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.

The Nerve (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

rabiddawgs

Footballguy
our trade dealine is this week.the 7-2 owner traded stacey mack to a 2-7 team for isaac bruce.after is saw this i emailed the commish and said it was not a fair trade and the reasons.i must not have been the only one to complain because the trade was reversed.2 days later the 7-2 owner emailed everyone in the league b**ching and complaining.saying bruce has been no good the last 6 weeks (15th best in my league) and mack is starting this week (which hes not). and maybe the other person wanted to keep mack as a keeper for next year. (lmfao)i just emailed everyone in my league the facts about the players involved. and told him too also goto a ffl forum and post if the trade was fair or not.what do u guys think (for proof to him).thanksdawgs

 
Tough call but I think I'd veto that if I was commish. No way is a Top 15 WR for a backup RB an equal trade.

 
Tough call but I think I'd veto that if I was commish. No way is a Top 15 WR for a backup RB an equal trade.
That's why I never veto trades.. I don't want it to come down to MY vision of what a trade SHOULD be. In five years, I've never vetoed a trade...even THIS year when an 0-6 team traded Culpepper & Heap away to a 3-3 team for Gannon & Green. The trade sucked but it is NOT my job to protect people from their stupidity and I wouldn't PRESUME to call someone a "CHEATER" unless I knew for a FACT that they were indeed...cheating.They got enough grief from all the other owners.
 
For the last time:The only way a trade should be vetoed is collusion. We do not know the owners in your league. You do. You should know their character/values...do you think they're collusive? If so, veto it. If not, let it stand. The only way to veto a trade is if you honestly believe that the two owners got together and planned a trade to help the one owner in exchange for something(like a portion of the winnings).

 
For the last time:
"For the LAST time"??Oh yeah...sure....."COLLUSION" threads are the most ignorant things I've ever seen.Just as you said...I've said MANY times. "COLLUSION" is a matter which concerns the character of the OWNERS involved...NOT the talent of the PLAYERS involved..But...if you think that this will end it...you're nuts...Its only "the LAST time" if you mean that its the last time you post it.COLLUSION threads are the mainstay of this forum....
 
No way should that trade have been vetoed. Might as well not allow trades if thats the kind of trade that will be disallowed. I dont blame that guy for being pissed, if i were him i would be finding a new league next year.

 
i had offered the guy barlow and either hillard or wayne for bruce and whoever. he declined but took this trade. this is a 12 team league and the other 11 people are in another state. (long story) they are either co-workers or friends. the 2-7 guys rb are not that bad (taylor, bettis, gary and moe williams) and bruce was his best wr. i just dont see how this trade could have been oked.in the league that i commish i wouldnt have even been thought about it

 
i had offered the guy barlow and either hillard or wayne for bruce and whoever. he declined but took this trade. this is a 12 team league and the other 11 people are in another state. (long story) they are either co-workers or friends. the 2-7 guys rb are not that bad (taylor, bettis, gary and moe williams) and bruce was his best wr. i just dont see how this trade could have been oked.in the league that i commish i wouldnt have even been thought about it
that kinda changes things. that's why i said you could see it both ways.
 
no its not personal. the guy didnt actually decline just didnt get back to me. 3 days later is when the trade happened.all i ask is that trades are fair. and this wasnt. period.....

 
i had offered the guy barlow and either hillard or wayne for bruce and whoever. he declined but took this trade. this is a 12 team league and the other 11 people are in another state. (long story) they are either co-workers or friends. the 2-7 guys rb are not that bad (taylor, bettis, gary and moe williams) and bruce was his best wr. i just dont see how this trade could have been oked.in the league that i commish i wouldnt have even been thought about it
that kinda changes things. that's why i said you could see it both ways.
stuart scott should be able to see everything both ways.
 
The trade may not be entirely of equal value in my opinion, but it certainly doesn't appear to be cheating. I'm still amazed at the number of people that get griped out over trades that look bad on the surface. Maybe the guy getting Mack thinks that next year Mack will be with a different team and get another chance to start.We had someone give up William Green and Donald Driver for Chad Johnson and Lamar Gordon earlier this season. I thought he was overpaying for Johnson at the time, but it looks like he was right on. Unless you have actual evidence of collusion/cheating, it is my opinion that you are out of line with your complaints. Trading should be banned in your league so that you have no future trades to worry about. The ban on trades will reduce the stress in your life and that of everyone else that complained.

 
no its not personal. the guy didnt actually decline just didnt get back to me. 3 days later is when the trade happened.all i ask is that trades are fair. and this wasnt. period.....
Are you asking if this trade was fair, or should it be vetoed?Because i rarely see trades that are fair, that doesnt mean you veto them. Like i said, that guys has every right to be mad.
 
We had someone give up William Green and Donald Driver for Chad Johnson and Lamar Gordon earlier this season. I thought he was overpaying for Johnson at the time, but it looks like he was right on. Unless you have actual evidence of collusion/cheating, it is my opinion that you are out of line with your complaints. in my opinion this was a fair trade. depending on the rosters.our league is heavily weighted on yardage.

 
Trade seems a little silly to me but as a long time commisioner I wouldn't have vetoed it. Its not my job to keep people from making stupid mistakes just to keep them from cheating and you haven't come close to showing any evidence of cheating, so no veto.

 
lots of holes in this info to see how fair it is or isn't. Trades don't need to be balanced to always be fair.Who are the other RBs for the 2-7 team? Maybe he wants Mack for next year. Where does Bruce fit in with his other Receivers. He is getting a younger player for and older player. In a redraft league, this trade might not pan out (still would not veto it).I posted about a trade going on in my league, not because I wanted it vetoed, but to see what others thought. The sharks here that do not have a personal say in my league said it was a fair trade. On paper, you might say it is not, but you have to see what the person is gaining. Is he bettering a position that he is weak at, and maybe giving up some bench to strenghten it. Unless someone gave away Priest Holmes for Jamal Anderson right now, I don't see why leagues always want to Veto, and then complain that trades don't happen.

 
Is it a keeper league? If it's not, it's a crappy trade, to be sure; but maybe that's why one guy is 7-2 and the other is 2-7. I'm thinking Mr. 2-7 is not the sharpest knife on the tree. :confused: Uh, yeah, anyway..... If there is no proof of collusion, you had no business trying to right what you perceived was wrong. Do you work for the government?

 
That's why I never veto trades.. I don't want it to come down to MY vision of what a trade SHOULD be. In five years, I've never vetoed a trade...even THIS year when an 0-6 team traded Culpepper & Heap away to a 3-3 team for Gannon & Green. The trade sucked but it is NOT my job to protect people from their stupidity and I wouldn't PRESUME to call someone a "CHEATER" unless I knew for a FACT that they were indeed...cheating.They got enough grief from all the other owners.
Yea, I guess was overreacting because I do see your point. It's hard for me because I am lucky to be in a league where trades like this would NEVER happen. I think the trade sucks but the more and more I think about it, a veto is not appropriate.
 
i had offered the guy barlow and either hillard or wayne for bruce and whoever. he declined but took this trade. this is a 12 team league and the other 11 people are in another state. (long story) they are either co-workers or friends. the 2-7 guys rb are not that bad (taylor, bettis, gary and moe williams) and bruce was his best wr. i just dont see how this trade could have been oked.in the league that i commish i wouldnt have even been thought about it
Ahhhhhhhh, now we get to the root of your whineness (Is that a word?)You're a meddling Commish, and you should resign. Power hungry commissioners suck:cry: :cry: :cry:
 
Wow...I cannot believe the responses to this post. First, why is the team that is 2-7 and probably out of the playoffs trading? Second, it is the commissioners duty to hold up the integrity of the entire league. How would you like to be playing the guy that just received Bruce and he goes off against you? As a commissioner, I have voided trades by using the "Ask the Commissioner" and also using the trade values on FootballGuys.com. I think you did the right thing. Cheaters never win...and winners never cheat!

 
First, why is the team that is 2-7 and probably out of the playoffs trading?
Sounds like it's a keeper league...trading happens all year in keeper leagues. There's never a bad time to plan for the future.Even in redrafts, in the extremely rare case where I'm out of the playoff running, I'm looking to deal up to the deadline. If I'm losing, I'm loving being the spoiler. I've NEVER rolled over and wouldn't expect any other owner to give up.About the trade...it does look suspicious, but not one to overturn. He must believe there is value to Mack next year...I don't know why, but he must. Are the two buddies? Is it possible one is paying the other under the table?
 
A one for one trade is tough to veto or overturn, you are ultimately saying thta the owner's valuation of a player is wrong and yours is right. who knowsw what they are thinking and it is not your place to tell them what they should be thinking .........or more importantly what is best for THIER team. have to agree with matrix and say there is a difference between cheating /collusion and a bad/stupid trade.sometimes that is all that out there, and if you gotta fill a spot you might have to take what you can get too. many different perspectives

 
SUBSCRIBER ONLY FEATUREHave a fantasy dispute? Bill Davies has years of service as a commissioner and has agreed to answer your private emails regarding rules, fair trades, collusion and the like. This service is free to subscribers.Email him at askthecommish@footballguys.com

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top