league this is the only type of move he can make to try to go on a big run and squeeze into the playoffs.

 

[T J]

I've been pretty clear and consistent on the "why" throughout this thread. You may not agree with me, That's ok. I'm not trying to persuade you. It genuinely seems pretty evident to me that the 0-5 team was cleverly (not overtly) going out of his way to stack his wife's starting lineup. That IS what I believe happened here. Again, not knowing anymore about the particulars than what's been presented. Why is it so hard to believe that someone may come to that conclusion?

You haven't been pretty clear, though. You just keep insinuating that this deal is bad for the husband, and that most people wouldn't make that trade if they were in his shoes. Everyone seems to disagree with you, though, so perhaps you should explain exactly why it's such a bad deal for him. Sure, his wife's starting lineup improved - that is frequently the point of trades, after all - and you could easily argue that his did, too. She had a stud player rotting on her bench, and was able to deal that strength to another owner in a mutually beneficial deal. Like I said, it's a textbook case of a good FF trade. I stand by my belief that if they weren't married you wouldn't have any problem with this deal. The fact that they are married should be irrelevant if you're allowing them to own separate teams.

So you'd make the trade if you were the husband then right? Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree in that case, 'cause I most definitely would not, not even close. And maybe that's the disconnect. I legitimately see it as that bad, if you take it on face that both teams are "allegedly" trying to win. Then you pile on the 0-5 and the fact that he's shtupping his trade partner, and well........Sorry if I'm missing something. Did I?

Well, you missed the part where I asked you to explain exactly why you think this deal is "that bad" for the husband. You just keep saying it's bad but not saying why.Not knowing anything else about scoring, rosters, etc., I would almost certainly make that deal if I was him. I think many people would. It's a great, fair trade for both sides. None of us have any idea why you "definitely would not, not even close." That's probably the disconnect, I said upthread that it seems like you have a strange valuation of at least one of the players in this deal if you think it's that bad.

I can only go by the scoring I'm acquainted with (ie my league's scoring) and the difference between Fitz and Newton is less than 5 pts where as the difference between Ingram and Foster is Foster +13. The dude started Ingram and Ryan Grant in his backfield. Ingram is in a serious timeshare situation. I think it was a really bad trade. I really do. I'm at no more than 50/50 who I'd prefer between Fitzpatrick and Newton going forward and 100/0 Foster over Ingram. So you take my view there, combined with the husband/wife piece, combined with the husband/wife piece with the husband being 0-5 and you hopefully at least get where I'm coming from as to why I believe they colluded. You may not agree with my valuation, but assume for a second you did.

 

[CalBear]

The dude started Ingram and Ryan Grant in his backfield. Ingram is in a serious timeshare situation. I think it was a really bad trade. I really do. I'm at no more than 50/50 who I'd prefer between Fitzpatrick and Newton going forward and 100/0 Foster over Ingram. So you take my view there, combined with the husband/wife piece, combined with the husband/wife piece with the husband being 0-5 and you hopefully at least get where I'm coming from as to why I believe they colluded. You may not agree with my valuation, but assume for a second you did.

Your valuation is completely irrelevant unless your team is involved in the trade.

 

[T J]

The whole point of the initial thread was to bring up the married 0-5 husband's trade to his 3-2 wife. You cannot take the married aspect out of the equation.

Look, you have two choices: Don't allow married people into the league, or let them manage their teams. If you let them into the league, you have to allow trades like this.

I don't have any choices to make. This is not my league so I don't really care. I'm simply a neutral observer expressing my opinion and a lot of folks appear to disagree with my take. The original poster asked if anyone thought it was fishy. I happen to think it is. Nothing more. But.... if I were faced with this, as commish I would not allow separate husband/wife teams in the same league.

 

[Mario Kart]

When did the Shark Pool become the "trade evaluation pool"?

 

[T J]

The dude started Ingram and Ryan Grant in his backfield. Ingram is in a serious timeshare situation. I think it was a really bad trade. I really do. I'm at no more than 50/50 who I'd prefer between Fitzpatrick and Newton going forward and 100/0 Foster over Ingram. So you take my view there, combined with the husband/wife piece, combined with the husband/wife piece with the husband being 0-5 and you hopefully at least get where I'm coming from as to why I believe they colluded. You may not agree with my valuation, but assume for a second you did.

Your valuation is completely irrelevant unless your team is involved in the trade.

You're mistaking my role in this whole thing. My role is ONLY that of a person who, based on nothing more than this thread, has formed an opinion and expressed it in this thread. I was asked to justify that opinion. My valuation was certainly relevant to me in coming up with that opinion and subsequent defense of that opinion which I'm not wavering on.I don't know any of the participants. I'm not accusing anyone of colluding. Just giving my take within the framework of the original post.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

probably not a good idea to play in leagues with both husband and wife, or at least make a rule they can't trade with each other just to avoid any uncertainity

I agree with everything you said.....but they can't trade? The husband/wife owners came to be after one of our founding memebers, the commissioners father, lost his battle with cancer. The commishes sister took over his team. It was an honorary thing at first, that just seemed to stick(she's a pretty astute fantasy player)The part that seems fishy is the husbands 0-5(0-6 after this week) start......why make a trade unless you're trying to help your wife out.Her I trust, him....not so much.

What is an 0-5 team supposed to do? Nothing? Hes doing exactly what he should do- picking up two high upside players for 1 high uspide player. If it is a keeper/dynasty league its a good trade for him in a lot of ways, and if its a redraft league this is the only type of move he can make to try to go on a big run and squeeze into the playoffs.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The whole point of the initial thread was to bring up the married 0-5 husband's trade to his 3-2 wife. You cannot take the married aspect out of the equation.

Look, you have two choices: Don't allow married people into the league, or let them manage their teams. If you let them into the league, you have to allow trades like this.

I don't have any choices to make. This is not my league so I don't really care. I'm simply a neutral observer expressing my opinion and a lot of folks appear to disagree with my take. The original poster asked if anyone thought it was fishy. I happen to think it is. Nothing more. But.... if I were faced with this, as commish I would not allow separate husband/wife teams in the same league.

What if you were faced with what the OP is faced with? They are already in the league.. There isn't enough proof to say they colluded, and the values aren't far enough off to make the lopsided trade arguement..Reality is, Newton is a stud and has a lot of room to get better.. He has been over throwing WR's left and right, and has no real WR2..Ingram has the skill to be great, and if he only got enough to be equal with Sproles as far as FF scoring goes, he'd make this deal a favorable deal for the husband.. That is possible for Ingram..Fitz is not going to do any better then he has recently, he can only come back down to earth from here.. Foster could have a real problem with that Hammy, how do you account for him being outplayed by Tate otherwise?This trade isn't as far off as you're suggesting, and it is far from being overturn-able..What can be done? Nothing....

 

[T J]

When did the Shark Pool become the "trade evaluation pool"?

My gosh. People are totally focusing on the wrong thing here. I think you all want me to acknowledge that I'm wrong on the valuation on the trade and I won't do it. This thread is not about the evaluation of the trade itself. Everyone's opinions are different as to what makes a good trade or not. I get that. I AM saying however that given my own belief that it's bad trade, combined with the husband/wife aspect, combined with 0-5 record, has lead me to conclude what I have - that the husband has willfully lessened his own team in an effort to strengthen his wife's. And by definition, that means they colluded.

 

[T J]

The whole point of the initial thread was to bring up the married 0-5 husband's trade to his 3-2 wife. You cannot take the married aspect out of the equation.

Look, you have two choices: Don't allow married people into the league, or let them manage their teams. If you let them into the league, you have to allow trades like this.

I don't have any choices to make. This is not my league so I don't really care. I'm simply a neutral observer expressing my opinion and a lot of folks appear to disagree with my take. The original poster asked if anyone thought it was fishy. I happen to think it is. Nothing more. But.... if I were faced with this, as commish I would not allow separate husband/wife teams in the same league.

What if you were faced with what the OP is faced with? They are already in the league.. There isn't enough proof to say they colluded, and the values aren't far enough off to make the lopsided trade arguement..Reality is, Newton is a stud and has a lot of room to get better.. He has been over throwing WR's left and right, and has no real WR2..Ingram has the skill to be great, and if he only got enough to be equal with Sproles as far as FF scoring goes, he'd make this deal a favorable deal for the husband.. That is possible for Ingram..Fitz is not going to do any better then he has recently, he can only come back down to earth from here.. Foster could have a real problem with that Hammy, how do you account for him being outplayed by Tate otherwise?This trade isn't as far off as you're suggesting, and it is far from being overturn-able..What can be done? Nothing....

I happen to disagree with you on everything but the last line. I do agree that I don't think there's anything that can be done.

 

[Mario Kart]

When did the Shark Pool become the "trade evaluation pool"?

My gosh. People are totally focusing on the wrong thing here. I think you all want me to acknowledge that I'm wrong on the valuation on the trade and I won't do it. This thread is not about the evaluation of the trade itself. Everyone's opinions are different as to what makes a good trade or not. I get that. I AM saying however that given my own belief that it's bad trade, combined with the husband/wife aspect, combined with 0-5 record, has lead me to conclude what I have - that the husband has willfully lessened his own team in an effort to strengthen his wife's. And by definition, that means they colluded.

What if the husband who is 0-5 wins the Super Bowl? Could happen. And, mods should move this to the Baseball Forum or something.

 

[tim_whatley]

In my mind this is in fact why I've reached the conclusion I have. Is the disconnect really that huge? I'm surprised. My viewpoint seems perfectly logical to me.

For some reason this makes me laugh.

If you want a really good laugh, go look in the mirror and check out the guy that's completely insecure with his masculinity.

My reflection is indeed often cause for jubilation that generally varies depending of my levels of mescaline. Oh wait, that's not what you said.Hey, I like chicks, a lot. I respect chicks, a lot. There are just some things I would rather do with just the guys. Fantasy football, golf, fishing / hunting fall toward the top of that list. It's not that I think women can't perform any of the aforementioned activities on par with their male counterparts (although obviously by and they can not), it's just that those are things I like doing with my buddies where I don't always have to process every thought, word or action through the "should I be doing this in front of a woman" filter. If that makes me a cretin, well, I’ve been called far worse..

 

[T J]

When did the Shark Pool become the "trade evaluation pool"?

My gosh. People are totally focusing on the wrong thing here. I think you all want me to acknowledge that I'm wrong on the valuation on the trade and I won't do it. This thread is not about the evaluation of the trade itself. Everyone's opinions are different as to what makes a good trade or not. I get that. I AM saying however that given my own belief that it's bad trade, combined with the husband/wife aspect, combined with 0-5 record, has lead me to conclude what I have - that the husband has willfully lessened his own team in an effort to strengthen his wife's. And by definition, that means they colluded.

What if the husband who is 0-5 wins the Super Bowl? Could happen. And, mods should move this to the Baseball Forum or something.

No, it shouldn't be moved. If the husband won the SB, it would not, in my opinion, be because he was savvy with this trade, it would be because of nothing more than dumb luck. Or maybe because his wife traded him some players later that helped him when he looked like HE and not SHE had the best chance. One of the two - maybe both.

 

[footballnerd]

Hey, I like chicks, a lot. I respect chicks, a lot. There are just some things I would rather do with just the guys. Fantasy football, golf, fishing / hunting fall toward the top of that list. It's not that I think women can't perform any of the aforementioned activities on par with their male counterparts (although obviously by and they can not), it's just that those are things I like doing with my buddies where I don't always have to process every thought, word or action through the "should I be doing this in front of a woman" filter.

If that makes me a cretin, well, I’ve been called far worse.

.

I can somewhat understand this, but if the girl can compete, and doesn't get offended or report my animated XXX team avatars, then I'm cool with her playing in the league

If the husband won the SB, it would not, in my opinion, be because he was savvy with this trade, it would be because of nothing more than dumb luck. Or maybe because his wife traded him some players later that helped him when he looked like HE and not SHE had the best chance. One of the two - maybe both.

this type of reasoning for everything won't help improve your FFL game

 

[Mario Kart]

When did the Shark Pool become the "trade evaluation pool"?

My gosh. People are totally focusing on the wrong thing here. I think you all want me to acknowledge that I'm wrong on the valuation on the trade and I won't do it. This thread is not about the evaluation of the trade itself. Everyone's opinions are different as to what makes a good trade or not. I get that. I AM saying however that given my own belief that it's bad trade, combined with the husband/wife aspect, combined with 0-5 record, has lead me to conclude what I have - that the husband has willfully lessened his own team in an effort to strengthen his wife's. And by definition, that means they colluded.

What if the husband who is 0-5 wins the Super Bowl? Could happen. And, mods should move this to the Baseball Forum or something.

No, it shouldn't be moved. If the husband won the SB, it would not, in my opinion, be because he was savvy with this trade, it would be because of nothing more than dumb luck. Or maybe because his wife traded him some players later that helped him when he looked like HE and not SHE had the best chance. One of the two - maybe both.

This kind of argument is where I jump on board. You won me over. A bunch of "what ifs" have made me see the light. Where do I vote to veto this trade? Link it up.

 

[T J]

this type of reasoning for everything won't help improve your FFL game

I'm not sure I follow...

 

[Captain Hook]

Hard to believe one of the dumber of the "terrible trade" theads got this many responses in one day

Joe/David - just another reason for these to either go into the AC Pool or a FF Commissioner Forum

 

[T J]

Hard to believe one of the dumber of the "terrible trade" theads got this many responses in one dayJoe/David - just another reason for these to either go into the AC Pool or a FF Commissioner Forum

Another person who is misreading what the thread is about. What'd you say about "dumb"?

 

[Captain Hook]

Hard to believe one of the dumber of the "terrible trade" theads got this many responses in one dayJoe/David - just another reason for these to either go into the AC Pool or a FF Commissioner Forum

Another person who is misreading what the thread is about. What'd you say about "dumb"?

The trade should be discussed on it's own merits or lack thereofthe relationship of the two people involved doesn't have anything to do with the trade

 

[T J]

Hard to believe one of the dumber of the "terrible trade" theads got this many responses in one dayJoe/David - just another reason for these to either go into the AC Pool or a FF Commissioner Forum

Another person who is misreading what the thread is about. What'd you say about "dumb"?

The trade should be discussed on it's own merits or lack thereofthe relationship of the two people involved doesn't have anything to do with the trade

When considering the prospect of collusion or not, I think you're way off the mark with that statement. You have to take the whole scenario in total, you can't pick and choose those aspects that better support one viewpoint or another.

 

[nkowal]

Can't believe this thread is STILL going.

No clue what scoring format you're in where Fitzpatrick is only 5 points behind Newton. He's much further behind in all my leagues. And Newton is 100/0 the rest of the way for me. We obviously see where the valuation difference finally is. Newton is a top 5 QB the rest of the way. Unless you're predicting Fitzpatrick to suddenly start going back to Week 1 he's borderline Top 10, at best. That's obviously where the difference is. You hate Cam!

 

[T J]

Can't believe this thread is STILL going.No clue what scoring format you're in where Fitzpatrick is only 5 points behind Newton. He's much further behind in all my leagues. And Newton is 100/0 the rest of the way for me. We obviously see where the valuation difference finally is. Newton is a top 5 QB the rest of the way. Unless you're predicting Fitzpatrick to suddenly start going back to Week 1 he's borderline Top 10, at best. That's obviously where the difference is. You hate Cam!

I don't hate Cam. Dude's a stud, but I do see him coming back to the pack. I'll put it this way, in my estimation the gap between Newtion and Fitzpatrick is nowhere near what I perceive the gap to be between Foster and Ingram which is substantial. I think my take is much more based on how little I think of Ingram moreso than any thoughts on Newton. But I will say that I definitely do not see him top 5 going forward.

 

[placebo]

Your argument essentially boils down to this:

1) I would not have made this trade

2) The 2 owners are husband and wife

Therefore, collusion.

There's a huge logical disconnect there for most of us. Disagreeing with whether a trade should be made doesn't mean there is collusion.

And it really is silly. It doesn't matter if anyone in this thread would do the husband's trade. If I used the bolded as reasoning for vetoing trades I would veto half the trades in my leagues, because I (and everyone else) value players differently. I can name tons of examples of trades I would have thought Team A was getting ripped off in before the season that Team B would have ended up winning. You don't have the right to tell others how to evaluate players because there's a good chance you're wrong. As far as the husband/wife issue, I'll echo that you either trust them or you shouldn't be playing with them.

 

[T J]

Your argument essentially boils down to this:

1) I would not have made this trade

2) The 2 owners are husband and wife

Therefore, collusion.

There's a huge logical disconnect there for most of us. Disagreeing with whether a trade should be made doesn't mean there is collusion.

And it really is silly. It doesn't matter if anyone in this thread would do the husband's trade. If I used the bolded as reasoning for vetoing trades I would veto half the trades in my leagues, because I (and everyone else) value players differently. I can name tons of examples of trades I would have thought Team A was getting ripped off in before the season that Team B would have ended up winning. You don't have the right to tell others how to evaluate players because there's a good chance you're wrong. As far as the husband/wife issue, I'll echo that you either trust them or you shouldn't be playing with them.

I agree. It's not my place to tell others their valuation is wrong. But neither is it others to tell me mine is wrong.

 

[Pnishthm]

Hard to believe one of the dumber of the "terrible trade" theads got this many responses in one dayJoe/David - just another reason for these to either go into the AC Pool or a FF Commissioner Forum

It would be ok if the mods wouldn't allow TJ to piss all over the thread...

 

[thatguy]

I'm gonna go against the grain here and say.... granted there's no proof, but I'm betting almost for sure they colluded. And to say that the trade is close is to me, questionable at best.Foster was hurt, but he's definitely been playing well upon his return. She already had Rodgers so really had no need for Newton. I think this one is pretty clear cut to be honest with you.The husband's season is over. They were pretty shrewd in how they did it but I don't think there's much doubt, in my mind anyway, that the husband helped his wife out since his own season is lost. May as well try to win some money for the household any way you can. That's my read 100 percent.

I agree with this... The husband really has nothing to gain by making this trade, so why make it? To help his wife. The fact that the trade, on the surface, looks fair, doesn't change anything.