Possible collusion, votes & opinions please (1 Viewer)

[PoolShark]

The particulars:

10 team league, top 4 make playoffs after 14 week reg season. We start 2 RB/3 WR, or 3 RB/2 WR with TEs grouped with the WRs. Scoring is 1/10 combined rushing/rec, 6 TD, no negatives for fumbles, etc. The (ranks) below are by our scoring system.

Team 1, currently 8-1 and in first place receives:

S Alexander (#8 rb), G Hearst (#14 rb), S Moss (#5 wr)

Team 10, currently 2-7 and in last place receives:

C Portis (#7 rb), S Mack, S Sharpe

Portis currently has 4 more points than Alexander on the season, but still has his bye this week.

Sharpe also has his bye this week, and is virtually useless anyway since TEs are grouped with WRs in this league.

Alexander, Hearst and Moss are the 3 highest scoring players on Team 10, which is virtually (if not mathematically) eliminated from the playoffs with just 5 weeks left. Even if they win out, 7-7 is unlikely to make it in, and they have essentially guaranteed a loss this week anyway by dealing their 3 best players for 2 bye players and S Mack.

Myself and my coowner are "first timers" in this league, so I am unsure of what if any relationship exists between the two owners involved. The Team 10 owner has not been concerned enough about his team to make a single add/drop all season either, despite being the 2nd lowest scoring team in the league. He is obviously not a "participator," at least not until now.

By the way, the only mention of trading in our rules states that "all trades must be approved by the commish." That's it. Apparantly it was, since the deal has gone through on the site already. I have been unable to reach the commish as yet.

Thanks in advance for any opinions.

 

[wilked]

 

[Mordred]

Since that one team gets so many players in bold print, it's clear that he comes out the winner, and thus this is collusion.

 

[Crocodile]

I must be a horrible commissioner. I haven't vetoed a single trade this year. In fact, I haven't vetoed a single trade in seven years.

 

[PoolShark]

already tried that...didn't workmade me feel kinda dizzy though...

 

[PoolShark]

Since that one team gets so many players in bold print, it's clear that he comes out the winner, and thus this is collusion.

maybe Mack and Sharpe were in bold (and the others not) when the trade was offered, causing the Team 10 owner to think he was getting the bargain...You might be onto something here, thanks!

 

[PoolShark]

I must be a horrible commissioner. I haven't vetoed a single trade this year. In fact, I haven't vetoed a single trade in seven years.

I don't normally like to interfere with trades, but in the league I commish we have a process whereby a concerned owner can ask that a questionable deal be brought up for a league vote.There has to be a line somewhere that seperates a "bad" trade and one that totally upsets the competitive balance of the league. I can't believe you've never ran into a problem if you operate on a complete "hands off" basis as far as trades. Consider yourself lucky.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

The trade stinks, especially since it's one stud starter for another stud starter plus two pretty good players in Hearst and Moss. No way would I approve that type of deal if I was commish.

 

[Crocodile]

I don't normally like to interfere with trades, but in the league I commish we have a process whereby a concerned owner can ask that a questionable deal be brought up for a league vote.There has to be a line somewhere that seperates a "bad" trade and one that totally upsets the competitive balance of the league. I can't believe you've never ran into a problem if you operate on a complete "hands off" basis as far as trades. Consider yourself lucky.

I probably do have a better group of owners than is found in most leagues. In seven years, I can only think of one trade that I probably should have vetoed. In every trade, there is always the perception that one owner is getting the better of the other. It's quite surprising, though, how often that initial perception is proven to be 100% incorrect over time.

 

[Crocodile]

The trade stinks, especially since it's one stud starter for another stud starter plus two pretty good players in Hearst and Moss. No way would I approve that type of deal if I was commish.

Based on this logic, my trade of Jamal Lewis and Koren Robinson for Randy Moss earlier this year would have been blocked because my opponent would have been getting two studs (Robinson was considered a stud at the time) for one. As a result, I (who was presumably getting the worst of the trade) would be sitting at 6-3 rather than 8-1. Nice work, commissioner.

 

[username]

Based on the provided info, this trade stinks. You have the right to be pissed.

 

[CMU37484]

That trade stinks plain and simple. I hate seeing vetoes and commish's stepping in but there's no way the Portis owner can justify this deal. He knows it. You have every right to make whatever stink you can.

 

[PoolShark]

I don't know, but it seems to be a hotly contested matter on the boards here. A lot of posters seem to be of the opinion that no trades should be vetoed unless there is proof of collusion.

I would beg the question then, when is there ever proof of collusion? The owners involved would have to be pretty stupid to orchestrate the deal in the first place, then admit "Yeah, we were colluding." I'd be interested to know exactly where this supposed proof is going to come from. Do the commisioners have their owners phones tapped? Email account passwords?

My personal opinion on the matter is that since the trade is supposed to benefit both teams, it certainly shouldn't be much trouble for the owners to each explain how it does indeed benefit their team. I fail to see the Team 10 owner above coming up with a valid explanation that doesn't include a number of injuries possibly affecting the involved players somewhere down the line.

Even a trade is not collusive, if it greatly benefits one team at the cost of another, and upsets the competitive balance of the league, I don't think it should be allowed. Even if the 2-7 owner in my situation is just a "dumb-***," it still doesn't make it right to allow the deal.

 

[wilked]

The trade does not stink as much as people are saying. Below are some angles, not necessarily my opinionsAlexander, Moss, and HearstAlexander can be seen as non-dominant, and there have been rumors of Morris seeing increased PTMoss has had a few good games, how long will it take for defenses to take him out of the game? He will not score TDs at this pace the rest of the wayHearst may see less PT as the year goes on and SF makes Barlow a featured back to decide if he is their futurePortis, Mack, and SharpePortis can be the #1 back the rest of the way. Plummer is going to jumpstart the offense, and his schedule is fairly easyMack is a TD vulture and is a suitable #2 the rest of the waySharpe was playing like the #1 TE in the NFL until Plummer got hurt. Plummer is back, look for him to regain his status.AGAIN, NOT MY OPINIONS, but they may turn out to be dead on, and the owner ending up with the latter half will be the one laughing to the bank.

 

[Greg R]

It's not about who got helped the most or how balanced the deal is. It's about whether a reasonable person could think it improves his team any amount.You need to ask is the gain going from SA to Portis more than or equal to the loss from Moss to WR4 and Hearst to RB3 that he will start instead. We can't judge that as you didn't provide names for those players. Even if we know them, without knowing why the guy thinks it helps his team, we still really aren't fit to judge the trade.You should be asking the second team to explain why he thinks the deal helps his team. He should be able to give answers that even if you don't agree with, that you think a reasonable person could actually believe. It's hard to prove collusion without a confession. Owners should have the right to follow their beliefs. That gives a lot of leeway for unscrupulous owners to work within. If you still believe it's collusion, but don't have enough reason to justify overturning it, don't play in the league next year, or don't invite those owners back.

 

[Burning Sensation]

While the trade isnt terrible, this clearly looks like collusion based on the circumstances.

 

[wilked]

While the trade isnt terrible, this clearly looks like collusion based on the circumstances.

Didn't read the whole thing beforeIt appears to have some collusion aspect, but I would have a hard time overturning it.I would not ask the player that traded SA to return to the league though

 

[MrPack]

If you didn't get what he was saying, here.......

 

[MrPack]

 

[PoolShark]

The trade does not stink as much as people are saying. Below are some angles, not necessarily my opinions

Alexander, Moss, and Hearst

Alexander can be seen as non-dominant, and there have been rumors of Morris seeing increased PT

Moss has had a few good games, how long will it take for defenses to take him out of the game? He will not score TDs at this pace the rest of the way

Hearst may see less PT as the year goes on and SF makes Barlow a featured back to decide if he is their future

Portis, Mack, and Sharpe

Portis can be the #1 back the rest of the way. Plummer is going to jumpstart the offense, and his schedule is fairly easy

Mack is a TD vulture and is a suitable #2 the rest of the way

Sharpe was playing like the #1 TE in the NFL until Plummer got hurt. Plummer is back, look for him to regain his status.

AGAIN, NOT MY OPINIONS, but they may turn out to be dead on, and the owner ending up with the latter half will be the one laughing to the bank.

The only way the Team 10 owner will be laughing all the way to the bank is if a bunch of injuries occur to the particulars of the deal.There is no TE position, as stated previously, so Sharpe is a WR. Even if he does play like the #1 TE the rest of the way, he still doesn't come close to being starter material in a 10 team league, half of which starts 3 rb/2 wr. Gonzo, Shockey and Heap are the only other TEs even on rosters, and as far as I know Gonzo is the only one that has started for his owner all year.

As for Mack, I can tell you that we drafted him, and he wasn't putting up RB#3 numbers for uswhen he was the starter in Houston. In fact, he was so bad, we dropped him even before he was demoted. I find it hard to imagine him putting up RB #2 numbers as a "TD vulture."

As for the Hearst end of it, he seems to be getting more of the load as the season progresses, not less. He has had more attempts in each of his last 5 games than he had in any of his first 4 (11/gm ave vs 17+/gm ave).

 

[Cazador]

Since your league rules only state that the Commissioner has to approve the trade, there is likely no recourse here, though it would be appropriate to loudly complain. Are there any stated criteria for why the Commish can veto a trade? If there are none in writing, it would be fair to ask what criteria the Commish considers.Given the circumstances of the teams involved, it sounds like it may be collusive, though it could be a desperate attempt by the #10 team to try to make the playoffs based on some opinions or advice that escape the rest of us. I think the best you can do at this point is to get your league's trade rules clarified and in writing for next year.

 

[Courtjester]

I am sorry and maybe I missed it, but is this a keeper league??I just don't see collusion here. Maybe a bad trade??The fact that team 10 was not active at all in FA, shades this deal a bit, but I think you can sit down and make a justification for each side. I have been a commissioner for 14 years, and my rule is that if I can see any type of justification for a trade, then I allow it. You cannot mandate stupidity.Maybe team 10 is throwing in the towell? Maybe he is thinking (if keeper league) I want Portis versus Alexander for my keeper next year? I am not sold on S.Moss as a stud--consistent so far this year, yes, but not stud and I believe Sharpe's numbers are going to climb with Plummer back, which will in turn have an effect on Portis. Hearst and Mack to me are kind of just afterthoughts--with arguments being made to and for with each....If your league allows votes, then vote. But I can tell you from my years of experience, that when you start telling other teams what they can and cannot do (admittedly when it is a clear bad trade a/k/a Portis for Fred Lane it is vetoed) and they are serious, you are going to start problems in your league and lose owners.

 

[trout]

This almost certainly appears to be collusion.I can definitely see what Wilked and courtjester have explained, and I think they did a decent enough job of explaining why the trade might be considered ok.But let's look at another level....Team 10 is 2-7. He needs to win out in order to even have the slightest chance of making the playoffs. Yet, he decides to receive Portis, Sharpe who are on a bye this week. He's trading away 3 potential starters in SA, Hearst, S. Moss to receive only 1 guy who'll play this week (Mack ). The 2-7 team needs to win every week from here on out, yet, he's basically throwing this week out the window. Since his team is 2-7 I doubt that he has enough depth to cover for Portis' and Sharpe's bye this week. Team 10 just traded away his last chance to win and has thrown away the rest of the year. So as Wilked and courtjester explained, the overall value of the players involved may be justified, the fact that the 2-7 team needs to win RIGHT NOW makes this trade unfair and it should've been vetoed.

 

[JAA]

One more time for the folks just getting here:Stupidity does not equal collusionUnless you can prove otherwise ...Maybe you should get out of the league if you are unhappy? I dont smell collusion, though I dont know the parties involved.JAA

 

[Outnumbered]

I don't know if this necessarily pertains to the 2-7 team here, but in the league I run, teams that are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs are not permitted to perform trades.Outside of that, yes the trade is a bit lopsided, but to say collusion is a little extreme to me. I think if this were collusion, Team 1 would not have lost Portis in the deal.

 

[aaronr28]

That's a horrible trade. The fact that the owner who is getting ripped off hasn't made an add/drop all year is a clear warning sign that this trade is not being made in an honest attempt to help his team.If the owner giving up Alexander, Hearst, and SMoss has a somewhat legit sounding reason for making the trade (i.e., it's a keeper league and he wasn't going to be able to keep some of those players anyway so he wants to get Portis to build his team around), then I guess it could be defensible.Otherwise, I'm guessing this trade dramatically shifts the balance of power in the league and has almost zero chance of improving 1 of the teams involved. Thus, I'd have no qualms about vetoing that deal or at least complaining very loudly to the commish given the stated rules of the league.

 

[bagger]

ahem...

 

[bagger]

if you could all please turn your attention to the thread attendant, an announcement needs to be made.

 

[Hack022]

Doesn't matter who it favours I don't see any signs of collusion in this tradeHAck

 

[PoolShark]

One more time for the folks just getting here:

Stupidity does not equal collusion

Unless you can prove otherwise ...

Maybe you should get out of the league if you are unhappy? I dont smell collusion, though I dont know the parties involved.

JAA

First of all, I never asked if anyone thought it was collusion or not. I suggested that I thought it might be, and asked for opinions on the merit of the deal based on the involved players. Furthermore, if a (questionable at best) deal such as this between the last place (and likely eliminated) team and the first place team doesn't "smell like collusion," what exactly does?

Serious question, since you obviously advocate a complete "hands off" approach to trading. What exactly constitutes "proof?"

If the last place owner in your league traded D McAllister and T Holt to the first place owner for, say D Levens and Travis Taylor, that just flies? Unless one of them "accidently" admits to collusion?

When would you ever have "proof" of collusion???

Is your league "big money" and do you have openings next year? Me and a buddy are interested...

I fail to see how a league can be run where "any" trade is fine, and that's the bottom line when everyone keeps harping that you must have "proof." It's easy to say that if you're in a league where deals like that don't happen. I haven't found one yet that didn't have at least a couple "slacker" owners.

 

[bagger]

Hello and welcome to thread #438 bound to being locked or moved. If you are wanting to post in a thread that will be locked or moved, you're in the right place. If you're not, you're about to have a really long evening.We'd like to tell you now about some important safety features we have aboard this thread, the thread attendants. Please look at one now.There are 3 exits aboard this thread: 1 at the top right corner (the red X), 1 at the top left corner (the green back button), and 1 by turning your computer off completely. If you're seated in one of the exit rows, please do not store your bags by your feet. That would be a realy bad idea.In the event of the thread being moved to the Assistant Coaches Forum, these baggy things will drop down over your head. You stick it over your nose and mouth like the thread attendant is doing now. The bag won't inflate, but there's oxygen there, promise. If you're sitting next to a 4 digit member, or someone who is acting like a 4 digit member, please do us all a favor and put on your mask first. If you are traveling with two or more 4 digit members, please take a moment now to decide which one is your favorite. Help that one first, then work your way down.There is no smoking in the thread on this message board. There is also no smoking in the Test Forum. If we see smoke coming from the Test Forum, we will assume you are on fire and put you out. This is a free service we provide.We're glad to have you with us on board this thread. Thank you for choosing footballguys.com, and giving them your business and your money. If there's anything they can do to make you more comfortable, please go to the Apps Forum and wait for further instructions.Please remain seated until the thread is on page 4, with no hopes of anyone ever posting in it again.

 

[PoolShark]

Oh, and "NO" it's not a keeper league.

 

[aaronr28]

First of all, I never asked if anyone thought it was collusion or not. I suggested that I thought it might be, and asked for opinions on the merit of the deal based on the involved players.

Furthermore, if a (questionable at best) deal such as this between the last place (and likely eliminated) team and the first place team doesn't "smell like collusion," what exactly does?

Serious question, since you obviously advocate a complete "hands off" approach to trading. What exactly constitutes "proof?"

If the last place owner in your league traded D McAllister and T Holt to the first place owner for, say D Levens and Travis Taylor, that just flies? Unless one of them "accidently" admits to collusion?

When would you ever have "proof" of collusion???

Is your league "big money" and do you have openings next year? Me and a buddy are interested...

I fail to see how a league can be run where "any" trade is fine, and that's the bottom line when everyone keeps harping that you must have "proof." It's easy to say that if you're in a league where deals like that don't happen. I haven't found one yet that didn't have at least a couple "slacker" owners.

PoolShark, my take on this is that MOST posters here in the Shark Pool are Sharks who have no qualms about ripping off their fellow owners in trades to gain an advantage. Thus, there is going to be a bias towards a more "hands off" approach when it comes to trades around here.However, you have to take the entire context of a trade into consideration when judging whether it should be allowed or not. Based on the info you've provided, I think you are completely justified in questioning the fairness of this trade.

I find little joy in playing fantasy football if teams that are out of the playoff race just pack it in and are allowed to make horribly lopsided trades to benefit other teams that are still in the race. There has to be a system of checks and balances in every league to prevent owners from making trades that have no possibility of helping their team, yet have the distinct possibility to make 1 lucky team much much stronger.

Very few things can kill a league quicker than a bad trade that is allowed to go through. Although, I've also seen leagues torn apart when a "legitimate" trade is unfairly blocked. It's a fine line, but a good commish should be able to figure out what's appropriate given the rules of the league.

 

[Capella]

reading this thread reminds me why I hate people so much.

 

[bagger]

reading this thread reminds me why I hate people so much.

feel better?

 

[Johnny Ryall]

That's a horrible trade. The fact that the owner who is getting ripped off hasn't made an add/drop all year is a clear warning sign that this trade is not being made in an honest attempt to help his team.If the owner giving up Alexander, Hearst, and SMoss has a somewhat legit sounding reason for making the trade (i.e., it's a keeper league and he wasn't going to be able to keep some of those players anyway so he wants to get Portis to build his team around), then I guess it could be defensible.Otherwise, I'm guessing this trade dramatically shifts the balance of power in the league and has almost zero chance of improving 1 of the teams involved. Thus, I'd have no qualms about vetoing that deal or at least complaining very loudly to the commish given the stated rules of the league.

As usual, well said. It seems to be very fashionable to automatically say "nope, not collusion" to any question like this. But if you look at the facts objectively like aaronr28 did here, then you have to wonder what's going on. The thing that jumps out the most is that the 10th place team hasn't made an attempt all year to improve his team, and now all the sudden he's going to make a deal like this? And like it was stated earlier, if he is still trying to make the playoffs, then every week is a must win. So why get 2 players he can't use this week + 1 who is not a viable starter in a 10 team league?It stinks, and I would also complain loudly about it.

 

[Capella]

feel better?

lol, a little. I'll feel great if I hear the words "Chris Rix is out for the season".

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

The particulars:

10 team league, top 4 make playoffs after 14 week reg season. We start 2 RB/3 WR, or 3 RB/2 WR with TEs grouped with the WRs. Scoring is 1/10 combined rushing/rec, 6 TD, no negatives for fumbles, etc. The (ranks) below are by our scoring system.

Team 1, currently 8-1 and in first place receives:

S Alexander (#8 rb), G Hearst (#14 rb), S Moss (#5 wr)

Team 10, currently 2-7 and in last place receives:

C Portis (#7 rb), S Mack, S Sharpe

Portis currently has 4 more points than Alexander on the season, but still has his bye this week.

Sharpe also has his bye this week, and is virtually useless anyway since TEs are grouped with WRs in this league.

Alexander, Hearst and Moss are the 3 highest scoring players on Team 10, which is virtually (if not mathematically) eliminated from the playoffs with just 5 weeks left. Even if they win out, 7-7 is unlikely to make it in, and they have essentially guaranteed a loss this week anyway by dealing their 3 best players for 2 bye players and S Mack.

Myself and my coowner are "first timers" in this league, so I am unsure of what if any relationship exists between the two owners involved. The Team 10 owner has not been concerned enough about his team to make a single add/drop all season either, despite being the 2nd lowest scoring team in the league. He is obviously not a "participator," at least not until now.

By the way, the only mention of trading in our rules states that "all trades must be approved by the commish." That's it. Apparantly it was, since the deal has gone through on the site already. I have been unable to reach the commish as yet.

Thanks in advance for any opinions.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[bagger]

That's a horrible trade. The fact that the owner who is getting ripped off hasn't made an add/drop all year is a clear warning sign that this trade is not being made in an honest attempt to help his team.If the owner giving up Alexander, Hearst, and SMoss has a somewhat legit sounding reason for making the trade (i.e., it's a keeper league and he wasn't going to be able to keep some of those players anyway so he wants to get Portis to build his team around), then I guess it could be defensible.Otherwise, I'm guessing this trade dramatically shifts the balance of power in the league and has almost zero chance of improving 1 of the teams involved. Thus, I'd have no qualms about vetoing that deal or at least complaining very loudly to the commish given the stated rules of the league.

As usual, well said. It seems to be very fashionable to automatically say "nope, not collusion" to any question like this. But if you look at the facts objectively like aaronr28 did here, then you have to wonder what's going on. The thing that jumps out the most is that the 10th place team hasn't made an attempt all year to improve his team, and now all the sudden he's going to make a deal like this? And like it was stated earlier, if he is still trying to make the playoffs, then every week is a must win. So why get 2 players he can't use this week + 1 who is not a viable starter in a 10 team league?It stinks, and I would also complain loudly about it.

could you please give me the lotto numbers for this week since you seem to know the future?thanks. team 1 gets alexander, one piece of a rbbc, and a wr who blew up in one week for a top rb and top te and a backup rb.i still can't figure out who's getting a better deal.considering none of the rosters are listed, none of you "sharks" have any basis for crying foul.unbelievable.

 

[bagger]

btw, i like how all of you guys fell for the leading original post bolding certain players. not objective at all. :rotflmao:

 

[Sinrman]

Not going to sit here and read all the replies.Is the trade even? NOIs the trade grossly unbalanced, and thus vetoable? NOIs the trade a result of collusion? NOWith all that being said...This trade is unbalanced. The owner getting Alexander, Hearst, and Moss is getting the better end of the deal. But Alexander is incredibly inconsistent, Hearst may be doing decent at least, but he has been almost forgotten, and Moss is having a great season overall. As for the other end, Portis is a better RB than Alexander overall, Mack may not be the answer in Houston but still gets some TDs, and Sharpe is still one of the top 5 TEs in the game.*shrug* In favor of one side over the other? Again, yes. Grossly unbalanced where it should be vetoed? Ummm, no. Is this possibly collusion? Again, what the heck is up this season where people are assuming collusion left and right? Collusion is a very, very strong word in the fantasy world, and should only be said in extreme circumstances. This... is NOT collusion in my eyes.

 

[PoolShark]

What color is the sky in your world?

Right now, it's kinda black, with some little "twinkly" things.Relevance?

 

[bagger]

Right now, it's kinda black, with some little "twinkly" things.Relevance?

btw, is this trade from the pyramid league?

 

[aaronr28]

team 1 gets alexander, one piece of a rbbc, and a wr who blew up in one week for a top rb and top te and a backup rb.i still can't figure out who's getting a better deal.considering none of the rosters are listed, none of you "sharks" have any basis for crying foul.unbelievable.

sandbagger, you are ignoring the context of the trade. If you EVER said a trade was unfair and should be vetoed, then I could understand. But, I don't think you've ever said that as long as I've been reading your posts.1 owner is in last place and hasn't made one add/drop transaction all year long. This person either has a strong team and doesn't need to make any improvements along the way (not likely given the record) OR this person simply doesn't care about his team or the league (seems very likely given the information provided).The other owner is in first place and trades away a stud RB who isn't playing this week for another stud RB who is.He also trades away a mediocre WR (league does not use TEs, so Sharpe is a mediocre WR) who is not playing this week for a stud WR who has scored in 4 straight weeks, is coming off a 3 TD performance and IS playing this week.On top of those, he trades away Hearst, the #14 scoring RB for a RB who lost his starting job to a rookie about a month ago.

 

[bagger]

1 owner is in last place and hasn't made one add/drop transaction all year long. This person either has a strong team and doesn't need to make any improvements along the way (not likely given the record) OR this person simply doesn't care about his team or the league (seems very likely given the information provided).The other owner is in first place and trades away a stud RB who isn't playing this week for another stud RB who is.He also trades away a mediocre WR (league does not use TEs, so Sharpe is a mediocre WR) who is not playing this week for a stud WR who has scored in 4 straight weeks, is coming off a 3 TD performance and IS playing this week.On top of those, he trades away Hearst, the #14 scoring RB for a RB who lost his starting job to a rookie about a month ago.

i'll address your points:1. why should an owner be penalized for a lack of activity and then he wants to make a trade? what's sufficient activity? 2 FA moves? 5? 10? basing vetoing trades on past activity is a very dangerous precedent to set.2. that's a savvy move by that owner getting rid of one stud in exchange for another to effectively not have a stud rb bye week. that's good strategy.3. the rest of the players are slamted in owner 1's direction. but santana moss is no randy. people here have a very selective memory and if this trade happened the week before moss' blowup game there would probably be a lot less griping.is hearst better than mack? yes. will barlow beat out hearst and hearst becomes relegated to the same role as mack? perhaps, nobody knows.this is not collusion. collusion is a conspiracy, not stupidity.

 

[Johnny Ryall]

could you please give me the lotto numbers for this week since you seem to know the future?

thanks.



team 1 gets alexander, one piece of a rbbc, and a wr who blew up in one week for a top rb and top te and a backup rb.

i still can't figure out who's getting a better deal.

considering none of the rosters are listed, none of you "sharks" have any basis for crying foul.

unbelievable.

Not sure where I claimed to know the future, but I am looking at the circumstances surrounding the trade rather than blindly looking at just the players involved.

1st place team sends:

1 stud rb who is off this week

1 top te who is off this week (btw, te's are't required in this league so who cares if sharpe is a top te? that makes him equal to about the 40th wr)

1 backup rb

to

Last place team who has not made any attempt to improve his team all year and needs to win out to have even a chance to make the playoffs for:

1 stud rb who IS playing this week

1 top wr who, btw, has 3 100 yd games+1 96 yd game, and has scored a td in 5 of 8 games. So no, he's not a 1 week wonder.

1 part of rbbc who has still put up numbers good enogh to be the #14 rb in this guy's scoring system.

If a deal like this doesn't smell fishy, then what does in your mind?

p.s. I'm typically all for letting owners run their teams how they see fit. But the circumstances here just don't add up.

 

[bagger]

could you please give me the lotto numbers for this week since you seem to know the future?thanks.



team 1 gets alexander, one piece of a rbbc, and a wr who blew up in one week for a top rb and top te and a backup rb.

i still can't figure out who's getting a better deal.

considering none of the rosters are listed, none of you "sharks" have any basis for crying foul.

unbelievable.

Not sure where I claimed to know the future, but I am looking at the circumstances surrounding the trade rather than blindly looking at just the players involved.

1st place team sends:

1 stud rb who is off this week

1 top te who is off this week (btw, te's are't required in this league so who cares if sharpe is a top te? that makes him equal to about the 40th wr)

1 backup rb

to

Last place team who has not made any attempt to improve his team all year and needs to win out to have even a chance to make the playoffs for:

1 stud rb who IS playing this week

1 top wr who, btw, has 3 100 yd games+1 96 yd game, and has scored a td in 5 of 8 games. So no, he's not a 1 week wonder.

1 part of rbbc who has still put up numbers good enogh to be the #14 rb in this guy's scoring system.

If a deal like this doesn't smell fishy, then what does in your mind?

p.s. I'm typically all for letting owners run their teams how they see fit. But the circumstances here just don't add up.

it's just that when people complain about how unfair trades are they are taking the stance that what's happened in the past will continue to happen.

i don't pretend to know so i have a hands off approach.

really, this is the reason why my keeper league that i commish has a trading deadline in week 8. anything after that and you get teams who are making trades who are definitely out of the hunt.

 

[Johnny Ryall]

1. why should an owner be penalized for a lack of activity and then he wants to make a trade? what's sufficient activity? 2 FA moves? 5? 10? basing vetoing trades on past activity is a very dangerous precedent to set.

The point is that the last place team has to win out to make the playoffs, and he's basically throwing this week by making this deal. That doesn't seem strange to you? Let's say he did think this deal was worth it to get Portis. Fine. But what's he getting him for, to load up for the playoffs that he isn't going to make?

 

[bagger]

1. why should an owner be penalized for a lack of activity and then he wants to make a trade? what's sufficient activity? 2 FA moves? 5? 10? basing vetoing trades on past activity is a very dangerous precedent to set.

The point is that the last place team has to win out to make the playoffs, and he's basically throwing this week by making this deal. That doesn't seem strange to you? Let's say he did think this deal was worth it to get Portis. Fine. But what's he getting him for, to load up for the playoffs that he isn't going to make?

i don't know...i haven't seen his roster.

 

[Johnny Ryall]

it's just that when people complain about how unfair trades are they are taking the stance that what's happened in the past will continue to happen.i don't pretend to know so i have a hands off approach.really, this is the reason why my keeper league that i commish has a trading deadline in week 8. anything after that and you get teams who are making trades who are definitely out of the hunt.

I totally agree. And if this deal was made just a couple of weeks ago when the 2-7 team still had at least a chance of making the playoffs, then I'd be on your side of the argument. But this deal, taking place now, raises my suspicions as to the intentions of the 2-7 owner.