Should we just shut it regarding this trade? (1 Viewer)

[I Am the Stig]

Even for just dalvin it's collusion

So every bad trade is collusion?

Again, I ask is Burrow for Toney collusion because it is a bad trade on face value?

So you will stop (and I beg you to after this)...I am totally fine with this deal and will give a scenario to your scenario...if the team with Burrow has 2 or 3 good QBs and has a WR corps that is thin and just lost Kupp they would be in a spot where they are hurting for a WR and could lose their season...Toney is super-talented, coming off a good game and plays for one of the top offenses in the league...giving up Burrow might be a bit much but due to roster construction considerations and the fact he would be trading a bench player for a starter this deal is perfectly fine...Toney has the chance to be a league winner and I fully understand why he would be targeted by an Owner who needs help at WR and would be willing to overpay if he has to...I have zero issues with overpaying and do it often if it betters my overall roster and especially my starting line-up.

The Cook owner in my league, who is also 2-8 has Saquan and Ken Walker.

Very early I asked what the rosters looked like with the trade in question. Everyone laughed and said it didn’t matter.

Now with my trade, which is much worse on paper doesn’t raise any scrutiny because you can foresee a scenario? Well, I just gave a real scenario of a 2-8 with Cook and is very deep at RB.

The accuser hasn’t mentioned the rosters but you, with your galaxy brain can see how my roster must be uniquely deep without even asking.

You do understand the scenario you gave hurts the hill you are dying on...and enough with the 1st grade insults from your basement.

No, you’re getting sucked into brand name.

Conner and Cook had the exact same points this week. With Eno gone, a healthy Hopkins and a returning Brown similar numbers for Conner are within his range of outcomes on a functioning offense moving forward.

Only hindsight will determine the quality of the trade but unfortunately you are all basing it on subjective valuation based on brand name.

And let’s not forget, he is still 2-8 with the players that you demand he keeps.

The arguments against his trade and for mine are nothing but subjective and hypocritical as well as arrogant to know exactly how it will play out.

How many professional analysts wrote off the Colts last week?

You’re welcome to your opinion but that’s all it is, an opinion. When you start to impose your subjective opinions on other league mates I have a problem with that.

Cook could break his leg next week. Conner and Cook could finish the season fairly even moving forward. The point is you do not know and you cannot know how it will play out.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Even for just dalvin it's collusion

So every bad trade is collusion?

Again, I ask is Burrow for Toney collusion because it is a bad trade on face value?

So you will stop (and I beg you to after this)...I am totally fine with this deal and will give a scenario to your scenario...if the team with Burrow has 2 or 3 good QBs and has a WR corps that is thin and just lost Kupp they would be in a spot where they are hurting for a WR and could lose their season...Toney is super-talented, coming off a good game and plays for one of the top offenses in the league...giving up Burrow might be a bit much but due to roster construction considerations and the fact he would be trading a bench player for a starter this deal is perfectly fine...Toney has the chance to be a league winner and I fully understand why he would be targeted by an Owner who needs help at WR and would be willing to overpay if he has to...I have zero issues with overpaying and do it often if it betters my overall roster and especially my starting line-up.

The Cook owner in my league, who is also 2-8 has Saquan and Ken Walker.

Very early I asked what the rosters looked like with the trade in question. Everyone laughed and said it didn’t matter.

Now with my trade, which is much worse on paper doesn’t raise any scrutiny because you can foresee a scenario? Well, I just gave a real scenario of a 2-8 with Cook and is very deep at RB.

The accuser hasn’t mentioned the rosters but you, with your galaxy brain can see how my roster must be uniquely deep without even asking.

You do understand the scenario you gave hurts the hill you are dying on...and enough with the 1st grade insults from your basement.

No, you’re getting sucked into brand name.

Conner and Cook had the exact same points this week. With Eno gone, a healthy Hopkins and a returning Brown similar numbers for Conner are within his range of outcomes on a functioning offense moving forward.

Only hindsight will determine the quality of the trade but unfortunately you are all basing it on subjective valuation based on brand name.

And let’s not forget, he is still 2-8 with the players that you demand he keeps.

The arguments against his trade and for mine are nothing but subjective and hypocritical as well as arrogant to know exactly how it will play out.

How many professional analysts wrote off the Colts last week?

You’re welcome to your opinion but that’s all it is, an opinion. When you start to impose your subjective opinions on other league mates I have a problem with that.

Cook could break his leg next week. Conner and Cook could finish the season fairly even moving forward. The point is you do not know and you cannot know how it will play out.

This

100%

 

[Boston]

Even for just dalvin it's collusion

So every bad trade is collusion?

Again, I ask is Burrow for Toney collusion because it is a bad trade on face value?

So you will stop (and I beg you to after this)...I am totally fine with this deal and will give a scenario to your scenario...if the team with Burrow has 2 or 3 good QBs and has a WR corps that is thin and just lost Kupp they would be in a spot where they are hurting for a WR and could lose their season...Toney is super-talented, coming off a good game and plays for one of the top offenses in the league...giving up Burrow might be a bit much but due to roster construction considerations and the fact he would be trading a bench player for a starter this deal is perfectly fine...Toney has the chance to be a league winner and I fully understand why he would be targeted by an Owner who needs help at WR and would be willing to overpay if he has to...I have zero issues with overpaying and do it often if it betters my overall roster and especially my starting line-up.

The Cook owner in my league, who is also 2-8 has Saquan and Ken Walker.

Very early I asked what the rosters looked like with the trade in question. Everyone laughed and said it didn’t matter.

Now with my trade, which is much worse on paper doesn’t raise any scrutiny because you can foresee a scenario? Well, I just gave a real scenario of a 2-8 with Cook and is very deep at RB.

The accuser hasn’t mentioned the rosters but you, with your galaxy brain can see how my roster must be uniquely deep without even asking.

You do understand the scenario you gave hurts the hill you are dying on...and enough with the 1st grade insults from your basement.

No, you’re getting sucked into brand name.

Conner and Cook had the exact same points this week. With Eno gone, a healthy Hopkins and a returning Brown similar numbers for Conner are within his range of outcomes on a functioning offense moving forward.

Only hindsight will determine the quality of the trade but unfortunately you are all basing it on subjective valuation based on brand name.

And let’s not forget, he is still 2-8 with the players that you demand he keeps.

The arguments against his trade and for mine are nothing but subjective and hypocritical as well as arrogant to know exactly how it will play out.

How many professional analysts wrote off the Colts last week?

You’re welcome to your opinion but that’s all it is, an opinion. When you start to impose your subjective opinions on other league mates I have a problem with that.

Cook could break his leg next week. Conner and Cook could finish the season fairly even moving forward. The point is you do not know and you cannot know how it will play out.

You never know how a trade will play out...I have seen a 1,000 that went far different than I thought they would...it still does not change what happened here.

 

[Down Under]

Wow!! I didn't expect this to get that much attention. Quite a debate here (even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Because some have asked, here are the full standings (place, record, pts - tiebreaker) and the RBs/WRs on each of the 2 teams involved. Standard start 1-2-2-flex-1-1-1, half ppr.

1) 9-1 1179.80 (Team A in trade)
2) 9-1 1057.50
3) 7-3 1138.74
4) 6-4 1157.40
5) 5-5 1100.30
6) 5-5 1060.80
7) 3-7 1058.84
8) 3-7 1057.20
9) 2-8 942.37
10) 2-8 940.58 (Team B in trade)

I don't know if Team B has officially been eliminated. Technically, he could finish 6-8 and so could the fourth place team and obviously the last place team could pass the fourth place team in points also. But I haven't analyzed if Team B could pass all the others also - I would think not due to them all playing each other.

Team A - Ekeler, Stevenson, Wilson, Henderson, Connor, Hopkins, Schuster, Godwin, Boyd
Team B - Cook, Patterson, Harris, Allgeier, Cooper, K. Allen, Jeudy, Hardman, Thielen, Hollins, M. Brown

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone. It is about bragging rights. It is a local team and these 2 are not the only set of friends in the league, in fact everyone is at least "friendly" even if they don't hang out together. Trade deadline is in 2 days. No voting rules for trades, commissioner decision only, although he solicited everyone's opinion and will take those into account as well as the results of this poll.

Again, Team A would receive Cook & Harris, Team B would receive Connor & Henderson. Commissioner will rule by gametime tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input in this thread!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Who isn’t even talking about the trade in the OP.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Wow!! I didn't expect this to get that much attention. Quite a debate here (even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Because some have asked, here are the full standings (place, record, pts - tiebreaker) and the RBs/WRs on each of the 2 teams involved. Standard start 1-2-2-flex-1-1-1, half ppr.

1) 9-1 1179.80 (Team A in trade)
2) 9-1 1057.50
3) 7-3 1138.74
4) 6-4 1157.40
5) 5-5 1100.30
6) 5-5 1060.80
7) 3-7 1058.84
8) 3-7 1057.20
9) 2-8 942.37
10) 2-8 940.58 (Team B in trade)

I don't know if Team B has officially been eliminated. Technically, he could finish 6-8 and so could the fourth place team and obviously the last place team could pass the fourth place team in points also. But I haven't analyzed if Team B could pass all the others also - I would think not due to them all playing each other.

Team A - Ekeler, Stevenson, Wilson, Henderson, Connor, Hopkins, Schuster, Godwin, Boyd
Team B - Cook, Patterson, Harris, Allgeier, Cooper, K. Allen, Jeudy, Hardman, Thielen, Hollins, M. Brown

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone. It is about bragging rights. It is a local team and these 2 are not the only set of friends in the league, in fact everyone is at least "friendly" even if they don't hang out together. Trade deadline is in 2 days. No voting rules for trades, commissioner decision only, although he solicited everyone's opinion and will take those into account as well as the results of this poll.

Again, Team A would receive Cook & Harris, Team B would receive Connor & Henderson. Commissioner will rule by gametime tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input in this thread!

Thanks for posting the rosters!!

And this is a bit as I suspected. Cook will be a flex for Team A. Personally I value Stevenson above Cook.

Cook could easily lose out the flex spot to Godwin based on matchup.

Team B is bad at RB. Patterson killed them with injury and Harris has also underperformed with a role that is declining.

But I see that Team B has both Patterson and Allgeier and now they will have 2/3ds of the Ram back field. They may just prefer having a teams backfield. They certainly had time to move on from Atlanta’s backfield but may be lured by their commitment to the run game. The same optics may be at play with the Rams here as well.

But, Team B NEEDED to make moves weeks ago but they held on to injured players like Patterson and Keenan Allen.

They are 2-8 for not making moves and then finally when they make a move they get dragged.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone

Seems like it might be relevant to Team A.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Has anyone posted how awful the first 3-4 words read when you are scanning the titles?
Just shut it down, that's what it reads like

 

[Gally]

Hey, I know this post is about something completely different, but what if I traded Johnny Hecker for Boston Scott? Would you veto it then? WOULD YOU?????

Well, Hekker is P3 with 135 pts and Boston Scott is RB93 with 10 pts so it is really lopsided with respect to points so it may raise some eyebrows.

 

[da_budman]

If they are friends and collusion is suspected, I would put it to a League Vote. If the League By Laws don't have that provision, ADD IT.
Or the league will suffer and collapse.

Nope
You play by the rules that everyone agreed to before the season started. If you want to add that rule before next season…fine

And I don’t think that trade is vetoable in a league that lets owners veto (which I would never play in)

I mean, does "cheating" actually need to be spelled out as a rule?

Let's say the 2-8 team *is eliminated* from post season contention. They're colluding to improve the team that is contending.

You're saying that's ok if the rules don't explicitly call it out? What about trade-backs? Or hey, what if the 2-8 team decided to bench all of their best players because their friend the 9-1 team needed a W to be the 1-seed? Is tanking to help your buddy ok, so long as there's no rule against it?

Those would all be considered no-brainer collusion in my league, and while we don't have every one of those spelled out, it is well understood as taboo behavior.

If a team is eliminated there should already be a rule that they can’t trade

So, what are you going to tell this last place team when Cook and Harris wreck their knees this Sunday and Conner goes off the rest of the season and you didn’t allow the trade?

We play by the rules in place at the beginning of the season. If you think they’re cheating kick them out after the season is over

I would say Karma is real and she is a ***** and he deserves 2 injured players.... not that I think he would really care since he appears to be sending his good players to buddy.

 

[Gally]

No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Actually, from a commish standpoint you do have to defend the trade. The rationale is really all that matters in a trade like this. If the last place team cannot provide a realistic (even implausible but realistic) reason for how they think it is better for their team then it leans to collusion (or more likely apathy) and then it shouldn't be allowed.

As a commish you have to find the balance of letting owners run their teams how they see fit and the competitive balance of the league. You want the league to be on the up and up and part of that is working with owners on the perception of bad trades to figure out if it is an owner running the team the way they want because it's what they want to do or if apathy/collusion led to the deal.

The biggest factor here is the relative placement of the teams. The trade seems lopsided but maybe the last place guy really wants Conner and things he is going to bust out the final half while hating the Vikings and Dalvin's 81 yd TD vs his Bills team. The owner comes back with that I likely say ok you had your reasons. Not what I would do but at least you thought about it and had a reason you were doing it beyond apathy or he's my buddy and wanted Cook/Harris.

 

[I Am the Stig]

No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Actually, from a commish standpoint you do have to defend the trade. The rationale is really all that matters in a trade like this. If the last place team cannot provide a realistic (even implausible but realistic) reason for how they think it is better for their team then it leans to collusion (or more likely apathy) and then it shouldn't be allowed.

As a commish you have to find the balance of letting owners run their teams how they see fit and the competitive balance of the league. You want the league to be on the up and up and part of that is working with owners on the perception of bad trades to figure out if it is an owner running the team the way they want because it's what they want to do or if apathy/collusion led to the deal.

The biggest factor here is the relative placement of the teams. The trade seems lopsided but maybe the last place guy really wants Conner and things he is going to bust out the final half while hating the Vikings and Dalvin's 81 yd TD vs his Bills team. The owner comes back with that I likely say ok you had your reasons. Not what I would do but at least you thought about it and had a reason you were doing it beyond apathy or he's my buddy and wanted Cook/Harris.

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

 

[da_budman]

Even for just dalvin it's collusion

So every bad trade is collusion?

Again, I ask is Burrow for Toney collusion because it is a bad trade on face value?

So you will stop (and I beg you to after this)...I am totally fine with this deal and will give a scenario to your scenario...if the team with Burrow has 2 or 3 good QBs and has a WR corps that is thin and just lost Kupp they would be in a spot where they are hurting for a WR and could lose their season...Toney is super-talented, coming off a good game and plays for one of the top offenses in the league...giving up Burrow might be a bit much but due to roster construction considerations and the fact he would be trading a bench player for a starter this deal is perfectly fine...Toney has the chance to be a league winner and I fully understand why he would be targeted by an Owner who needs help at WR and would be willing to overpay if he has to...I have zero issues with overpaying and do it often if it betters my overall roster and especially my starting line-up.

The Cook owner in my league, who is also 2-8 has Saquan and Ken Walker.

Very early I asked what the rosters looked like with the trade in question. Everyone laughed and said it didn’t matter.

Now with my trade, which is much worse on paper doesn’t raise any scrutiny because you can foresee a scenario? Well, I just gave a real scenario of a 2-8 with Cook and is very deep at RB.

The accuser hasn’t mentioned the rosters but you, with your galaxy brain can see how my roster must be uniquely deep without even asking.

I think most of us assumed you have a decent backup or you wouldnt be trading burrow away..... and Toney is in a great position to breakout. Lastly even if trades for qbs seem lopsided on their face QB is the least valuable position (even though they score the most points) because in a 12 team league only 12 of the 32 teams get started each week.

 

[Gally]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

 

[wgoldsph]

Hey, I know this post is about something completely different, but what if I traded Johnny Hecker for Boston Scott? Would you veto it then? WOULD YOU?????

Well, Hekker is P3 with 135 pts and Boston Scott is RB93 with 10 pts so it is really lopsided with respect to points so it may raise some eyebrows.

Finally!!
Someone who is objective about the true fantasy football crimes

 

[wgoldsph]

What I think is the best part of the whole thread is that siggy's whole point seems to be "if someone doesn't care any more then whatever let them poop in the punch bowl" and everyone else's point is "we don't want poop in the punch bowl."

And sigma keeps going.

 

[da_budman]

No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Actually, from a commish standpoint you do have to defend the trade. The rationale is really all that matters in a trade like this. If the last place team cannot provide a realistic (even implausible but realistic) reason for how they think it is better for their team then it leans to collusion (or more likely apathy) and then it shouldn't be allowed.

As a commish you have to find the balance of letting owners run their teams how they see fit and the competitive balance of the league. You want the league to be on the up and up and part of that is working with owners on the perception of bad trades to figure out if it is an owner running the team the way they want because it's what they want to do or if apathy/collusion led to the deal.

The biggest factor here is the relative placement of the teams. The trade seems lopsided but maybe the last place guy really wants Conner and things he is going to bust out the final half while hating the Vikings and Dalvin's 81 yd TD vs his Bills team. The owner comes back with that I likely say ok you had your reasons. Not what I would do but at least you thought about it and had a reason you were doing it beyond apathy or he's my buddy and wanted Cook/Harris.

well reasoned thoughts. There IS a reason to let this trade stand but before that happens the discussion has to happen between the commish and the 2-8 guy.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Actually, from a commish standpoint you do have to defend the trade. The rationale is really all that matters in a trade like this. If the last place team cannot provide a realistic (even implausible but realistic) reason for how they think it is better for their team then it leans to collusion (or more likely apathy) and then it shouldn't be allowed.

As a commish you have to find the balance of letting owners run their teams how they see fit and the competitive balance of the league. You want the league to be on the up and up and part of that is working with owners on the perception of bad trades to figure out if it is an owner running the team the way they want because it's what they want to do or if apathy/collusion led to the deal.

The biggest factor here is the relative placement of the teams. The trade seems lopsided but maybe the last place guy really wants Conner and things he is going to bust out the final half while hating the Vikings and Dalvin's 81 yd TD vs his Bills team. The owner comes back with that I likely say ok you had your reasons. Not what I would do but at least you thought about it and had a reason you were doing it beyond apathy or he's my buddy and wanted Cook/Harris.

well reasoned thoughts. There IS a reason to let this trade stand but before that happens the discussion has to happen between the commish and the 2-8 guy.

No it doesn’t

Dude paid for his team, he runs his own team however he wants. If you don’t want him to play next year then that’s a different convo

 

[wgoldsph]

No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Actually, from a commish standpoint you do have to defend the trade. The rationale is really all that matters in a trade like this. If the last place team cannot provide a realistic (even implausible but realistic) reason for how they think it is better for their team then it leans to collusion (or more likely apathy) and then it shouldn't be allowed.

As a commish you have to find the balance of letting owners run their teams how they see fit and the competitive balance of the league. You want the league to be on the up and up and part of that is working with owners on the perception of bad trades to figure out if it is an owner running the team the way they want because it's what they want to do or if apathy/collusion led to the deal.

The biggest factor here is the relative placement of the teams. The trade seems lopsided but maybe the last place guy really wants Conner and things he is going to bust out the final half while hating the Vikings and Dalvin's 81 yd TD vs his Bills team. The owner comes back with that I likely say ok you had your reasons. Not what I would do but at least you thought about it and had a reason you were doing it beyond apathy or he's my buddy and wanted Cook/Harris.

well reasoned thoughts. There IS a reason to let this trade stand but before that happens the discussion has to happen between the commish and the 2-8 guy.

No it doesn’t

Dude paid for his team, he runs his own team however he wants. If you don’t want him to play next year then that’s a different convo

I paid for my team and if I want to use it to make my buddy win the league then I can do that and nobody gets to complain!
Ya'll crazy

 

[Gally]

Finally!!
Someone who is objective about the true fantasy football crimes

You think I am joking? Those are the actual points and standings for those players in my league......yes, we use punters and it's awesome!

 

[I Am the Stig]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

 

[wgoldsph]

Finally!!
Someone who is objective about the true fantasy football crimes

You think I am joking? Those are the actual points and standings for those players in my league......yes, we use punters and it's awesome!

I would believe, with no proof, that punters have a better year to year and week to week predictability than kickers and make for a more logical position to have in fantasy.

 

[Gally]

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner.

If that is your thought then there really isn't any need to discuss anything further. You and I will likely never be in a league together.

The Commish has authority of that league. That is why the Commish was chosen...........to govern and rule on disputes. If an owner doesn't abide by the rules that all league members agree to then the Commish's job is to remove that guy (likely without a refund depending on the reason for removal......my leagues have stipulations in the bylaws as to how you can lose your entrance fees) if it is warranted based on that owner's actions.

 

[da_budman]

Even for just dalvin it's collusion

So every bad trade is collusion?

Again, I ask is Burrow for Toney collusion because it is a bad trade on face value?

So you will stop (and I beg you to after this)...I am totally fine with this deal and will give a scenario to your scenario...if the team with Burrow has 2 or 3 good QBs and has a WR corps that is thin and just lost Kupp they would be in a spot where they are hurting for a WR and could lose their season...Toney is super-talented, coming off a good game and plays for one of the top offenses in the league...giving up Burrow might be a bit much but due to roster construction considerations and the fact he would be trading a bench player for a starter this deal is perfectly fine...Toney has the chance to be a league winner and I fully understand why he would be targeted by an Owner who needs help at WR and would be willing to overpay if he has to...I have zero issues with overpaying and do it often if it betters my overall roster and especially my starting line-up.

The Cook owner in my league, who is also 2-8 has Saquan and Ken Walker.

Very early I asked what the rosters looked like with the trade in question. Everyone laughed and said it didn’t matter.

Now with my trade, which is much worse on paper doesn’t raise any scrutiny because you can foresee a scenario? Well, I just gave a real scenario of a 2-8 with Cook and is very deep at RB.

The accuser hasn’t mentioned the rosters but you, with your galaxy brain can see how my roster must be uniquely deep without even asking.

You do understand the scenario you gave hurts the hill you are dying on...and enough with the 1st grade insults from your basement.

No, you’re getting sucked into brand name.

Conner and Cook had the exact same points this week. With Eno gone, a healthy Hopkins and a returning Brown similar numbers for Conner are within his range of outcomes on a functioning offense moving forward.

Only hindsight will determine the quality of the trade but unfortunately you are all basing it on subjective valuation based on brand name.

And let’s not forget, he is still 2-8 with the players that you demand he keeps.

The arguments against his trade and for mine are nothing but subjective and hypocritical as well as arrogant to know exactly how it will play out.

How many professional analysts wrote off the Colts last week?

You’re welcome to your opinion but that’s all it is, an opinion. When you start to impose your subjective opinions on other league mates I have a problem with that.

Cook could break his leg next week. Conner and Cook could finish the season fairly even moving forward. The point is you do not know and you cannot know how it will play out.

In reverse order: Injuries are a part of the game and unless some of the pieces of the trade are already hurt they have minimal if any affect on trade value. Nobody knows how things will turn out so should ALL trades go through rgardless of how shady the trade looks? Should the commish allow a trade of Allen for a random kicker ? How about ekler or chub for a random defense? Or how about diggs or jefferson for a te so low that their are equivalent talent on the waiver wire? I mean you cant say after the fact that Ekler got a season ending injury so the trade should have been allowed. That is just twisted logic that cant affect a trade. Hindsight DOESNT affect whether a trade is valid. All you have to go on is the snapshot in time the trade was made. I mean I turned down a trade breece hall for either waddle or aj brown. Am I kicking myself for not making that trade? Sure because Hall had a season ending injury. But I didnt know that at the time and Hall seemed to be ascending to a top 5 rb so I turned it down.

 

[Gally]

I would believe, with no proof, that punters have a better year to year and week to week predictability than kickers and make for a more logical position to have in fantasy.

They are pretty similar to kickers with respect to consistency and year to year predictability. Offensive prowess is really a heavy factor. They score for total punt yards, Gross average, and punts downed inside the 20. I will switch over to a game with my punter when they are punting to see if he can pin them deep for 4 pts. They can be difference makers with 4 punts inside the 20. It's exciting!

 

[Cowboysfan8]

No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Actually, from a commish standpoint you do have to defend the trade. The rationale is really all that matters in a trade like this. If the last place team cannot provide a realistic (even implausible but realistic) reason for how they think it is better for their team then it leans to collusion (or more likely apathy) and then it shouldn't be allowed.

As a commish you have to find the balance of letting owners run their teams how they see fit and the competitive balance of the league. You want the league to be on the up and up and part of that is working with owners on the perception of bad trades to figure out if it is an owner running the team the way they want because it's what they want to do or if apathy/collusion led to the deal.

The biggest factor here is the relative placement of the teams. The trade seems lopsided but maybe the last place guy really wants Conner and things he is going to bust out the final half while hating the Vikings and Dalvin's 81 yd TD vs his Bills team. The owner comes back with that I likely say ok you had your reasons. Not what I would do but at least you thought about it and had a reason you were doing it beyond apathy or he's my buddy and wanted Cook/Harris.

well reasoned thoughts. There IS a reason to let this trade stand but before that happens the discussion has to happen between the commish and the 2-8 guy.

No it doesn’t

Dude paid for his team, he runs his own team however he wants. If you don’t want him to play next year then that’s a different convo

I paid for my team and if I want to use it to make my buddy win the league then I can do that and nobody gets to complain!
Ya'll crazy

Do you play in a league that votes on trades ?

 

[I Am the Stig]

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner.

If that is your thought then there really isn't any need to discuss anything further. You and I will likely never be in a league together.

The Commish has authority of that league. That is why the Commish was chosen...........to govern and rule on disputes. If an owner doesn't abide by the rules that all league members agree to then the Commish's job is to remove that guy (likely without a refund depending on the reason for removal......my leagues have stipulations in the bylaws as to how you can lose your entrance fees) if it is warranted based on that owner's actions.

LOL. By all means share the stipulation that allows you to keep my money over something subjective like a trade.

If there is a contract then and the amount was worth it then I’ll see you in small claims court.

 

[JohnnyU]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

Sorry to inform you, but if you did something to get kicked out in my leagues you wouldn't be getting a refund if the season has already started. Too late to get a replacement, so, you're ***t out of luck there.

 

[candian fantasy guy]

As a long time commissioner, I am really struggling with this thread.

First, I highly disagree on the point that league mates get to veto a trade.

Second, I have never not approved a trade. Not once. Trades that look awful don’t always end up being awful. It’s not my job to run other league mate’s teams. I have never questioned any of my league mates over a trade, never.

Thirdly, I don’t like this trade at all and I sure am glad that I’m not in the position of having to make a decision here. Especially considering the circumstances here. I say get rid of both teams at the end of the year.

 

[Gally]

Do you play in a league that votes on trades ?

No. That is one of the worst things out there as most teams vote specifically on how it affects their unrelated team and not on the trade itself. In all my leagues it is up to the Commish (that is whey we voted him in) to evaluate and investigate if he thinks there may be something fishy. It's really not an issue 99% of the time.

 

[Gally]

Sorry to inform you, but if you did something to get kicked out in my leagues you wouldn't be getting a refund if the season has already started. Too late to get a replacement, so, you're ***t out of luck there.

ETA: Oops.....this was meant for the other reply. I am right there with you JohnyU

 

[Gally]

LOL. By all means share the stipulation that allows you to keep my money over something subjective like a trade.

If there is a contract then and the amount was worth it then I’ll see you in small claims court.

Basically the stipulation is if you leave your team in disrepair (dynasty primarily) you will not get your reserve money back (we pay a year's worth of franchise fee ahead of time so that if a team is left desolate there is a one year fee to cover the new owner taking over that team).

In redraft leagues once the season starts your fees are gone. They are in for the winner. If you get booted mid season the fees are already spoken for. Good luck in small claims court on this one.

 

[JohnnyU]

In two Fantasy Legends leagues that have these veto rules I only recall 1 time this was used in 19 years




In a couple of leagues I commish here are our veto rules:

It takes 75% to veto trades instead of league majority (6 when there are 2 teams involved in a trade, and 5 when there are 3). If there are only 2 teams involved, that equates to 7.5, so we round up to 8. We should always round up when it's .5 or greater and round down when < .5. If there are 3 teams, then 75% of 9 is 6.75, so that would be 7 votes required. As you know, teams involved in the trade cannot vote. This lessens the likely hood that trades are vetoed because of league prejudice, meaning, that guy is ahead of me in the standings, so I will veto it. All members must vote unless their vote wouldn't affect the outcome. In other words, 75% has already been reached without their vote. In the event a vote is needed from someone who is out of town or unavailable to vote, the traded players may reside on their new team until a majority vote is reached. All veto votes are to be on the message board instead of by poll and that each owner who voted to veto a trade must post their reason why they vetoed a trade, or their vote is changed to a no.

4) None of the owners involved in the trade will have a vote


5) All league owners not involved in the trade will have 1 vote


6) If the vote ends in a tie, the trade stands


7) Owners have 48 hours from the time of the trade to protest a trade

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

Sorry to inform you, but if you did something to get kicked out in my leagues you wouldn't be getting a refund if the season has already started. Too late to get a replacement, so, you're ***t out of luck there.

It has to be a schtick.

No one who’s ever been booted from a league has ever received a refund in the history of ever.

Gotta be a schtick at this point.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I say get rid of both teams at the end of the year.

This is how I lean.

But if it’s bad enough to boot them, it’s bad enough to reverse the deal & lock the rosters.

Waiting until the end of the year to boot them invites further shenanigans.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In all my leagues it is up to the Commish (that is whey we voted him in) to evaluate and investigate if he thinks there may be something fishy. It's really not an issue 99% of the time.

What if it’s the commish in a janky deal?

Co-commish?

What if it’s the commish & Co-commish involved the deal?

 

[I Am the Stig]

LOL. By all means share the stipulation that allows you to keep my money over something subjective like a trade.

If there is a contract then and the amount was worth it then I’ll see you in small claims court.

Basically the stipulation is if you leave your team in disrepair (dynasty primarily) you will not get your reserve money back (we pay a year's worth of franchise fee ahead of time so that if a team is left desolate there is a one year fee to cover the new owner taking over that team).

In redraft leagues once the season starts your fees are gone. They are in for the winner. If you get booted mid season the fees are already spoken for. Good luck in small claims court on this one.

If that is written great but you need to prove that on this case the team was left in disrepair which is subjective.

You seem to believe you have more authority than you really do.

 

[JohnnyU]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

Sorry to inform you, but if you did something to get kicked out in my leagues you wouldn't be getting a refund if the season has already started. Too late to get a replacement, so, you're ***t out of luck there.

It has to be a schtick.

No one who’s ever been booted from a league has ever received a refund in the history of ever.

Gotta be a schtick at this point.

If it happened in my leagues before the season starts and I can find a new owner then yes, I would give a refund. Otherwise, no way Jose.

 

[JohnnyU]

LOL. By all means share the stipulation that allows you to keep my money over something subjective like a trade.

If there is a contract then and the amount was worth it then I’ll see you in small claims court.

Basically the stipulation is if you leave your team in disrepair (dynasty primarily) you will not get your reserve money back (we pay a year's worth of franchise fee ahead of time so that if a team is left desolate there is a one year fee to cover the new owner taking over that team).

In redraft leagues once the season starts your fees are gone. They are in for the winner. If you get booted mid season the fees are already spoken for. Good luck in small claims court on this one.

If that is written great but you need to prove that on this case the team was left in disrepair which is subjective.

You seem to believe you have more authority than you really do.

If I can kick your butt out of the league and not give you a refund, then IMO that gives me a lot of authority.

 

[da_budman]

Wow!! I didn't expect this to get that much attention. Quite a debate here (even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Because some have asked, here are the full standings (place, record, pts - tiebreaker) and the RBs/WRs on each of the 2 teams involved. Standard start 1-2-2-flex-1-1-1, half ppr.

1) 9-1 1179.80 (Team A in trade)
2) 9-1 1057.50
3) 7-3 1138.74
4) 6-4 1157.40
5) 5-5 1100.30
6) 5-5 1060.80
7) 3-7 1058.84
8) 3-7 1057.20
9) 2-8 942.37
10) 2-8 940.58 (Team B in trade)

I don't know if Team B has officially been eliminated. Technically, he could finish 6-8 and so could the fourth place team and obviously the last place team could pass the fourth place team in points also. But I haven't analyzed if Team B could pass all the others also - I would think not due to them all playing each other.

Team A - Ekeler, Stevenson, Wilson, Henderson, Connor, Hopkins, Schuster, Godwin, Boyd
Team B - Cook, Patterson, Harris, Allgeier, Cooper, K. Allen, Jeudy, Hardman, Thielen, Hollins, M. Brown

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone. It is about bragging rights. It is a local team and these 2 are not the only set of friends in the league, in fact everyone is at least "friendly" even if they don't hang out together. Trade deadline is in 2 days. No voting rules for trades, commissioner decision only, although he solicited everyone's opinion and will take those into account as well as the results of this poll.

Again, Team A would receive Cook & Harris, Team B would receive Connor & Henderson. Commissioner will rule by gametime tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input in this thread!

Thanks for posting the rosters!!

And this is a bit as I suspected. Cook will be a flex for Team A. Personally I value Stevenson above Cook.

Cook could easily lose out the flex spot to Godwin based on matchup.

Team B is bad at RB. Patterson killed them with injury and Harris has also underperformed with a role that is declining.

But I see that Team B has both Patterson and Allgeier and now they will have 2/3ds of the Ram back field. They may just prefer having a teams backfield. They certainly had time to move on from Atlanta’s backfield but may be lured by their commitment to the run game. The same optics may be at play with the Rams here as well.

But, Team B NEEDED to make moves weeks ago but they held on to injured players like Patterson and Keenan Allen.

They are 2-8 for not making moves and then finally when they make a move they get dragged.

So lets get this straight....They werent willing to make trades to improve their team and now are 2-8 so NOW at 2-8 they decide to make a trade that appears to be giving up the 2 best rb's in the trade with his buddy? And that is not suspicious to you? I think if this were a jury trial the jury would point at this point where you lost all credibility and lost the case. Guilty of collusion as charged.

 

[da_budman]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

I am going on a limb now and suggesting you caused this controversy on purpose in hopes of getting your money back. Im guessing that limb will break and you will fall to the ground without a single extra cent in your pockets, lol

 

[I Am the Stig]

Wow!! I didn't expect this to get that much attention. Quite a debate here (even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Because some have asked, here are the full standings (place, record, pts - tiebreaker) and the RBs/WRs on each of the 2 teams involved. Standard start 1-2-2-flex-1-1-1, half ppr.

1) 9-1 1179.80 (Team A in trade)
2) 9-1 1057.50
3) 7-3 1138.74
4) 6-4 1157.40
5) 5-5 1100.30
6) 5-5 1060.80
7) 3-7 1058.84
8) 3-7 1057.20
9) 2-8 942.37
10) 2-8 940.58 (Team B in trade)

I don't know if Team B has officially been eliminated. Technically, he could finish 6-8 and so could the fourth place team and obviously the last place team could pass the fourth place team in points also. But I haven't analyzed if Team B could pass all the others also - I would think not due to them all playing each other.

Team A - Ekeler, Stevenson, Wilson, Henderson, Connor, Hopkins, Schuster, Godwin, Boyd
Team B - Cook, Patterson, Harris, Allgeier, Cooper, K. Allen, Jeudy, Hardman, Thielen, Hollins, M. Brown

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone. It is about bragging rights. It is a local team and these 2 are not the only set of friends in the league, in fact everyone is at least "friendly" even if they don't hang out together. Trade deadline is in 2 days. No voting rules for trades, commissioner decision only, although he solicited everyone's opinion and will take those into account as well as the results of this poll.

Again, Team A would receive Cook & Harris, Team B would receive Connor & Henderson. Commissioner will rule by gametime tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input in this thread!

Thanks for posting the rosters!!

And this is a bit as I suspected. Cook will be a flex for Team A. Personally I value Stevenson above Cook.

Cook could easily lose out the flex spot to Godwin based on matchup.

Team B is bad at RB. Patterson killed them with injury and Harris has also underperformed with a role that is declining.

But I see that Team B has both Patterson and Allgeier and now they will have 2/3ds of the Ram back field. They may just prefer having a teams backfield. They certainly had time to move on from Atlanta’s backfield but may be lured by their commitment to the run game. The same optics may be at play with the Rams here as well.

But, Team B NEEDED to make moves weeks ago but they held on to injured players like Patterson and Keenan Allen.

They are 2-8 for not making moves and then finally when they make a move they get dragged.

So lets get this straight....They werent willing to make trades to improve their team and now are 2-8 so NOW at 2-8 they decide to make a trade that appears to be giving up the 2 best rb's in the trade with his buddy? And that is not suspicious to you? I think if this were a jury trial the jury would point at this point where you lost all credibility and lost the case.

LOL. Suspicious is the best you’ve got. You’d have to prove it to a jury.

 

[I Am the Stig]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

I am going on a limb now and suggesting you caused this controversy on purpose in hopes of getting your money back. Im guessing that limb will break and you will fall to the ground without a single extra cent in your pockets, lol

And again, I’m 2-8, I don’t care. It is easy enough here online to just kick the Stig out of the league.

The reality is far messier than that. We know most leagues are friend based and are not made up of professionals.

Good luck kicking a friend out and keeping their money over this trade. If you do you played yourself as a douche.

 

[da_budman]

Wow!! I didn't expect this to get that much attention. Quite a debate here (even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Because some have asked, here are the full standings (place, record, pts - tiebreaker) and the RBs/WRs on each of the 2 teams involved. Standard start 1-2-2-flex-1-1-1, half ppr.

1) 9-1 1179.80 (Team A in trade)
2) 9-1 1057.50
3) 7-3 1138.74
4) 6-4 1157.40
5) 5-5 1100.30
6) 5-5 1060.80
7) 3-7 1058.84
8) 3-7 1057.20
9) 2-8 942.37
10) 2-8 940.58 (Team B in trade)

I don't know if Team B has officially been eliminated. Technically, he could finish 6-8 and so could the fourth place team and obviously the last place team could pass the fourth place team in points also. But I haven't analyzed if Team B could pass all the others also - I would think not due to them all playing each other.

Team A - Ekeler, Stevenson, Wilson, Henderson, Connor, Hopkins, Schuster, Godwin, Boyd
Team B - Cook, Patterson, Harris, Allgeier, Cooper, K. Allen, Jeudy, Hardman, Thielen, Hollins, M. Brown

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone. It is about bragging rights. It is a local team and these 2 are not the only set of friends in the league, in fact everyone is at least "friendly" even if they don't hang out together. Trade deadline is in 2 days. No voting rules for trades, commissioner decision only, although he solicited everyone's opinion and will take those into account as well as the results of this poll.

Again, Team A would receive Cook & Harris, Team B would receive Connor & Henderson. Commissioner will rule by gametime tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input in this thread!

Thanks for posting the rosters!!

And this is a bit as I suspected. Cook will be a flex for Team A. Personally I value Stevenson above Cook.

Cook could easily lose out the flex spot to Godwin based on matchup.

Team B is bad at RB. Patterson killed them with injury and Harris has also underperformed with a role that is declining.

But I see that Team B has both Patterson and Allgeier and now they will have 2/3ds of the Ram back field. They may just prefer having a teams backfield. They certainly had time to move on from Atlanta’s backfield but may be lured by their commitment to the run game. The same optics may be at play with the Rams here as well.

But, Team B NEEDED to make moves weeks ago but they held on to injured players like Patterson and Keenan Allen.

They are 2-8 for not making moves and then finally when they make a move they get dragged.

So lets get this straight....They werent willing to make trades to improve their team and now are 2-8 so NOW at 2-8 they decide to make a trade that appears to be giving up the 2 best rb's in the trade with his buddy? And that is not suspicious to you? I think if this were a jury trial the jury would point at this point where you lost all credibility and lost the case.

LOL. Suspicious is the best you’ve got. You’d have to prove it to a jury.

You would have zero credibility with a jury after a comment like that. At that point they would ignore all your blah blah blah as is their right to do. Sorry for you but you just stepped in it and would lose HUGEEEEE.

 

[JohnnyU]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

I am going on a limb now and suggesting you caused this controversy on purpose in hopes of getting your money back. Im guessing that limb will break and you will fall to the ground without a single extra cent in your pockets, lol

And again, I’m 2-8, I don’t care. It is easy enough here online to just kick the Stig out of the league.

The reality is far messier than that. We know most leagues are friend based and are not made up of professionals.

Good luck kicking a friend out and keeping their money over this trade. If you do you played yourself as a douche.

Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and let everyone think you are a fool, rather than open your mouth (or keyboard) and remove all doubt.

 

[da_budman]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

I am going on a limb now and suggesting you caused this controversy on purpose in hopes of getting your money back. Im guessing that limb will break and you will fall to the ground without a single extra cent in your pockets, lol

And again, I’m 2-8, I don’t care. It is easy enough here online to just kick the Stig out of the league.

The reality is far messier than that. We know most leagues are friend based and are not made up of professionals.

Good luck kicking a friend out and keeping their money over this trade. If you do you played yourself as a douche.

No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Actually, from a commish standpoint you do have to defend the trade. The rationale is really all that matters in a trade like this. If the last place team cannot provide a realistic (even implausible but realistic) reason for how they think it is better for their team then it leans to collusion (or more likely apathy) and then it shouldn't be allowed.

As a commish you have to find the balance of letting owners run their teams how they see fit and the competitive balance of the league. You want the league to be on the up and up and part of that is working with owners on the perception of bad trades to figure out if it is an owner running the team the way they want because it's what they want to do or if apathy/collusion led to the deal.

The biggest factor here is the relative placement of the teams. The trade seems lopsided but maybe the last place guy really wants Conner and things he is going to bust out the final half while hating the Vikings and Dalvin's 81 yd TD vs his Bills team. The owner comes back with that I likely say ok you had your reasons. Not what I would do but at least you thought about it and had a reason you were doing it beyond apathy or he's my buddy and wanted Cook/Harris.

well reasoned thoughts. There IS a reason to let this trade stand but before that happens the discussion has to happen between the commish and the 2-8 guy.

No it doesn’t

Dude paid for his team, he runs his own team however he wants. If you don’t want him to play next year then that’s a different convo

Commishs duties include looking for rationale for suspicious trade. Sorry but for the integrity of the league this gets decided this year. However he wants DOES NOT give him the right to make collusive trades. When there is money involved a good ccommish will always be on the lookout for suspicious traades (which doesnt at all mean he needs go veto every lopsided trade.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

they decide to make a trade that appears to be giving up the 2 best rb's

Wait, now Harris is better than Connor also? Oh my, some one is not paying attention to 2022.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Wow!! I didn't expect this to get that much attention. Quite a debate here (even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Because some have asked, here are the full standings (place, record, pts - tiebreaker) and the RBs/WRs on each of the 2 teams involved. Standard start 1-2-2-flex-1-1-1, half ppr.

1) 9-1 1179.80 (Team A in trade)
2) 9-1 1057.50
3) 7-3 1138.74
4) 6-4 1157.40
5) 5-5 1100.30
6) 5-5 1060.80
7) 3-7 1058.84
8) 3-7 1057.20
9) 2-8 942.37
10) 2-8 940.58 (Team B in trade)

I don't know if Team B has officially been eliminated. Technically, he could finish 6-8 and so could the fourth place team and obviously the last place team could pass the fourth place team in points also. But I haven't analyzed if Team B could pass all the others also - I would think not due to them all playing each other.

Team A - Ekeler, Stevenson, Wilson, Henderson, Connor, Hopkins, Schuster, Godwin, Boyd
Team B - Cook, Patterson, Harris, Allgeier, Cooper, K. Allen, Jeudy, Hardman, Thielen, Hollins, M. Brown

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone. It is about bragging rights. It is a local team and these 2 are not the only set of friends in the league, in fact everyone is at least "friendly" even if they don't hang out together. Trade deadline is in 2 days. No voting rules for trades, commissioner decision only, although he solicited everyone's opinion and will take those into account as well as the results of this poll.

Again, Team A would receive Cook & Harris, Team B would receive Connor & Henderson. Commissioner will rule by gametime tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input in this thread!

Thanks for posting the rosters!!

And this is a bit as I suspected. Cook will be a flex for Team A. Personally I value Stevenson above Cook.

Cook could easily lose out the flex spot to Godwin based on matchup.

Team B is bad at RB. Patterson killed them with injury and Harris has also underperformed with a role that is declining.

But I see that Team B has both Patterson and Allgeier and now they will have 2/3ds of the Ram back field. They may just prefer having a teams backfield. They certainly had time to move on from Atlanta’s backfield but may be lured by their commitment to the run game. The same optics may be at play with the Rams here as well.

But, Team B NEEDED to make moves weeks ago but they held on to injured players like Patterson and Keenan Allen.

They are 2-8 for not making moves and then finally when they make a move they get dragged.

So lets get this straight....They werent willing to make trades to improve their team and now are 2-8 so NOW at 2-8 they decide to make a trade that appears to be giving up the 2 best rb's in the trade with his buddy? And that is not suspicious to you? I think if this were a jury trial the jury would point at this point where you lost all credibility and lost the case.

LOL. Suspicious is the best you’ve got. You’d have to prove it to a jury.

You would have zero credibility with a jury after a comment like that. At that point they would ignore all your blah blah blah as is their right to do. Sorry for you but you just stepped in it and would lose HUGEEEEE.

What comment?

My stance has been I do not need to answer the commissioners questions. You’d need to prove collusion and I’m not compelled to self incriminate regardless of a civil type of suit.

All you have is subjective opinions until the season plays out. If Conner and Cook are at all close in points post trade you’ve lost your argument.

But what are you going to prove? That a 9-1 team continued to win and a 2-8 team continued to lose?

 

[JohnnyU]

Wow!! I didn't expect this to get that much attention. Quite a debate here (even if 60% of it comes from one person).

Because some have asked, here are the full standings (place, record, pts - tiebreaker) and the RBs/WRs on each of the 2 teams involved. Standard start 1-2-2-flex-1-1-1, half ppr.

1) 9-1 1179.80 (Team A in trade)
2) 9-1 1057.50
3) 7-3 1138.74
4) 6-4 1157.40
5) 5-5 1100.30
6) 5-5 1060.80
7) 3-7 1058.84
8) 3-7 1057.20
9) 2-8 942.37
10) 2-8 940.58 (Team B in trade)

I don't know if Team B has officially been eliminated. Technically, he could finish 6-8 and so could the fourth place team and obviously the last place team could pass the fourth place team in points also. But I haven't analyzed if Team B could pass all the others also - I would think not due to them all playing each other.

Team A - Ekeler, Stevenson, Wilson, Henderson, Connor, Hopkins, Schuster, Godwin, Boyd
Team B - Cook, Patterson, Harris, Allgeier, Cooper, K. Allen, Jeudy, Hardman, Thielen, Hollins, M. Brown

Other notes - the money ($100/team) is irrelevant to everyone. It is about bragging rights. It is a local team and these 2 are not the only set of friends in the league, in fact everyone is at least "friendly" even if they don't hang out together. Trade deadline is in 2 days. No voting rules for trades, commissioner decision only, although he solicited everyone's opinion and will take those into account as well as the results of this poll.

Again, Team A would receive Cook & Harris, Team B would receive Connor & Henderson. Commissioner will rule by gametime tonight.

Thanks to everyone who has given their input in this thread!

Thanks for posting the rosters!!

And this is a bit as I suspected. Cook will be a flex for Team A. Personally I value Stevenson above Cook.

Cook could easily lose out the flex spot to Godwin based on matchup.

Team B is bad at RB. Patterson killed them with injury and Harris has also underperformed with a role that is declining.

But I see that Team B has both Patterson and Allgeier and now they will have 2/3ds of the Ram back field. They may just prefer having a teams backfield. They certainly had time to move on from Atlanta’s backfield but may be lured by their commitment to the run game. The same optics may be at play with the Rams here as well.

But, Team B NEEDED to make moves weeks ago but they held on to injured players like Patterson and Keenan Allen.

They are 2-8 for not making moves and then finally when they make a move they get dragged.

So lets get this straight....They werent willing to make trades to improve their team and now are 2-8 so NOW at 2-8 they decide to make a trade that appears to be giving up the 2 best rb's in the trade with his buddy? And that is not suspicious to you? I think if this were a jury trial the jury would point at this point where you lost all credibility and lost the case.

LOL. Suspicious is the best you’ve got. You’d have to prove it to a jury.

You would have zero credibility with a jury after a comment like that. At that point they would ignore all your blah blah blah as is their right to do. Sorry for you but you just stepped in it and would lose HUGEEEEE.

What comment?

My stance has been I do not need to answer the commissioners questions. You’d need to prove collusion and I’m not compelled to self incriminate regardless of a civil type of suit.

All you have is subjective opinions until the season plays out. If Conner and Cook are at all close in points post trade you’ve lost your argument.

But what are you going to prove? That a 9-1 team continued to win and a 2-8 team continued to lose?

Look, I've already kicked you out of the league, so why are you still posting here? Just move on with your life.

 

[da_budman]

I’m checking my Yahoo league rules and my pocket copy of the Constitution and it doesn’t say I have to rationalize YOUR accusation.

You can do what you want but it doesn't change that as a commish you have the right to ask an owner what they were thinking on a trade to get clarity. The fact is the rest of the league is going to come banging on the Commish's door after something like this and he needs to be prepared to answer their concerns. In order to do that he needs to understand the rationale of the last place team so he can either defend him or chastise him.

Also, this isn't an accusation. This is an inquiry. I ask other league members all the time after trades why they did it or how they valued people so I can understand how they think. It's a simple question and doesn't have to be accusatory.

You can say what you want but as a Fantasy League Commish you have less authority than a dog catcher. If you get a promotion from your Commish position you can serve on the architectural committee of your HOA board and you can approve decks and patios.

You literally have zero authority as a commissioner. Sure, kick me out of the league, just give me my money back but make no mistake, I owe you ZERO explanation. Deny my trade and give me my money back. Don’t like my non-rational, fine, give me my money back. I’m 2-8, I’d gladly take my money back.

I am going on a limb now and suggesting you caused this controversy on purpose in hopes of getting your money back. Im guessing that limb will break and you will fall to the ground without a single extra cent in your pockets, lol

And again, I’m 2-8, I don’t care. It is easy enough here online to just kick the Stig out of the league.

The reality is far messier than that. We know most leagues are friend based and are not made up of professionals.

Good luck kicking a friend out and keeping their money over this trade. If you do you played yourself as a douche.

Thats one of the big problems here..... if youre 2-8 and do not care whatch doing making lopsided trades with your buddy? Better yet why are you making trades at all? Does your league have a trade deadline? most leagues do and ours is this week. The reason for that is to prevent trades like this. (or to remove the temptation to do so )