What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

Approve the trade?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 16.7%
  • No

    Votes: 50 83.3%

  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
 
Fewest yards per touch this season (min. 50 touches)

Cam Akers (3.03)
Brian Robinson (3.22)
Najee Harris (3.76)

This might be a reason why the guy is 2-8.
 
Fewest yards per touch this season (min. 50 touches)

Cam Akers (3.03)
Brian Robinson (3.22)
Najee Harris (3.76)

This might be a reason why the guy is 2-8.
Harris has a foot injury and the growing pains of a rookie QB. And I still prefer him to Henderson. Cook has also outplayed Connor by a wide margin.

It's a crappy trade, between friends, with the team giving up the "better" players being out of contention. Do we have to rationalize this?
 
Fewest yards per touch this season (min. 50 touches)

Cam Akers (3.03)
Brian Robinson (3.22)
Najee Harris (3.76)

This might be a reason why the guy is 2-8.
Harris has a foot injury and the growing pains of a rookie QB. And I still prefer him to Henderson. Cook has also outplayed Connor by a wide margin.

It's a crappy trade, between friends, with the team giving up the "better" players being out of contention. Do we have to rationalize this?
No, in fact it doesn’t need to be rationalized at all.

The irony is, that in .5 PPR Cook and Conner finished with the exact same points this past Sunday. 22.1.

I mean Conner has been injured and when he was playing earlier Arizona sucked and didn’t have Hopkins but yeah, keep looking over those old score lines.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
 
Fewest yards per touch this season (min. 50 touches)

Cam Akers (3.03)
Brian Robinson (3.22)
Najee Harris (3.76)

This might be a reason why the guy is 2-8.
Harris has a foot injury and the growing pains of a rookie QB. And I still prefer him to Henderson. Cook has also outplayed Connor by a wide margin.

It's a crappy trade, between friends, with the team giving up the "better" players being out of contention. Do we have to rationalize this?
No, in fact it doesn’t need to be rationalized at all.

The irony is, that in .5 PPR Cook and Conner finished with the exact same points this past Sunday. 22.1.

I mean Conner has been injured and when he was playing earlier Arizona sucked and didn’t have Hopkins but yeah, keep looking over those old score lines.

Makes you wonder why the 8-2 team would trade Connor away...
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
And I’d ask for my buy in back.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
 
The Commissioner should ask the last place team how this trade helps his team. If he doesn't have a good answer, the trade should be vetoed.
As a commish of 20 years until recently this was my go to question. I might add that I dont believe in leaguwide votes because whether the trade looked fair or not most time people will veto trades making the top teams better. Our league doesnt use the website to track trades. Both teams notify the commish and he takes it from there. I never vetoed a trade but had several trades withdrawn after having that discussion with the owner that seemed to be giving up too much. Handled that way there wont be need for many trade vetoes....nor hard feelings with the rest of the league saying: You traded what for what?
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
And I’d ask for my buy in back.
And I'd tell you to go "eff yourself" and not to come back.
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.
Every post gets lamer. Put down the bottle... Just stop.
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
Oh, but you see they were just cited as a reason to reverse the trade, so what is the criteria for what is fair other than personal subjectivity?
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
And I’d ask for my buy in back.
And I'd tell you to go "eff yourself" and not to come back.
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.
Every post gets lamer. Put down the bottle... Just stop.
As long as you pay me my buy in back I’d gladly leave.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.
You need to dial it back a notch or two.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.
You need to dial it back a notch or two.
Well seriously. It’s a game. People are getting this bent out of shape over Cook vs Conner? I need to dial it back?

The last place and first place team make a trade. The trade favored the 9-1 team, probably why they are 9-1 and the other team is 2-8. There is absolutely no correlation there so complain to the Sharkpool and then tell the guy laughing at them to dial it back.

9-1 team gets better via trade that favors them, news at 11:00.
 
I can’t wait for the thread 3 weeks from now about the guy who benches a starter to fix their playoff matchup because it boned someone out of making the playoffs.

“League honor, competitive balance etc.”
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook
is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris
v
Henderson
is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up
Cook
and
Harris
(even this season's version) for Connor and
Henderson
? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
Oh, but you see they were just cited as a reason to reverse the trade, so what is the criteria for what is fair other than personal subjectivity?
Did you even read what I wrote before deciding to ask me a question? Unless I am missing something this is 2 rbs for 2 rbs....... the trade I responded to was a qb for a wr trade. I quite honestly cant see how the friend who is 2-8 could possibly defend that trade beyond using ye old....I just have a feeling logic. or (Its my team and I will do what I want) which doesnt fly when the Commish is responsible for the integrity of the league. I.E. trying to make sure people are making trades with SOME rationale as to how an owner thinks a particular trade makes his team better.
 
I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Sounds like you already understand the issue, I think most of us agree with the bolded.

I would simply email/text the last place team and ask them how they think this trade improved their team. I would also ask the #1 seed how the discussions came about, who proposed the trade, et al.

It's a league integrity issue. I would put it to a vote. Our league is Commissioner approval, my default is to wait one day and then put them through. We have never had any floaters in our league so thankfully I have never had to deal with any shenanigans.
I think this needs to be addressed at a minimum over the phone. Doesnt give the guy time to think up a bs excuse and if he legit thinks that trade makes his team better then he will already have an answer for the question.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook
is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris
v
Henderson
is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up
Cook
and
Harris
(even this season's version) for Connor and
Henderson
? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
Oh, but you see they were just cited as a reason to reverse the trade, so what is the criteria for what is fair other than personal subjectivity?
Did you even read what I wrote before deciding to ask me a question? Unless I am missing something this is 2 rbs for 2 rbs....... the trade I responded to was a qb for a wr trade. I quite honestly cant see how the friend who is 2-8 could possibly defend that trade beyond using ye old....I just have a feeling logic. or (Its my team and I will do what I want) which doesnt fly when the Commish is responsible for the integrity of the league. I.E. trying to make sure people are making trades with SOME rationale as to how an owner thinks a particular trade makes his team better.
I read your comment and that is why I asked my question.

Does my trade require a call with the commish? Based on criteria stated in this thread it seems like my trade is unfair.

If it is unfair I would like the fine folks here tell me how and why it should be reversed.
 
You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.
Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.
How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having Cook has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.
If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.
Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo
No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.
Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my Burrow for Toney trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?
Its not about fair, especially across positions. I will give you an even more lopsided trade I made just a few weeks ago. I traded cousins for Zay Jones. Pretty lopsided huh? The devil is in the details however. First Cousins was my 2nd/3rd qb and no other QB will start for me barring injury ahead of Hurts. I posted on the message board letting people know my backups were both open for trades (trading only 1) for wide receivers. I got offers for a couple of better wrs EXCEPT they were both injured. With 5 bye weeks one week and 5 another I had no time to wait on injured wr's With a midnight waiver wire deadline coming up the best healthy offer I got was Jones. (I got a last second offer of rondale moore who I would have MUCH rather had but I had already agreed to the Jones trade. It wasnt a matter of getting fair value for him, it was a matter of getting what I could for him before releasing him to the waiver wire for a wr that I would have had to overspend for off the WW. One particular guy keeps giving me grief over that and my response is always the same.... What did YOU offer me for cousins..... (he didnt make me an offer lol)
 
You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.
Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.
How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having
Cook
has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.
If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.
Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo
No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.
Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my
Burrow
for
Toney
trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?
Its not about fair, especially across positions. I will give you an even more lopsided trade I made just a few weeks ago. I traded cousins for
Zay Jones
. Pretty lopsided huh? The devil is in the details however. First
Cousins
was my 2nd/3rd qb and no other QB will start for me barring injury ahead of
Hurts
. I posted on the message board letting people know my backups were both open for trades (trading only 1) for wide receivers. I got offers for a couple of better wrs EXCEPT they were both injured. With 5 bye weeks one week and 5 another I had no time to wait on injured wr's With a midnight waiver wire deadline coming up the best healthy offer I got was
Jones
. (I got a last second offer of rondale moore who I would have MUCH rather had but I had already agreed to the
Jones
trade. It wasnt a matter of getting fair value for him, it was a matter of getting what I could for him before releasing him to the waiver wire for a wr that I would have had to overspend for off the WW. One particular guy keeps giving me grief over that and my response is always the same.... What did YOU offer me for cousins..... (he didnt make me an offer lol)

I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
After which the Commish isnt obligated to explain why it was vetoed either....If he is smart he will explain to the league that you were given a chance to explain a trade that seemed pretty suspicious for collusion and you opted out of that discussion.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook
is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris
v
Henderson
is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up
Cook
and
Harris
(even this season's version) for Connor and
Henderson
? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
Oh, but you see they were just cited as a reason to reverse the trade, so what is the criteria for what is fair other than personal subjectivity?
Did you even read what I wrote before deciding to ask me a question? Unless I am missing something this is 2 rbs for 2 rbs....... the trade I responded to was a qb for a wr trade. I quite honestly cant see how the friend who is 2-8 could possibly defend that trade beyond using ye old....I just have a feeling logic. or (Its my team and I will do what I want) which doesnt fly when the Commish is responsible for the integrity of the league. I.E. trying to make sure people are making trades with SOME rationale as to how an owner thinks a particular trade makes his team better.
I read your comment and that is why I asked my question.

Does my trade require a call with the commish? Based on criteria stated in this thread it seems like my trade is unfair.

If it is unfair I would like the fine folks here tell me how and why it should be reversed.
I didnt read every response but If they suggested the trade you made should be called into the commish I think they were wrong. You, however are conflating 2 different situations. Completely different. And if you are as smart as it seems you are you already know this. I WILL say 1 thing though. If you make a questionable trade you should be prepared to defend it. My totally lopsided trade looks even worse....but you better bet if called into question I would be able to defend it and explain why it WASNT collusion. And you know what, since the commish is going to catch hell if he DOESNT veto this trade he has every right to ask for the ammunition he needs in the event that he DOESNT veto the trade.
 
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
 
Also, where are you people finding these league mates ? We don’t have any of these rules in place because we don’t need to

I agree with this...we don't have any veto rules because there is 100% trust with the guys and they know if there was ever any cheating they would be bounced right away...they are both Dynasty so that does make things easier.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook
is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris
v
Henderson
is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up
Cook
and
Harris
(even this season's version) for Connor and
Henderson
? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
Oh, but you see they were just cited as a reason to reverse the trade, so what is the criteria for what is fair other than personal subjectivity?
Did you even read what I wrote before deciding to ask me a question? Unless I am missing something this is 2 rbs for 2 rbs....... the trade I responded to was a qb for a wr trade. I quite honestly cant see how the friend who is 2-8 could possibly defend that trade beyond using ye old....I just have a feeling logic. or (Its my team and I will do what I want) which doesnt fly when the Commish is responsible for the integrity of the league. I.E. trying to make sure people are making trades with SOME rationale as to how an owner thinks a particular trade makes his team better.
I read your comment and that is why I asked my question.

Does my trade require a call with the commish? Based on criteria stated in this thread it seems like my trade is unfair.

If it is unfair I would like the fine folks here tell me how and why it should be reversed.
I didnt read every response but If they suggested the trade you made should be called into the commish I think they were wrong. You, however are conflating 2 different situations. Completely different. And if you are as smart as it seems you are you already know this. I WILL say 1 thing though. If you make a questionable trade you should be prepared to defend it. My totally lopsided trade looks even worse....but you better bet if called into question I would be able to defend it and explain why it WASNT collusion. And you know what, since the commish is going to catch hell if he DOESNT veto this trade he has every right to ask for the ammunition he needs in the event that he DOESNT veto the trade.
The red flag of any trade is the inherent balance of the trade. If a trade seems very unbalanced it seems that is what raises suspicions of collusion. Am I right?

It seems the folks against this trade are making up the reasons they are against it on the fly.

1. The traded players aren’t balanced in value

2. Their place in the standings is the reason.

3. They are friends.

Then some folks here are all about “the competitive balance” of the league. So I guess a trade needs to be evaluated against how disruptive it may be to the teams not involved.

I then present my trade. On face value it is:

1. Very unbalanced.

2. We happen to be friends, (kind of a occupational hazard in fantasy leagues)

3. Potentially it makes a good team better and potentially another good team worse. Since this affects the status quo it is in fact impacting the competitive balance of the league.

So my question is, why is one trade getting dragged and the other trade that appears to meet the same criteria as the first and all of you are either ignoring it or giving it some kind of pass on judgement?
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook
is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris
v
Henderson
is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up
Cook
and
Harris
(even this season's version) for Connor and
Henderson
? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
Oh, but you see they were just cited as a reason to reverse the trade, so what is the criteria for what is fair other than personal subjectivity?
Did you even read what I wrote before deciding to ask me a question? Unless I am missing something this is 2 rbs for 2 rbs....... the trade I responded to was a qb for a wr trade. I quite honestly cant see how the friend who is 2-8 could possibly defend that trade beyond using ye old....I just have a feeling logic. or (Its my team and I will do what I want) which doesnt fly when the Commish is responsible for the integrity of the league. I.E. trying to make sure people are making trades with SOME rationale as to how an owner thinks a particular trade makes his team better.
I read your comment and that is why I asked my question.

Does my trade require a call with the commish? Based on criteria stated in this thread it seems like my trade is unfair.

If it is unfair I would like the fine folks here tell me how and why it should be reversed.
I didnt read every response but If they suggested the trade you made should be called into the commish I think they were wrong. You, however are conflating 2 different situations. Completely different. And if you are as smart as it seems you are you already know this. I WILL say 1 thing though. If you make a questionable trade you should be prepared to defend it. My totally lopsided trade looks even worse....but you better bet if called into question I would be able to defend it and explain why it WASNT collusion. And you know what, since the commish is going to catch hell if he DOESNT veto this trade he has every right to ask for the ammunition he needs in the event that he DOESNT veto the trade.
The red flag of any trade is the inherent balance of the trade. If a trade seems very unbalanced it seems that is what raises suspicions of collusion. Am I right?

It seems the folks against this trade are making up the reasons they are against it on the fly.

1. The traded players aren’t balanced in value

2. Their place in the standings is the reason.

3. They are friends.

Then some folks here are all about “the competitive balance” of the league. So I guess a trade needs to be evaluated against how disruptive it may be to the teams not involved.

I then present my trade. On face value it is:

1. Very unbalanced.

2. We happen to be friends, (kind of a occupational hazard in fantasy leagues)

3. Potentially it makes a good team better and potentially another good team worse. Since this affects the status quo it is in fact impacting the competitive balance of the league.

So my question is, why is one trade getting dragged and the other trade that appears to meet the same criteria as the first and all of you are either ignoring it or giving it some kind of pass on judgement?
It's probably being scrutinized extra hard because of where the players were drafted and name recognition.
 
I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook
is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris
v
Henderson
is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up
Cook
and
Harris
(even this season's version) for Connor and
Henderson
? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
They are obligated to explain it to other people in their league because that's what happens when you make questionable deals with your friends who are out of contention.

Hypothetically, if they were in my league, i would use a commish veto because I think it is appropriate in this case. The veto is not used lightly and is only in place to avoid situations such as this.
No they aren’t obligated to explain it to the league. Get off your horse. Do you even hear yourself? “The veto is not used lightly”

Oh eff off with all your sanctimonious BS. It’s a game of fake football. It’s probably a $20 buy in. Let people play

Get lost, dude. Most people here and those that I play with care about their season and the effort they put into it...

You can continue to play with your uncle and niece and let them do what they want.

Have a nice day.
Ohhhh, call the veto police and make them take the trade back because you don’t like it. Do you always complain on public forums when your league upsets you or do you not have a life?

Wahhh, I’m in 8th place and the 10 place team made the 9-1 team better. My season sucks but it is because my league mates cheat.

I’m not having fun so I’m gonna complain to the Sharkpool to feel better.

I am well aware that almost all trades should be allowed unless it is clear collusion. But I'm going to just throw this one out there as there are many unhappy owners in this league about this one.

Redraft, the trade is between the last place team (2-8) in a 10 team league and the first place team (9-1). They are friends.

Last place team receives: J. Connor, D. Henderson
First place team receives: Dalvin Cook, N. Harris

I admit this one rubs me the wrong way, especially since there is no realistic reason for the last place team to make the trade.

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?
Projected points are generally totally useless when deciding whether a trade should be vetoed across positional lines.
Oh, but you see they were just cited as a reason to reverse the trade, so what is the criteria for what is fair other than personal subjectivity?
Did you even read what I wrote before deciding to ask me a question? Unless I am missing something this is 2 rbs for 2 rbs....... the trade I responded to was a qb for a wr trade. I quite honestly cant see how the friend who is 2-8 could possibly defend that trade beyond using ye old....I just have a feeling logic. or (Its my team and I will do what I want) which doesnt fly when the Commish is responsible for the integrity of the league. I.E. trying to make sure people are making trades with SOME rationale as to how an owner thinks a particular trade makes his team better.
I read your comment and that is why I asked my question.

Does my trade require a call with the commish? Based on criteria stated in this thread it seems like my trade is unfair.

If it is unfair I would like the fine folks here tell me how and why it should be reversed.
I didnt read every response but If they suggested the trade you made should be called into the commish I think they were wrong. You, however are conflating 2 different situations. Completely different. And if you are as smart as it seems you are you already know this. I WILL say 1 thing though. If you make a questionable trade you should be prepared to defend it. My totally lopsided trade looks even worse....but you better bet if called into question I would be able to defend it and explain why it WASNT collusion. And you know what, since the commish is going to catch hell if he DOESNT veto this trade he has every right to ask for the ammunition he needs in the event that he DOESNT veto the trade.
The red flag of any trade is the inherent balance of the trade. If a trade seems very unbalanced it seems that is what raises suspicions of collusion. Am I right?

It seems the folks against this trade are making up the reasons they are against it on the fly.

1. The traded players aren’t balanced in value

2. Their place in the standings is the reason.

3. They are friends.

Then some folks here are all about “the competitive balance” of the league. So I guess a trade needs to be evaluated against how disruptive it may be to the teams not involved.

I then present my trade. On face value it is:

1. Very unbalanced.

2. We happen to be friends, (kind of a occupational hazard in fantasy leagues)

3. Potentially it makes a good team better and potentially another good team worse. Since this affects the status quo it is in fact impacting the competitive balance of the league.

So my question is, why is one trade getting dragged and the other trade that appears to meet the same criteria as the first and all of you are either ignoring it or giving it some kind of pass on judgement?
It's probably being scrutinized extra hard because of where the players were drafted and name recognition.
Ok, then explain how nobody is up in arms over a trade of a top 5 QB for a WR with 2 games played this season?
 
You want to call collusion when the reality is the 2-8 person just doesn’t care as much as we do. That’s pretty much it.
Can we assume the 9-1 team does care?

If the 2-8 team doesn’t care & the 9-1 team does care, that’s textbook collusion. Only one side stands to benefit from a trade.

In that circumstance it’s irrelevant who the players involved are. A team that can’t win shouldn’t be making trades with teams that can. It’s cut & dry.
How is that “textbook collusion”?

I’m sorry to break it to you but most players in friends and family leagues really just don’t care. They don’t care if they win much less if someone else wins.

These aren’t deep conspiracies, just a player who at 2-8, is out of it, and ready to move on with their life. They likely don’t care and at 2-8 they can’t make a case that having
Cook
has made their competitive experience any better.

If and only if you can prove that they are going to share the winnings then you have collusion but beyond that all you have is a lopsided trade that is within the range of outcomes of a manager who is 2-8. They just are not a good manager, period.
If one team has something to gain and the other does not, it’s collusion.

It literally defines collision.

You wrote a lot of words, but I stopped reading after 1 sentence, because it is absolutely and obviously collusion.

Two teams making a trade helping only 1 team to improve = collusion.

It’s impossible to be more collusion, if that’s the case & 1 of the teams is eliminated. It’s collusion any way you look at it.

Hope this helps to clear up your misunderstanding of the term “collusion”.

ETA, ok curiosity got the better of me and I read the rest. It doesn’t matter of anyone “cares”. It’s collusion. 100%. Has nothing to do with “conspiracy”, just the facts. 2 teams dealing to help 1 team win = collusion.

In fact, the team that’s playoff bound could even be losing the trade, and it’s STILL collusion. Because it’s collusion.
Collusion generally requires a quid pro quo
No, it doesn’t. At all.

That’s (ironically) called “a fair trade” - two teams dealing players of value to mutual benefit. Quid pro quo.

Unless it’s something external to the trade, e.g. cash payment, bottle of scotch, round of golf, date with a sister, etc. then we’re right back to “1 team gains in FF, the other doesn’t”, which is collusion.

All it requires is 1 team helping another team win without benefiting their own team. If a team is eliminated from playoff contention, then the contents of the trade are irrelevant - it’s collusion.
Except for when people in the Sharkpool claim that it isn’t a “fair trade”. Here, all
Trades that aren’t balanced are accused of collusion when often times they are not much more than incompetence.

There is no way that my
Burrow
for
Toney
trade is “fair”. So is it collusion?
Its not about fair, especially across positions. I will give you an even more lopsided trade I made just a few weeks ago. I traded cousins for
Zay Jones
. Pretty lopsided huh? The devil is in the details however. First
Cousins
was my 2nd/3rd qb and no other QB will start for me barring injury ahead of
Hurts
. I posted on the message board letting people know my backups were both open for trades (trading only 1) for wide receivers. I got offers for a couple of better wrs EXCEPT they were both injured. With 5 bye weeks one week and 5 another I had no time to wait on injured wr's With a midnight waiver wire deadline coming up the best healthy offer I got was
Jones
. (I got a last second offer of rondale moore who I would have MUCH rather had but I had already agreed to the
Jones
trade. It wasnt a matter of getting fair value for him, it was a matter of getting what I could for him before releasing him to the waiver wire for a wr that I would have had to overspend for off the WW. One particular guy keeps giving me grief over that and my response is always the same.... What did YOU offer me for cousins..... (he didnt make me an offer lol)

I think people are conflating "name value" with production here.
Cook is averaging 16.5 ppg
Connor is averaging 12.2 ppg (and that's including a game he left early)

Harris v Henderson is a wash.

If you're 8-2, do you give up Cook and Harris (even this season's version) for Connor and Henderson? Really?

ETA: If it makes no sense for the 8-2 team... how does it make sense for the basement dweller?
It doesn’t have to make sense to you and they aren’t obligated to explain it to you either.
After which the Commish isnt obligated to explain why it was vetoed either....If he is smart he will explain to the league that you were given a chance to explain a trade that seemed pretty suspicious for collusion and you opted out of that discussion.
No, you need to defend overruling a trade and THEN I explain my rational. It doesn’t work the other way around.

You need to demonstrate how and why it’s collusion, I’m not obligated to say why it isn’t collusion simply because of your suspicions. I don’t need to explain my rational or competitive reasons to you unless you have some kind of proof that it is collusion.

If there isn’t a league rule regarding the threshold of balance of a trade then there is no objective way to overrule other than you subjectively just don’t like it.

If you and the league make the accusation of collusion the burden is also on you to prove it. I don’t need to help you with that.

So, no, I don’t need to explain it to you but if you overrule an agreement between two parties you had better defend your decision to do so because I could argue you are overruling the trade because it may negatively affect YOUR competitive chances.
 
Last edited:
I read your comment and that is why I asked my question.

Does my trade require a call with the commish? Based on criteria stated in this thread it seems like my trade is unfair.

If it is unfair I would like the fine folks here tell me how and why it should be reversed.

I take that back... Maybe I was giving you too much credit.
 

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're smart enough to know the difference here.
You assume too much, I need it spelled out.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Rest Of Year Projections (0.5PPR) - FBG / FantasyPoints

Conner : 11.99 / 12.6 PPG
Henderson : 5.63 / 8.8 PPG
Total 17.62 PPG / 21.4 PPG

Cook : 16.1 / 16.3 PPG
Harris : 10.25 / 14.1 PPG
Total : 26.35 PPG / 30.4 PPG

I can't recall the last time I've vetoed a trade while running 4 money leagues ($100-$500 buy ins)...but this one reeks.

I'd ask for a public explanation by the last place team to sell the league on the trade from their perspective.

When they fail to convince anyone it's a valid trade..... it would be vetoed and both teams would be barred from trading again for the rest of the year.
Based on projected points, do I owe you an explanation for my Burrow for Toney trade?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're smart enough to know the difference here.
You assume too much, I need it spelled out.

Fantasy Football 101 covers the difference between the two deals:

Welcome to the hobby. You should spend more time in the Shark Pool to hone your understanding of the hobby. :thumbup:

@Aaron Rudnicki : Any chance of an alias check here?
 
Our league doesn’t allow trading between teams that have more than 4 wins separating them
That’s a little extreme imo. For example, what's wrong with a 4-0 team and 0-4 team trading?
Maybe, but it prevents the kinds of trades this thread is about.
True. I might be more on board if we said the rule didn't go into effect until week 9 or 10.
I just don’t see what the “romeo & Juliette” rule, as it were, does to help that it doesn’t hurt far more.

Theoretically, bottom 6 teams can become top 6 teams by trading.

Usually top 6 teams are the ones with valuable players & excess of riches.

This rule just kind of destroys trading in general.
The OPs original trade wasn’t sending riches to the last place team.

Just the opposite
 
Our league doesn’t allow trading between teams that have more than 4 wins separating them
That’s a little extreme imo. For example, what's wrong with a 4-0 team and 0-4 team trading?
Maybe, but it prevents the kinds of trades this thread is about.
True. I might be more on board if we said the rule didn't go into effect until week 9 or 10.
I just don’t see what the “romeo & Juliette” rule, as it were, does to help that it doesn’t hurt far more.

Theoretically, bottom 6 teams can become top 6 teams by trading.

Usually top 6 teams are the ones with valuable players & excess of riches.

This rule just kind of destroys trading in general.
The OPs original trade wasn’t sending riches to the last place team.

Just the opposite
Yes, I’m acutely aware of that.

Not sure what that has to do with the post you quoted.

I’m saying that rule hurts all trades. Because it’s not only possible, but likely that at various points in the season a team that’s 4 games apart from another team is still in contention.

That those teams can’t trade with each other is preposterous.

It’s a terrible rule, in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top