ravensfan4life

Any thoughts what this guy's value might be going forward. Just got offered Dwayne Bowe for Starks and Burleson in a 14 team ppr. What is the best case scenario? 1200 and 12 tds? With the worst maybe 700 and 6?

Anyone else have an old friend that you only stay in touch with via fantasy football bc he went to california for 4 years, came back and decided he hates society? I am talking sell all your possessions, delete email accounts, no cell phone, lives at home, works a construction job that his stanford degree over qualifies him for type ######. Then he claims he's retiring ff and the only contact you have with him is through his father who plays in the same pick up basketball game your in on monday nights. joey, sign up for the league, cut drew a check. stop being a ######.

Joeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyy, Come out come out wherever you are. Stop dogging us at basketball, reconnect with society, and play some fantasy football.

We've done a redraft auction for the last few years, but want to make it a keeper league this year. We are not set on the number of keepers yet(2-4 probably). What are some ways to manage the auction draft within the keeper league? I am mostly talking about the value of your keepers in the following draft and your salary cap. What works?

Rebuttal in favor of trade Opinion by the Honorable Chief Justice William Rueter Citing- Mr. Lord Wright’s Opinion in With v. O'Flanagan: “…material alteration in the position had taken place between the date of those representations and the date at which the contract was completed and they have also established that no communication was made by Dr. O’Flanagan or anybody on his behalf of that change of circumstances. But that all the facts were known to either Dr. O’Flanagan or his agent I have no doubt at all.” Also, in your description of the case you say “Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value.” This is different from the instance between you and Mike where essentially you both “signed” the contract when you agreed to the trade. While you are correct that in the case of Mowell v. Kirby a material altercation took place, there was no reason to expect Mike had any more knowledge than you did about the change. Your case contains no “misrepresentation” since Mike is as innocent as you are relative to knowing anything about a change in circumstances. Unlike With v. O’ Flanagan, the asymmetry of information did not exist and therefore it was a fair transaction. Representation was true throughout the duration of the case, circumstances changed but they were not misrepresented. Your definition of pending as “remaining undecided; awaiting decision or settlement; unfinished: pending business; pending questions; pending litigation” has very little to do with the agreement between you and Mike and much more to do with deferral to arbitration or regulation, i.e. to a court, an authority, a regulator. Involvement by you and Mike in the process of the contract was completed when “accept trade” was clicked. At that time you assume all risks, liabilities, and benefits of the trade. All that remains is for the governing body to approve or disprove of the trade. Why would there be a pending period for a trade for any other reason than review by another party? People to not enter trades or contracts to wait for a few days until they are really sure they want to do it. They don’t sign contracts so that during a pending period of a few days they can be sure a natural disaster doesn’t strike. In Mowell v. Kirby, the governing body, the league, approved the trade and the controversy only stems from the arbitrary choice of the length of the approval period. The controversy is not that information was hidden or that the agreement was unfair. You signed the contract. All that remained was for the league to ensure it was executed in good faith and in fairness. I do not believe the league should have the power to go back and retroactively change the trade because it is now “unfair” after the agreement. To do so is to rule on a different trade entirely. The league has to consider the case as it was agreed upon, or the problem of retroactive league intervention is indeed a problem. As it was agreed upon the trade was fair, mutually beneficial, and in good faith, anything that changed is not for the league to retroactively “fix”. That is something to work out between you and Mr. Kirby. I find this an enjoyable debate and I’ll hope to look for a few legal opinions later, but class in 10 minutes means its time to go. Is my position really surprising based on my team name? Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us? Sincerely, Welfare Tyranny rebuttal against trade Well on looking at the particular case again I think you did a good job arguing it – it doesn't really support my cause. I would have said that the misrepresentation came into play because Bowe had the suspension looming for most of the season and it was just a matter of time before it took effect – therefore, while I had a reasonable expectation of getting a player who would be in my lineup for giving one away, I was actually buying damaged goods before the contract had been made, which I found out about the next day. But I could find other things that support the same idea I tried to express that the trade was made unfair due to a freak occurrence, and that my immediate attempt to notify Mike and the commissioner during the pending period did nothing, so that now we have to argue it out after the fact. Check out “implied warranty”: a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, an implied warranty of merchantability for products, implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services, and an implied warranty of habitability for a home. An implied warranty is one that arises from the nature of the transaction, and the inherent understanding by the buyer, rather than from the express representations of the seller. The warranty of merchantability: “For example, a fruit that looks and smells good but has hidden defects would violate the implied warranty of merchantability if its quality does not meet the standards for such fruit "as passes ordinarily in the trade"”. – So the real issue at stake is if the consumer has any power to correct a deal that turned out to be significantly unfair to them. I am saying, during the pending period, they should have every right to do so. You're right in arguing that a contract was made and that both parties assumed the risks, so that the contract cannot be void as if there was shady dealing, but that's not what I'm arguing – I'm saying that the contract is voidable – able to be cancelled, because after the contract was made and before the goods were delivered the fairness of the trade had changed. That's what the league has always voted on - apparent fairness. It's silly to say that votes should ignore the latest injury or suspension news and try to date to the time the agreement was reached, which is only known to the person who accepts the offer anyway. To me the issue with this trade is really how to protect, and if it is possible to protect, the individual owner from being screwed over during the pending period of a trade, and given your political stance against bureaucratic inefficiency I'm sure you can relate. “Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us?” you say, and I agree completely: why would I have to be dependent on league votes to recognize my trade has been made unfair when I can see it right away? The voting system in this case missed the boat by not voting just as it did in your original trade to Mike by voting, and that's why we have this forum to air our grievances, have other people weigh in, and ultimately take it to the commissioner's decision. Two league members have already agreed with my stance that I have a reasonable cause to have the trade called off. I am finding the argument here interesting and getting Forsett back will probably be hugely anticlimactic, but I think it's a mistake if it doesn't happen.

Rebuttal in favor of trade Opinion by the Honorable Chief Justice William Rueter Citing- Mr. Lord Wright’s Opinion in With v. O'Flanagan: “…material alteration in the position had taken place between the date of those representations and the date at which the contract was completed and they have also established that no communication was made by Dr. O’Flanagan or anybody on his behalf of that change of circumstances. But that all the facts were known to either Dr. O’Flanagan or his agent I have no doubt at all.” Also, in your description of the case you say “Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value.” This is different from the instance between you and Mike where essentially you both “signed” the contract when you agreed to the trade. While you are correct that in the case of Mowell v. Kirby a material altercation took place, there was no reason to expect Mike had any more knowledge than you did about the change. Your case contains no “misrepresentation” since Mike is as innocent as you are relative to knowing anything about a change in circumstances. Unlike With v. O’ Flanagan, the asymmetry of information did not exist and therefore it was a fair transaction. Representation was true throughout the duration of the case, circumstances changed but they were not misrepresented. Your definition of pending as “remaining undecided; awaiting decision or settlement; unfinished: pending business; pending questions; pending litigation” has very little to do with the agreement between you and Mike and much more to do with deferral to arbitration or regulation, i.e. to a court, an authority, a regulator. Involvement by you and Mike in the process of the contract was completed when “accept trade” was clicked. At that time you assume all risks, liabilities, and benefits of the trade. All that remains is for the governing body to approve or disprove of the trade. Why would there be a pending period for a trade for any other reason than review by another party? People to not enter trades or contracts to wait for a few days until they are really sure they want to do it. They don’t sign contracts so that during a pending period of a few days they can be sure a natural disaster doesn’t strike. In Mowell v. Kirby, the governing body, the league, approved the trade and the controversy only stems from the arbitrary choice of the length of the approval period. The controversy is not that information was hidden or that the agreement was unfair. You signed the contract. All that remained was for the league to ensure it was executed in good faith and in fairness. I do not believe the league should have the power to go back and retroactively change the trade because it is now “unfair” after the agreement. To do so is to rule on a different trade entirely. The league has to consider the case as it was agreed upon, or the problem of retroactive league intervention is indeed a problem. As it was agreed upon the trade was fair, mutually beneficial, and in good faith, anything that changed is not for the league to retroactively “fix”. That is something to work out between you and Mr. Kirby. I find this an enjoyable debate and I’ll hope to look for a few legal opinions later, but class in 10 minutes means its time to go. Is my position really surprising based on my team name? Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us? Sincerely, Welfare Tyranny rebuttal against trade Well on looking at the particular case again I think you did a good job arguing it – it doesn't really support my cause. I would have said that the misrepresentation came into play because Bowe had the suspension looming for most of the season and it was just a matter of time before it took effect – therefore, while I had a reasonable expectation of getting a player who would be in my lineup for giving one away, I was actually buying damaged goods before the contract had been made, which I found out about the next day. But I could find other things that support the same idea I tried to express that the trade was made unfair due to a freak occurrence, and that my immediate attempt to notify Mike and the commissioner during the pending period did nothing, so that now we have to argue it out after the fact. Check out “implied warranty”: a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, an implied warranty of merchantability for products, implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services, and an implied warranty of habitability for a home. An implied warranty is one that arises from the nature of the transaction, and the inherent understanding by the buyer, rather than from the express representations of the seller. The warranty of merchantability: “For example, a fruit that looks and smells good but has hidden defects would violate the implied warranty of merchantability if its quality does not meet the standards for such fruit "as passes ordinarily in the trade"”. – So the real issue at stake is if the consumer has any power to correct a deal that turned out to be significantly unfair to them. I am saying, during the pending period, they should have every right to do so. You're right in arguing that a contract was made and that both parties assumed the risks, so that the contract cannot be void as if there was shady dealing, but that's not what I'm arguing – I'm saying that the contract is voidable – able to be cancelled, because after the contract was made and before the goods were delivered the fairness of the trade had changed. That's what the league has always voted on - apparent fairness. It's silly to say that votes should ignore the latest injury or suspension news and try to date to the time the agreement was reached, which is only known to the person who accepts the offer anyway. To me the issue with this trade is really how to protect, and if it is possible to protect, the individual owner from being screwed over during the pending period of a trade, and given your political stance against bureaucratic inefficiency I'm sure you can relate. “Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us?” you say, and I agree completely: why would I have to be dependent on league votes to recognize my trade has been made unfair when I can see it right away? The voting system in this case missed the boat by not voting just as it did in your original trade to Mike by voting, and that's why we have this forum to air our grievances, have other people weigh in, and ultimately take it to the commissioner's decision. Two league members have already agreed with my stance that I have a reasonable cause to have the trade called off. I am finding the argument here interesting and getting Forsett back will probably be hugely anticlimactic, but I think it's a mistake if it doesn't happen.

Arguement for trade to stay: Joe, Where do you draw the line? Are you saying because the trade was still pending for a day that you should be able to retract the trade? What if a week had gone by or two weeks? Can I ask for Ryan Moats back now that I know Peppers has a broken hand? The contract is entered at the time that both sides agree to the decision. Neither of you had unfair information. Mike was not cheating you. There was nothing asymmetrical about the transaction. Things changed as they often do. What's important is that at the time of the agreement both parties were on an even level and making educated decisions regarding what they thought was best for the future. I think most of the league saw the trade. To assert that "no one cared" just a week after my trade was voted down because people thought it was unfair doesn't make much sense. The reason my second trade went through could have been for a number of reasons. I explained I was of sound mind and body. I explained why I didn't need Moats and wanted a good defender. I got a better defender than Suggs. I think people saw your trade, as I did, and chose not to vote against it because the motivations and the benefits of both sides could be seen. I was thinking how much I wished I had traded for Bowe, considering I thought you were getting a better deal. No one could have predicted this and even if they could have, it still would have been fair assuming both parties had the same information available to them. What if Julius Jones made a speedy recovery and came back this weekend? Would you still consider Mike as getting fair value? I wouldn't Sincerely, Welfare Tyranny Argument against trade Bill - not making any argument about what happens down the line days or weeks after a trade. I obviously wouldn't try to undo the trade if this had happened next week since it's all part of the game. What I'm saying is that if something comes out of nowhere during a pending trade - sudden injury, suspension - which is a period of a day - there should be just cause to cancel a trade that has sudden lopsided value as a result. It has nothing to do with being indecisive and wouldn't lead down the slippery slope as they say to people agreeing to a trade and then changing their mind and whining to the league and the commish to cancel - it has everything to do with an uncontrolled circumstance that fundamentally changes the nature of a trade. It's a rare situation, but I'm surprised you don't agree - if a non-football related freak injury or suspension that no one saw coming happened to a player I was about to trade there's no way I would try to force the trade through to the unwilling owner. Assuming risk with injured or injury-prone players is part of trades - if I traded for Brian Westbrook right now and found out during the pending period that he's out for the year I wouldn't have a very good case to make since I knew about it and agreed to assume that risk beforehand. I think this is a different situation. I'd argue against you that a pending trade is a finalized contract: I looked up pending online as "remaining undecided; awaiting decision or settlement; unfinished: pending business; pending questions; pending litigation. And check this out - "Misrepresentation" on wikipedia, apparently one of the four ways a contract can be voided. "Learned Falsity" Should a statement be made which is true at the time, but subsequently becomes untrue due to a change in circumstances, the representor is obligated to amend the original statement. In With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch. 575, the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase O’Flanagan’s medical practice. During negotiations it was said that the practice produced an income of £2000 per year. Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value. After the contract had been entered into the true nature of the practice was discovered and the plaintiff took action in misrepresentation. In his decision, Lord Wright said "...a representation made as a matter of inducement to enter into a contract is to be treated as a continuing representation."[4]. This means that the representation must be true till the contract is made; creating the obligation mentioned above and accordingly the plaintiff’s petition was successful. Like Mark just said, I entered into a pending trade with the normal expectation that Bowe would play, and before the trade was completed I found out he wouldn't be, so the deal should be off. I'm taking this ###### to Commissioner's Court - ch. 54 - and I challenge you and Mike, in prep for your law school careers, to stop me. Joey

We have an issue in our league. During trades, we have a 1 day period where an agreed upon trade is pending. The league can veto the trade during that time. The traders cannot retract their trade during this time. Recently, Dwayne Bowe was traded for Forsett. Toward the end of the trade's pending period, it was announced that Dwayne Bowe was suspended and the team that traded Forsett wanted to retract the trade. The trade did not get vetoed and went through but the Forsett trader wants a special retraction done by the commissioner because of the circumstances. What do you think? I will post some arguements made on our message board. The arguements are being made lawyer style.

This was the sixth year of a league I do with my old high school friends. The league has been competitive the entire time. However, to the amasement of everybody, one of my friends won the championship the FIRST FIVE YEARS. Unbeleivable. Sometimes he posted a top regular season squad, sometimes he snuck into the playoffs, but each time he walked away victorious. It was very painful. The guy is incredibly smart (graduating from Harvard this spring), but I still cannot figure out how he managed to pull wins out for half a decade. He missed the playoffs by one spot this year and it is a great feeling. What is the longest consecutive championships you've had.

but hey....im only 21 so f*ck it

anytime you need to justify when you get laid/tell everyone how much money you make = i donno...depressed or not confident...its cool though live yo life this is a fantasy football forum

do you

Reiterated by this statement.

Your response leads me to believe believe you're 46 years old, work a middle income managerial position with little room for improvement, and haven't been laid by you wife/and or whoever in 8 months. But its cool. Do your thing.

Are you looking for the typical YES ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! type answer or something more? It comes down to this: instant gratification vs. long term depression? hmmmmmm How long is sex with Jessica Alba gonna last? You don't know, I don't know, I've never had sex with a movie star. Maybe she knows some crazy sh*t in bed no one here has ever heard of. So to answer the question, since were talking ten losses: If sex > ten seconds, then yes. If sex < ten seconds then no.