DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 The original poster states in Post #1 that he doesn't believe it is collusion. End of story. that is all that matters, answered his own question, but his inherant conflict of interest muddles up the process. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killersquids 3 Posted August 27, 2007 Only because I am sick of typing the same shat, here is the direct quote: "I've said before (and will provide links if needed), if the OP thinks it is collusion and has the power to veto, he probably should. If he thinks that it is a dumb trade, he probably shouldn't." Tomlinson for Kennison (at the beginning of the year like this)...no veto. I wouldn't even think about changing our league rules like that. I sure as fock would be pissed, though, and boot the focker from the league next year. The original poster states in Post #1 that he doesn't believe it is collusion. End of story. thread over. agree to disagree. If you will let LT for kennsion go, then we are done here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Celticspride 0 Posted August 27, 2007 so we should just sit back and watch owners get ripped off and not know any better?? thats like sitting back and watching the slow kid get bullied during recess... You should let the inexperienced owner get ripped off. I wouldn't play in a league that requires some of the owners' hands to be held so that they don't mess up their team. If the person was stupid enough to pull off a trade that killed his season maybe he shouldn't have been invited to join the league? In my league if a guy made a trade that seriously hurt his team (but was not collusion), than the other 9 owners would allow it, and just give him loads of sh*t afterwards. We're still making fun of an owner who traded away Edgerrin James his rookie year in a stupid trade. It's called comraderie and the bragging rights is what makes fantasy football more fun than just betting straight up on football. (Obviously the money is a nice reward too). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 You should let the inexperienced owner get ripped off. I wouldn't play in a league that requires some of the owners' hands to be held so that they don't mess up their team. If the person was stupid enough to pull off a trade that killed his season maybe he shouldn't have been invited to join the league? In my league if a guy made a trade that seriously hurt his team (but was not collusion), than the other 9 owners would allow it, and just give him loads of sh*t afterwards. We're still making fun of an owner who traded away Edgerrin James his rookie year in a stupid trade. It's called comraderie and the bragging rights is what makes fantasy football more fun than just betting straight up on football. (Obviously the money is a nice reward too). You have far too much sanity to be in this thread... Go Sox/Pats/Celts!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 Tomlinson for Kennison (at the beginning of the year like this)...no veto. I wouldn't even think about changing our league rules like that. Wow - I find this very hard to believe. All due respect, because while stubborn, you haven't been attacking people left & right like DankNuggs here. Still - I cannot believe someone would allow a Tomlinson for Kennison deal to go through. I know you're not going to give in, but I will go on record as being very skeptical that you honeslty believe that: 1. this deal could possibly be on the level 2. that you would believe anyone's explanation for wanting Kennison over Tomlinson 3. that you would sit idly by and watch an owner get a 1.01 pick for a 15.xx pick without stirring up enough sh!t to sink the titanic 4. that you would take no action other than to kick out the owner of Tomlinson the next year, while allowing the guy getting LT to cakewalk to a championship in what could be nothing less than collusion. I appreciate you sticking to your guns, but doing so to this extreme is somewhat unbelievable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 thread over. agree to disagree. If you will let LT for kennsion go, then we are done here. Yep. There's no debating if that's truly his stance - I am skeptical that if the rubber hit the road in his league that this would happen, but I can only discuss what's on the table. I will comment however that in this league, by sitting by and letting that deal go down that it would be extremely unlikely that the only impact/ramification would be having to replace the guy who stupidly dealt Tomlinson that year. No, I suspect that between 1/2 and 2/3 of the league would feel like they got hornswaggled in what could only be a complete rip off collusion deal struck between the two teams. And they would be doubly pissed off that the commissioner, who they entrusted with both their money and to uphold their league's integrity, did NOTHING to intervene in a completely lopsided and shady deal that put the entire league out of balance and essentially rendered the draft a joke. In fact I'd bet that a number of managers would quit the league and demand a refund. I know I sure would if that transpired in any league I was part of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 Wow - I find this very hard to believe. All due respect, because while stubborn, you haven't been attacking people left & right like DankNuggs here. Still - I cannot believe someone would allow a Tomlinson for Kennison deal to go through. I know you're not going to give in, but I will go on record as being very skeptical that you honeslty believe that: 1. this deal could possibly be on the level 2. that you would believe anyone's explanation for wanting Kennison over Tomlinson 3. that you would sit idly by and watch an owner get a 1.01 pick for a 15.xx pick without stirring up enough sh!t to sink the titanic 4. that you would take no action other than to kick out the owner of Tomlinson the next year, while allowing the guy getting LT to cakewalk to a championship in what could be nothing less than collusion. I appreciate you sticking to your guns, but doing so to this extreme is somewhat unbelievable. I'm not attacking you, I'm simply smarter than you. And referring to the veto rule on Kennison 4 Tomlinson. Unless the owner of Tomlinson could convince the league he was doing the trade to help his team, I would veto it citing collusion. it is the EXACT same way I told you to handle THIS situation Let the owner explain his rationale for the move. If he doesn't have one, it is obvious collusion. <<<< This needs to be done prior to the drama-coaster vote. Because frankly, it means more as to WHY the guy did it, than the other 10 nitwit owners in the league who want to cry over everything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 Yep. There's no debating if that's truly his stance - I am skeptical that if the rubber hit the road in his league that this would happen, but I can only discuss what's on the table. I will comment however that in this league, by sitting by and letting that deal go down that it would be extremely unlikely that the only impact/ramification would be having to replace the guy who stupidly dealt Tomlinson that year. No, I suspect that between 1/2 and 2/3 of the league would feel like they got hornswaggled in what could only be a complete rip off collusion deal struck between the two teams. And they would be doubly pissed off that the commissioner, who they entrusted with both their money and to uphold their league's integrity, did NOTHING to intervene in a completely lopsided and shady deal that put the entire league out of balance and essentially rendered the draft a joke. In fact I'd bet that a number of managers would quit the league and demand a refund. I know I sure would if that transpired in any league I was part of. People would leave if there was unchecked collusion. Not from trades that ended up helping/hurting a team. Your job is sniff out collusion. There is a much better way to do so that the method your league uses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 I'm not attacking you, I'm simply smarter than you. Which, by the very fact of being a personal attack, both nullifies and disproves this statement. Logic is clearly not your friend. And referring to the veto rule on Kennison 4 Tomlinson. Unless the owner of Tomlinson could convince the league he was doing the trade to help his team, I would veto it citing collusion. Wait - on the one hand you argue that "collusion must be proven to veto a deal" and now you're saying the reverse is so - that the owner has to explain why the trade was made to prove it isn't collusion? So first you say it isn't collusion unless proven, and now you say you assume collusion unless proven otherwise. Brilliant! Wait or not. Or maybe it is. Wait - I need more time to digest this pearl. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 People would leave if there was unchecked collusion. Not from trades that ended up helping/hurting a team. Your job is sniff out collusion. There is a much better way to do so that the method your league uses. And yet again I will point out that "my league" has never once had to use this method. It just happens to be in the league constitution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 "And they would be doubly pissed off that the commissioner, who they entrusted with both their money and to uphold their league's integrity, did NOTHING to intervene in a completely lopsided deal that put the entire league out of balance and essentially rendered the draft a joke. " You are tightwalking two different concepts here that are NOT one and the same ______________________________________________________________________ Collusion: prevents teams from player dumping to gain an advantage Balance of Power: Some vague notion of relative strength that is unquantifiable. _____________________________________________________________________ Collusion yes, but this league 'integrity', 'balance of power' is overstepping the bounds of the commish's duties. You seem more engrained into protecting this 'concept' than actually performing your role as commish and stopping collusion. That is my problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Octopus 0 Posted August 27, 2007 While easy to justify the side getting those guys for Caddy and a completely worthless Kennison, it's impossible to justify the guy giving up two players with lower ADP, ranking and projections. This deal is certainly lopsided, but you analysis is an attempt to make it appear even more so. Kennison is hardly worthless, as he's been at least solid for the last couple of years. This trade looks bad on paper, but is not even close to being veteoable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 Which, by the very fact of being a personal attack, both nullifies and disproves this statement. Logic is clearly not your friend. Wait - on the one hand you argue that "collusion must be proven to veto a deal" and now you're saying the reverse is so - that the owner has to explain why the trade was made to prove it isn't collusion? So first you say it isn't collusion unless proven, and now you say you assume collusion unless proven otherwise. Brilliant! Wait or not. Or maybe it is. Wait - I need more time to digest this pearl. The single, most important piece of information you need to consider in a collusion situation is the intent of the owner in question. Period. I've said it 10 times in this thread. Everything else is anecdotal (which you seem to think is more important than the facts....i.e. the thought process between the two owners making the deal) ADP/Other Owners/Commish's thoughts >>>> Anecdotal. I didn't say anywhere that the deal shouldn't be vetoed, i think it is ludicrous to do so based SOLELY on the votes of league owners NOT PARTY to the transaction. Frankly, its absurd. ULTIMATELY - It is YOUR job as commish to get the real story from the owners in question, and determine whether it holds water. That is a good commish.... You bring that decision to the league, and if you want to go spineless, let them vote. But what incentive do owners have to vote yes? Certainly less incentive than they have to say NO.... remember that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vardaski 0 Posted August 27, 2007 I don't think these questions have been answered yet. Is this a pay league? How well do these owners know each other? How many years has either one been in the league or played ff? Personally I like caddy over jacobs myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 "And they would be doubly pissed off that the commissioner, who they entrusted with both their money and to uphold their league's integrity, did NOTHING to intervene in a completely lopsided deal that put the entire league out of balance and essentially rendered the draft a joke. "You are tightwalking two different concepts here that are NOT one and the same ______________________________________________________________________ Collusion: prevents teams from player dumping to gain an advantage Balance of Power: Some vague notion of relative strength that is unquantifiable. _____________________________________________________________________ Collusion yes, but this league 'integrity', 'balance of power' is overstepping the bounds of the commish's duties. You seem more engrained into protecting this 'concept' than actually performing your role as commish and stopping collusion. No, the "league integrity" thing is exactly that. We have 12 grown men who entrust me to run a league where each owner between entry fees and add/trade fees contributes on average $200 a year. That's $2400 that i am responsible for ad it is part of my responsibility to ensure that one team through nefarious means or by taking advantage of the mentally handicapped doesn't end up on the positive side of an inexplicable transaction, that cannot be defended. Fortunately in MY leaguye that's never happened or even been close to happening. But in this case it most certainly is applicable, where a 3rd and 4th rounder are being dealt for a 6th and 15th rounder. The excuse of "well I think X will be better than Y" can't even be used here because themanager giving up the 2 top 4 round picks had ample opportunity to pick those players in the 5th and 14th rounds or any time prior to that. This is something I've now pointed out 4 times, should be blatently obvious, defies ANY plausible explanation, and which you've not once addressed. I expect yet another attack in avoidance again since that's been your MO. See, the problem here is that you are defending the indefensable. There is no good reason for this. It's not about protecting leaguemates from themselves and preserving the slippery slope definition of "banalce of power' - hey, if team Tomlinson can put together a reasonable deal for Frank Gore/Reggie Wayne/Torry Holt by giving up a 7 player package and DOMINATE the entire league, well good for them I say. But that's not what this is. This is a 3rd/4th for a 6th/15th and there is no logical reason why the Jacobs/AJ owner failed to pick Caddy & Kennison if he wanted them. None. Not one person has yet made a plausible case for why this deal would be accepted - probably because there is no plausable excuse for it. It's nonsensical. So go on with your personal attacks, insult me, my league, my idea of what makes a good commissioner, my leaguemates, my commissioning ability, etc, etc, ect, ect. The facts are what they are, and the math just don't add up. Regarless of my opinion on value, or any sites ADP, or any site's rankings, the simple fact remains that a 3rd/4th pick do not equal a 6th/15th round picks. That is my problem. apparently among many. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rdrs4life 0 Posted August 27, 2007 And so it begins. The first of 241,468,364.22456 threads about vetoing trades to be made throughout the 2007 season. Sweet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Octopus 0 Posted August 27, 2007 colston and kennison are 2 different situations though..colston was a rookie on a team with a high powered offense...kennison is a vet that has been on the same team for a bit and they just about pass to nobody but gonzalez and lj out of the backfield. i don't see (or how anyone else could) kennison getting any better. he puts up average numbers (wow it hurt to call his stats that) at best Wow some people speak w/o really knowing what they are talking about. 2002 kan | 16 | 53 906 17.1 2 2003 kan | 16 | 56 853 15.2 5 2004 kan | 14 | 62 1086 17.5 8 2005 kan | 16 | 68 1102 16.2 5 2006 kan | 16 | 56 860 16.2 5 Once again I wouldn't make this trade, but lets not exaggerate in order to make your point. Kennison is certainly roster worthy. Nearly 1,000 in each of the last five seasons and decent TD numbers for a #3 WR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killersquids 3 Posted August 27, 2007 Anybody can come up with a reason for a trade. It is tough, almost impossible to prove collusion. Trades must pass some sort of smell test. In thie case, I'm barely in favor of vetoing with the present facts known. It just makes zero sense. The competitive balance of a league is a real thing that must be protected in extreme cases. Fantasy is not like real football where you have general managers who are paid exorbitant amounts of money to make trades and sign players. In fantasy world, you have owners who don't know what the hell they are doing and they can disrupt the entire season with one monumentally bad trade. To just throw that season away and kick him out of the league when the season ends is not good enough imo. In my league of 8 years, one trade has been vetoed and it was because a new owner had no idea what was going on. You must step in as commish and keep the competitive balance of the league intact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 I didn't say anywhere that the deal shouldn't be vetoed, i think it is ludicrous to do so based SOLELY on the votes of league owners NOT PARTY to the transaction. Frankly, its absurd. It's really weird - you keep projecting something no one's said (e.g. "it is ludicrous to do so based SOLELY on the votes of league owners NOT PARTY to the transaction.") and then shooting it down as though you are making a good point or argument against those in disagreement with it. What an interesting tactic. ULTIMATELY - It is YOUR job as commish to get the real story from the owners in question, and determine whether it holds water. That is a good commish.... You bring that decision to the league, and if you want to go spineless, let them vote. But what incentive do owners have to vote yes? Certainly less incentive than they have to say NO.... remember that. You're entitled to that opinion, but where you seem to be missing the point (again and again and again and again) is that I would 1st be put into the position of judging the deal by way of the league votes. And based on that, I would investigate the deal. In a closer deal I might well apply your reasoning, like a "good commish" - but in this case it's a 3rd/4th dealth for a 6th/15th, and sine that makes no sense, I would probably just veto it, then find out the motivation to see if any further action was needed. In a close deal that had been voted down, I wouldn't care what the motivation was - if it's close I pass it and attribute it to the "sour grapes" type of votes against that you indicate is the only reason people are voting against. The flaw in your reasoning is that you presume to know everyone's motivation except the parties in the league involved in the deal. You seem to believe they are all voting against to prevent one team from getting better. From my decade+ of playing fantasy sports with friends, i know that to not be the case. In public leagues I see it all the time (CBS FFB or FBB) - but we've been discussing private leagues this whole time - and no one in any of my private leagues are that petty and selfish. Maybe your stance on this topic is simply an indicator of the caliber of people in your leagues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 Personally I like caddy over jacobs myself. Once again - that's 100% irrelevant for a few reasons. Mainly, that the Jacobs owner could have had Caddy in any of the next 3 rounds since one went in the 3rd and the other in the 6th. But also because no one likes Caddy over Jacobs to the point that they feel it's worth the obvious downgrade from AJ to Kennison. And even if they did, back to my main point: the AJ owner could have had Kennison anywhere in the next 14 rounds. And both cases, it's not an "either or" - they could have easily had both, and if they valued either Kennison or Caddy like this they should have done so and had ample opportunity. So it's not a question of who you value more - it's a question of why the guy who valued Jacobs/AJ more on draft day suddenly thinks they're worth two players that he passed up for 15 rounds. To me that's inexplicable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 In my league of 8 years, one trade has been vetoed and it was because a new owner had no idea what was going on. You must step in as commish and keep the competitive balance of the league intact. Well, you don;t have to, but if you want to have that league around for more than 1 season, or keep those friends it's sure a good idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killersquids 3 Posted August 27, 2007 I agree with Nuggs that league votes for vetos are gay. The commish should be put in sole responsibility for this. Not that I'm veering off topic or anything.... Back on topic: With the current set of facts, the trade does not make any sense. I'm assuming that the draft was not long ago (the vast majority of drafts are done during august). It just doesn't make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Octopus 0 Posted August 27, 2007 theres only one reason. its called profit. 2 friends in the same league decided to combine teams and share winnings...who knows, it could even be the same guy working both teams. This trade isn't nearly devasting enough to win the league. Come on now. Jacobs and Andre Johnson are solid, but are they world beaters. Caddy could easily surpass Jacobs. Maybe the Jacobs owner heard Alstott was haging it up and wanted Caddy badly and the other guy knew it and made him pay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vardaski 0 Posted August 27, 2007 Once again - that's 100% irrelevant for a few reasons. It is not irrelevant for the fact that I don't see this trade as lopsided enough to veto it. I don't care that he could have had him much later. I don't care that the owner could have taken Kennison way later. I've looked back on countless drafts shortly after they've occurred and sometimes can't believe I took someone when others were left on the board. Maybe the owner looked back at numbers and decided Jacobs is going to be a flop and Caddy is going to return to his rookie year and didn't see spectacular things out of Johnson and was willing to take a hit on that part of the trade. I want to know if this is the case of a veteran fleecing a rookie? Someone from the actual league? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 This trade isn't nearly devasting enough to win the league. Come on now. Jacobs and Andre Johnson are solid, but are they world beaters. Caddy could easily surpass Jacobs. Maybe the Jacobs owner heard Alstott was haging it up and wanted Caddy badly and the other guy knew it and made him pay. So badly that he dealt a top 10 WR for a bottom 40 WR? I know it's a hypothetical, but I don't buy that. And again: why not draft 'em all if you're the Jacobs/AJ guy? And I disagree with not being enough to win the laague. Getting an extra WR1 and RB2 is more than enough to go from a playoff team to a league champion. Absolutely enough to put a given team over the top. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcwar85 0 Posted August 27, 2007 This trade isn't nearly devasting enough to win the league. Come on now. Jacobs and Andre Johnson are solid, but are they world beaters. Caddy could easily surpass Jacobs. Maybe the Jacobs owner heard Alstott was haging it up and wanted Caddy badly and the other guy knew it and made him pay. they may not be world beaters but thats 2 more starters to add to that guys squad...caddy wasn't even a starter for him and neither was kennison...2 bench players for 2 starters = biggest rip off EVER Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 Maybe the owner looked back at numbers and decided Jacobs is going to be a flop and Caddy is going to return to his rookie year and didn't see spectacular things out of Johnson and was willing to take a hit on that part of the trade. What could they have looked at that could possibly change that valuation? Nothing in preseason has indicated that - Caddy's been TERRIBLE, Kennison's been invisible and AJ & Jacobs have both looked solid. No one's rankings, (yahoo, CBS, TSN, XPerts, FBG or FFT) have changed on these 4 players to put either Jacobs/AJ under Caddy/Kennison - I mean, sure - your point is valid, but wouldn't there have to be something to point at as why that might be between the time they drafted and now? I want to know if this is the case of a veteran fleecing a rookie? Someone from the actual league? Agreed - that would be interesting to know. Also would be helpful to know when that draft was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 It's really weird - you keep projecting something no one's said (e.g. "it is ludicrous to do so based SOLELY on the votes of league owners NOT PARTY to the transaction.") and then shooting it down as though you are making a good point or argument against those in disagreement with it. What an interesting tactic. You're entitled to that opinion, but where you seem to be missing the point (again and again and again and again) is that I would 1st be put into the position of judging the deal by way of the league votes. And based on that, I would investigate the deal. In a closer deal I might well apply your reasoning, like a "good commish" - but in this case it's a 3rd/4th dealth for a 6th/15th, and sine that makes no sense, I would probably just veto it, then find out the motivation to see if any further action was needed. In a close deal that had been voted down, I wouldn't care what the motivation was - if it's close I pass it and attribute it to the "sour grapes" type of votes against that you indicate is the only reason people are voting against. The flaw in your reasoning is that you presume to know everyone's motivation except the parties in the league involved in the deal. You seem to believe they are all voting against to prevent one team from getting better. From my decade+ of playing fantasy sports with friends, i know that to not be the case. In public leagues I see it all the time (CBS FFB or FBB) - but we've been discussing private leagues this whole time - and no one in any of my private leagues are that petty and selfish. Maybe your stance on this topic is simply an indicator of the caliber of people in your leagues. Well, you've proven extremely well that your league hasn't had to deal with a situation like this in 10+ years because it looks like a case of the blind leading the blind. You haven't posted, mentioned, or even acknowledged that the owner in question has a reasonable rationale.... Either because 1.) he doesn't have one, so it is collusion, and you've been wasting our time 2.) He has a reasonable one, and you don't know how to deal with it. 3.) You haven't asked - and you defer in situations like these to everybody EXCEPT those involved 4.) You don't care - in which case you aren't doing your job as commish. Which Option is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Octopus 0 Posted August 27, 2007 So badly that he dealt a top 10 WR for a bottom 40 WR? I know it's a hypothetical, but I don't buy that. And again: why not draft 'em all if you're the Jacobs/AJ guy? And I disagree with not being enough to win the laague. Getting an extra WR1 and RB2 is more than enough to go from a playoff team to a league champion. Absolutely enough to put a given team over the top. Well, your the one saying Kennison is a bottom 40 WR, look at the stats I posted above. Obviously I'd rather have AJ than Kennison, but maybe that was the price. Its a stupid trade, no vetoable, imo. Perhaps the guy trading away Caddy is an excellant salesman and convinced the Jacobs owner that Caddy will be huge now that Alstott is no longer in the picture. Should he suffer because he's good at trading. Its part of the game. Its a skill. You're taking that skill away by passing your judgment on this trade. Maybe th Jacobs owner saw Ahmad Bradshaw kicking ass Saturday night and was afraid that Jacobs could lose his job. Should you decide that he's not entitled to get out now while he has the chance if this is his assesment? Once again I don't know what happend and I wouldn't make this trade, but its not necessarily collusion. It should not be vetoed because you (or any league memeber) think its a bad deal. It is what it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted August 27, 2007 What could they have looked at that could possibly change that valuation? Nothing in preseason has indicated that - Caddy's been TERRIBLE, Kennison's been invisible and AJ & Jacobs have both looked solid. This is pure anecdotal BS... The guy COULD think something like this: Kennison is a perennial 1000yrd receiver, and perennially undervalued. Caddy has a rebuilt Oline, a healthy QB, and no more Alstott. Jacobs is Ron Dayne Jr, and AJ is WAY overhyped due to the makeup of that awful texans offense that will get more spread out with AHman Green. Bottom Line: Once the draft if over...ADP means NOTHING.... its just guys on a team that can be exchanged for one another...and thats all. If i was stupid enough to draft Clinton Portis at his ADP of 3.xx and i'd be pawning him off for an 6-7 rounder that might actually put up stats. once im dumb enough to draft him, adp is gone. all you have is the guys on your team to get other guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeffkomlo 19 Posted August 27, 2007 Agreed - that would be interesting to know. Also would be helpful to know when that draft was. Draft was 7/30 $20 work league My first year but some of these guys have played in league last year, my first year. Both trade owners new. - emailed owners Waiting for explanation looks like my threads been hijacked Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 once im dumb enough to draft him, adp is gone. all you have is the guys on your team to get other guys. ADP might be gone, but the inherant value of a draft pick is not. And when all the dust has settled and all your nitpicking and insults and bush league bullsh!t has past, the bottom line is that 1 month ago, 1 owner spent a 3rd and 4th rounder on two players. Neither of those players is hurt, has been arrested, is in jeopardy of losing their job, or has had any bad PR on them. Now those two players are being dealt for a 6th and 15th round pick. Neither of those players has had any news to elevate their value[/] (not "ADP" as you keep hanging onto) any higher than where they were drafted except maybe Caddy who's about a round higher with the news of Alstott retirning (yet one could argue his patheticly poor preseason negates that significantly, but I don't want to get into anything anecdotal ) So your point is moot. These players have value. A million websites agree on their value - ones like FFT. No, nothing is guaranteed and yes any player can out perform any other player in a given year and a million other possibilities in between, but none of that is relevant in the slightest. What is relevant is that a manager drafted players in the 3rd and 4th and is now dealing them for players drafted in the 6th and 15th - so in and of itself the value of that deal is woefully lopsided. So much so that it begs the investigation of collusion. You still haven't cleared up why in one situation you assume collusion and give opportunity for the owner to explain where in the other you assume it's on the level but ask the owner to explain - that's got me really confused. But regardless, it's bad enough that it demands explanation - and any league member who wishes to use his/her vote to bring attention to that sketchy of a deal is entirely within their right. And a commish who reviews it and believes it to be vetoable is entirely within their right. You are entitled to your opinions, but you aren't entitled to call others names, disparage their leagues/commissioning ability or attack them in any other way for expressing theirs. They are all just opinions. Good luck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killersquids 3 Posted August 27, 2007 Draft was 7/30 $20 work league My first year but some of these guys have played in league last year, my first year. Both trade owners new. - emailed owners Waiting for explanation looks like my threads been hijacked aahhhh man. all this crap over a sh!tty $20 work league. chances are it's just an idiot owner who has never done this before and doesn't give a fock. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest _my_2_cents_ Posted August 27, 2007 aahhhh man. all this crap over a sh!tty $20 work league. chances are it's just an idiot owner who has never done this before and doesn't give a fock. meh - I don't see what the cost of the league has to do with anything. I mean, sure - this is a lot of energy to spend on a low limit league. but the deal is the deal and the philisophical debate that's ensued is pretty interesting. I cannot fathom how someone would allow a Kennison for Tomlinson deal to pass, thus punishing the whole league for a single owner's stupidity. Some believe that's the commish overstepping his authority. It's pretty fascinating how far apart both sides of the spectrum are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hitman29 0 Posted August 27, 2007 Ahhh, man. Five+ pages and the OP hasn't heard from the idiot owner. Someone shoot me a PM when he posts the reasoning behind the trade. That's really all I'm interested in reading in this thread anymore. Off topic- We are doing away with league voting on trades in my league this year simply because the owners in my league abuse it to no end. They vote against EVERY trade. We are using a committee of 3 owners who are voted on by the league(there are a few owners in the league who aren't veto happy). All trades are reviewed by the committee. If 2 vote against the trade, it gets vetoed. I'm making it crystal clear to the committee that they have to post their reasons for voting against a trade, and if they have no concrete evidence of collusion, the trade will be allowed. If a trade happens like this in my league, I will boot the 2 owners involved and find people who know how to play. End of story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Octopus 0 Posted August 27, 2007 ADP might be gone, but the inherant value of a draft pick is not. And when all the dust has settled and all your nitpicking and insults and bush league bullsh!t has past, the bottom line is that 1 month ago, 1 owner spent a 3rd and 4th rounder on two players. Neither of those players is hurt, has been arrested, is in jeopardy of losing their job, or has had any bad PR on them. Now those two players are being dealt for a 6th and 15th round pick. Neither of those players has had any news to elevate their value[/] (not "ADP" as you keep hanging onto) any higher than where they were drafted except maybe Caddy who's about a round higher with the news of Alstott retirning (yet one could argue his patheticly poor preseason negates that significantly, but I don't want to get into anything anecdotal ) So your point is moot. These players have value. A million websites agree on their value - ones like FFT. No, nothing is guaranteed and yes any player can out perform any other player in a given year and a million other possibilities in between, but none of that is relevant in the slightest. What is relevant is that a manager drafted players in the 3rd and 4th and is now dealing them for players drafted in the 6th and 15th - so in and of itself the value of that deal is woefully lopsided. So much so that it begs the investigation of collusion. You still haven't cleared up why in one situation you assume collusion and give opportunity for the owner to explain where in the other you assume it's on the level but ask the owner to explain - that's got me really confused. But regardless, it's bad enough that it demands explanation - and any league member who wishes to use his/her vote to bring attention to that sketchy of a deal is entirely within their right. And a commish who reviews it and believes it to be vetoable is entirely within their right. You are entitled to your opinions, but you aren't entitled to call others names, disparage their leagues/commissioning ability or attack them in any other way for expressing theirs. They are all just opinions. Good luck. What about this point? Perhaps the guy trading away Caddy is an excellant salesman and convinced the Jacobs owner that Caddy will be huge now that Alstott is no longer in the picture. Should he suffer because he's good at trading. Its part of the game. Its a skill. You're taking that skill away by passing your judgment on this trade and disallowing it. Isn't negotiating a good trade for oneself part of fantasy football? I have a guy in my baseball league that tries to polish every turd on his team. If Braden Looper pitches a gem he's the next Clemens. I don't fall for his BS, but some may/do. I give him credit he's good at the sell, more power to him when he pulls off a deal in his favor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicewolf64 0 Posted August 27, 2007 I've done a few mock snake drafts and I don't ever remember Caddy being taken after Jacobs. Personally, I'd rather have Caddy this year, and odds are that the Jacobs owner would try to fleece me if I offered a trade. But looking at the rosters, this trade makes absolutely no sense. Get an explanation and if its not rock solid, ask them to rework it. But if I made this deal and the commish vetoed it, and in the end if it would have made my team better, I'd be demanding my money back. No one can see the future and altho lopsided, there are arguments for every player involved in this trade to be better than expected, and to also greatly disappoint. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogie 0 Posted August 28, 2007 Dumb. 1.) It IS a ######-block on a team. 2.) You are pre-determining which players are better/worse for the owners. Not cool. 3.) Collusion IS the only time you veto a trade. Ever. Who's to say this guy doesn't have Caddy ranked above Jacobs? It's possible. Clear starter vs. a guy with a lot of questions. He's taking a hit at WR to improve (in his mind) his RBs. Fock, I am the commissioner in two leagues right now and wouldn't veto anything like this ever - definately not at this time of the year. If it was Week 10 and the "quality" of the players was pretty well determined and one team MAY be helping another to prepare for the playoffs...different story. Why would you need to wait until week 10 to determine that this is a bad trade? Based on Last years stats, this years ADP and common sense you can determine this trade sux for the entire league except the "genius" getting Johnson for Kennison (RB's are a wash). Unless there is more to the trade such as bye weeks, keeper potential I would waste no time putting a stop to this nonsense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogie 0 Posted August 28, 2007 Ahhh, man. Five+ pages and the OP hasn't heard from the idiot owner. Someone shoot me a PM when he posts the reasoning behind the trade. That's really all I'm interested in reading in this thread anymore. Off topic- We are doing away with league voting on trades in my league this year simply because the owners in my league abuse it to no end. They vote against EVERY trade. We are using a committee of 3 owners who are voted on by the league(there are a few owners in the league who aren't veto happy). All trades are reviewed by the committee. If 2 vote against the trade, it gets vetoed. I'm making it crystal clear to the committee that they have to post their reasons for voting against a trade, and if they have no concrete evidence of collusion, the trade will be allowed. If a trade happens like this in my league, I will boot the 2 owners involved and find people who know how to play. End of story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RenoZ Posted August 28, 2007 Why would you need to wait until week 10 to determine that this is a bad trade? Based on Last years stats, this years ADP and common sense you can determine this trade sux for the entire league except the "genius" getting Johnson for Kennison (RB's are a wash). Unless there is more to the trade such as bye weeks, keeper potential I would waste no time putting a stop to this nonsense. Move along - nothing to see here. You're a dime short and a day late. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites