commissioner needs help on trade.

[slash 0]

In 8 years of being commissioner, i have never over turned the trade. but this one beyond baffles me. i just had a trade go through for mcnabb for cassell. under no circumstances do i see this is remotely a close trade. note that the guy that has mcnabb has only 1 win and the team with cassell is in the hunt for playoffs. I have asked both owners to explain themselves. what do you guys think...

 

put it up for vote or no?

 

edited: the team that had mcnabb has only 1 win.

[Cstriker 2]

You did the right thing to ask them to explain. But if you cant prove collusion beyond reasonable doubt, you cant veto is my opinion.

[Kingstowne Dealers 14]

Trade goes through. McNabb is half-man half-styrofoam. He'll be rehabbing one body part or another before the turkeys carved.

[sirwinzalot 1]

As a fellow commish, I don't veto much, but I wouldn't let that one go through, to big of a difference in value and if you have only 2 wins and you're trading away McNabb for a possible free agent pickup QB, sounds like somebodies trying to help somebody else out to me. NO WAY!

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Please explain what makes this vetoable.

[mrgymrat 0]

I think since it could impact the league playoffs that it bears looking in to. I know the commish of my league, who is extremely fair, would make the deal be more balanced. Too big of difference between the 2 QBs and questionable circumstances from a 2-6 team out of the running.

 

I am not a big veto trades person either but these guys have some explaining to do to get this trade passed.

 

Nice call on your part.

[slash 0]

made correction, the team that gave up mcnabb has only 1 win.

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

In no way is this vetoable. I would not even question it. In the last 4 games their fantasy numbers are almost identical. McNabb has a history of injuries, never makes it thru a season anymore, plus Westbrook gets rushing TD's. Cassell has a good schedule, healthy body, and weapons in the passing game without a go-to RB.

[madd futher mucker 36]

You asked both owners to explain themselves and what possible rationale did the 1-7 owner have to justify making the trade.

I'd sure in hell want to get to the bottom of his thought process, because the trade is VERY unbalanced especially since the trade is player for player at the same position.

 

I strongly lean to vetoing this trade and I'm the "anti-veto nazi". Here are the real stats.

 

On the year, McNabb has averabed 261 yards passing, 6.5 yards rushing, .4 ints, 1.2 TDs and 19.5 fantasy points per game. He is the 9th ranked QB in a fairly standard QB scoring system, and one can argue he has seldom had all his tools (Reg Brown - chronic hammy, Curtis out all season until last week, as well as LJ Smith, and Westbrook missed games).

 

By comparison, Cassel is the 23rd ranked QB based on season averages of 194.5 yds passing, 11.5 yds rushing, .9 ints, 1.0 Tds and 14.9 fantasy points per game. That is approximately 33% more production per game for McNabb.

 

For the last 3 week time-frame, McNabb has averaged 21.8 fantasy points per game and ranks 10th among all Qbs in that time-frame.

Cassel, while improved, averaged 18.5 fantasy points per game and was ranked 16th among all QBs.

 

So the team that has one win trades a QB who is clearly a QB1 (in the top 10 QB) to a CONTENDER for a QB2 (in the top 25), and ANYONE can call this a reasonable trade?

 

Given the circumstances, unless there is a VERY CONVINCING explanation for making the trade by the 1-7 team (it is obvious why the contending team made the trade), I'm gonna veto it all day long. Is there collusion? Who knows and how can you prove it anyway?

 

But does it help BOTH teams? No, not based on any objective analysis of this year's stats. Will it help the 1-7 team make the play-offs? I can't think of how it could.

 

So this is one of those rare occasions where the "anti-veto nazi" puts the veto hammer down; It is also why our league has an October 31st veto deadline - so teams clearly out of contention cannot help their buddy make the play-offs (And yes, I realize that it isn't October 31st just yet, and the 1-8 team COULD run the table and sneak into the play-offs, but seriously, if he has to rely on Cassel as his QB, how fricken likely is that?

 

And unless your league rules call for voted vetoes (which I personally don't like, but if your rules state that vetos are required, you have no choice) I would NEVER usurp my authority as commissioner to do what I believe is in the best interest of the league. I'd veto it myself without putting it to vote.

 

By the way, to answer the post immediately above, Westbrook has always been at or near the top in recepts by RBs, and in receiving TDs by RBs. Also any knowledgeable fantasy owner or coach will tell you that a good running game actually HELPS a team's overall passing game by keeping the ball in the offenses 's hands longer (thus more passing opportunities) and it prevents defenses from overplaying the pass.

[DEEZNUTS 18]

never veto. if you think they're cheaters, kick them out of the league. if you don't think they're cheaters, let the trade go through.

[madd futher mucker 36]

never veto. if you think they're cheaters, kick them out of the league. if you don't think they're cheaters, let the trade go through.

 

While I would almost never veto (in fact I have never actually vetoed a trade based on about 100 of them over the years), I couldn't disagree more with your statement.

 

You should never kick someone out of a league merely based on your personal 'suspicion'; but you SHOULD veto a trade that is so one sided as to have virtually NO benefit to an owner who is all but mathematically out of contention, but will dramatically help a contender. Even if you 'suspect' that the 1-7 owner is intentionally helping his buddy, would you kick the contending owner out of the league merely for accepting a trade that would obviously help his team if it was offered to him without his intent to collude? In other words, is it his responsibility to turn down a trade just because his 'friend' offered him a good deal, if he was not KNOWINGLY party to his friend's 'gererosity' and without any overt agreement to collude. I don't think so.

 

That is why I, like many, do not believe that the only possible justification for a veto is collusion.

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

I think some of you guys cry foul based on name recognition, not reality. McNabb- Cassel sounds bad. What if someone traded Peyton Manning for Orton? Their numbers are almost the same this year. Would you veto? How about Peyton for Rodgers? Rodgers has outperformed Manning moreso than McNabb has over Cassel. Would you veto? Of course not.

[madd futher mucker 36]

Perhaps you didn't read my detailed stat analysis to back up my position. My position had absolutely nothing to do with 'name recognition' and everything to do with THIS YEARS stats. Statistically McNabb is a low end QB1 this year, and Cassel is a low end QB2. Those are statistical facts, not name recognition.

 

Ignoring whether their names were Manning, Rodgers, Orton, or Cassel, I would do my homework as commish and look at what the data actually shows - that is, look at what actually occurred and then reach my conclusion accordingly. It is IRREFUTABLE that McNabb has out-performed Cassel by roughly 33% fantasy-wise for this year - that is reality - and to my mind that absolutely justifies a veto in this case.

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

If you don't do any analysis to back up assertions, you can justify any position. My position had absolutely nothing to do with 'name recognition' and everything to do with THIS YEARS stats. Statistically McNabb is a low end QB1 this year, and Cassel is a low end QB2. Those are statistical facts, not name recognition.

 

Ignoring whether their names were Manning, Rodgers, Orton, or Cassel, I would do my homework as commish and look at what the data actually shows - that is, what actually occurred and reach my conclusion accordingly. It is IRREFUTABLE that McNabb has out-performed Cassel by roughly 33% fantasy-wise this year - and to my mind that absolutely justifies a veto in this case.

Maybe you should try an in-depth analysis instead of a one-dimensional analysis. Using only this entire year averages so far, you are right. But there is so much more to analyze. Try factoring in trends--Cassel started slow but is improving, over the last 4 games Cassel = McNabb. Another trend- McNabb gets hurt every year. Also when you trade you are banking on future potential, not past stats alone. Another factor is strength of schedule the rest of the year. Also, we often try to trade on a buy low, sell high theory. Another factor, among others, is the rest of your roster. As commish, or any ff player, you should do all your homework

[yanivsme 0]

The one and only reason people veto trades is because they are jealous that they didnt get a "great deal". You say you have been the commish for 8 years, are these the same guys you have been playing with? What if injury prone mcnabb goes down in a week, then the trade looks great to the future cassel owner, no? Vetoing trades is wack, a bunch of jealous guys who are afraid to play a team that gets better who get to make decisions for a guy who put his wager in just like they did.

 

Voting on trades isnt fair. People vote for the wrong reason.

[Bgards79 0]

The one and only reason people veto trades is because they are jealous that they didnt get a "great deal".

 

That's just a stupid statement.

[gotoneros 1]

Let the trade go through. Vetos are for biotches.

[yanivsme 0]

That's just a stupid statement.

 

 

Let me rephrase it for you. Most people veto trades because they are mad that another team is getting better. If both teams suck, they usually dont care if its a lopsided trade, but when 1 team is dominating, then they have a problem with it. They dont want to have to face a good team that just got better. Back to my statment, they are jealous because they didnt get involved. Voting on trades seemes like a good idea but poeple who vote are thinking about themselves and not the 2 owners in the trade.

 

Is this comment stupid as well? Next time tell me why my comment is stupid, stupid.

[HilltopperVike 0]

Please explain what makes this vetoable.

 

Ditto. Both are faily equal right now IMO.

[Casey71 0]

No Veto. What people forget is that the full consequences of a trade aren't really felt...until much later in the season. McNabb will probably get hurt again. Cassell is good to go every game. He's got Moss too.

 

Stats right now...might be slighted towards McNabb...but who knows what will happen. You can't predict the future.

[sirwinzalot 1]

Just because Cassel has come off of two descent games that my grandmother could have posted a great stat line, doesn't mean he should be in the same ballpark as McNabb, and for the team that sux to be trading away more than receiving makes no sense, but to help somebody else out instead of himself. If the guy trading Cassel throws at least a little something else that could help the team trading McNabb, would make it more balanced, and would have no problem with it. Cassel for McNabb is a joke. Maybe I should offer the team in my league with McNabb, Tyler Thigpen for him, I mean, Thigpen just had a nice game, and McNabb will get hurt sometime, YEAH, THAT'S FAIR..........NOT! Where do you draw the line? Or did I just do it with the Thigpen statement, lol.

[slash 0]

I talked to the owner that gave up mcnabb this morning. he was extremely defensive and mentioned to me that its his team and its his right to trade anyone he wants. a very unusal tone than compared to when I have talked with him in the past. I told him that I am not trying to evaluate the fairness of the trade, but whether it was collusion. He told me that there is no collusion.

 

[Dr.Grimm 0]

Please explain what makes this vetoable.

 

Not that I am surprised, but it looks like not a single poster can do this.

[Dr.Grimm 0]

I know one thing. After reading some of the replies as too why this trade should not be allowed, I am lucky to be the leagues I am in. It is outrageous to think that this trade should be vetoed. Over the top. Beyond belief. Sickening. Pathetic. I have not read a single post that even comes close to justifying this dictator of a commish vetoing this trade.

 

GridironGuzzlers won this thread.

[edjr 5,589]

 

I'm so sick of these focking idiot commissioners on this board with focking power trips.

 

[madd futher mucker 36]

I talked to the owner that gave up mcnabb this morning. he was extremely defensive and mentioned to me that its his team and its his right to trade anyone he wants. a very unusal tone than compared to when I have talked with him in the past. I told him that I am not trying to evaluate the fairness of the trade, but whether it was collusion. He told me that there is no collusion.

 

 

 

What did you expect him to say? That he colluded? His defensiveness says a lot to me about his motive. I noticed that the other posters most significant justification for allowing the trade is McNabb's prior injuries. Let me tell you something. McNabb is fully recovered from his knee problem that plagued him the last couple years.

 

Given ALL the QBs who have gotten hurt this year, ANY QB has just about an equal chance of injury, and that should not have any bearing ont the merits of the trade. In fact, except for some chronic problems (ie some players are more prone to hamstring pulls) most injuries in the NFL are completely random - what is not random is the individual players's tolerence for pain. For years Fred Taylor was known as fragile Freddie, then he went 3 consecutive years without anything but minor nicks.

 

Those people who think that the 1-7 team probably didn't have any other motive than to help his own team compete - that he wasn't probably trying to help the contending team - have their head up their ass IMHO. Maybe it was not technically collusion - that is, maybe he didn't overtly discuss his motive with the 'receiving' team, but this trade should be vetoed.

 

To speculate that he made the trade because McNabb is more likely to get hurt is purely speculation and a totally irrational argument. If that was his huge concern, then why would he draft him in the first place? The fact that McNabb has significantly out performed Cassel both throught the whole year and and also for the last 3 weeks of fantasy production is to my mind absolute justification for the veto given the won/loss relationship between the two teams.

 

This is my last comment on the issue. As commissioner, YOU will have to decide what is the right thing to do, not me and not those who come down on the 'never veto' or the 'Cassel is just about as good as McNabb ' side of the debate.

 

But I think that most unbiased people will decide that logic is clearly on the side of the veto here.

[FrankRizzo 0]

I know one thing. After reading some of the replies as too why this trade should not be allowed, I am lucky to be the leagues I am in. It is outrageous to think that this trade should be vetoed. Over the top. Beyond belief. Sickening. Pathetic. I have not read a single post that even comes close to justifying this dictator of a commish vetoing this trade.

 

GridironGuzzlers won this thread.

 

It all depends .... is this league in America or Russia??

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

You asked both owners to explain themselves and what possible rationale did the 1-7 owner have to justify making the trade.

I'd sure in hell want to get to the bottom of his thought process, because the trade is VERY unbalanced especially since the trade is player for player at the same position.

 

I strongly lean to vetoing this trade and I'm the "anti-veto nazi". Here are the real stats.

 

On the year, McNabb has averabed 261 yards passing, 6.5 yards rushing, .4 ints, 1.2 TDs and 19.5 fantasy points per game. He is the 9th ranked QB in a fairly standard QB scoring system, and one can argue he has seldom had all his tools (Reg Brown - chronic hammy, Curtis out all season until last week, as well as LJ Smith, and Westbrook missed games).

 

By comparison, Cassel is the 23rd ranked QB based on season averages of 194.5 yds passing, 11.5 yds rushing, .9 ints, 1.0 Tds and 14.9 fantasy points per game. That is approximately 33% more production per game for McNabb.

 

For the last 3 week time-frame, McNabb has averaged 21.8 fantasy points per game and ranks 10th among all Qbs in that time-frame.

Cassel, while improved, averaged 18.5 fantasy points per game and was ranked 16th among all QBs.

 

The real stats also show that Clinton Portis has almost doubled LaDainian Tomlinson in both yardage AND TDs. I guess logic is clearly on the side of vetoing a straight up deal here, too....

[sirwinzalot 1]

I guess some people think it's okay for teams to help stack other teams up, once their teams are down the toilet. I think these teams that object to vetoing this trade, all have buddies in their league to mooch off of. You shouldn't have damn farm systems in FF. Got to go, I got to go trade Sticky Ricky for Clinton Portis. What a JOKE!

[zaurg 0]

To speculate that he made the trade because McNabb is more likely to get hurt is purely speculation and a totally irrational argument. If that was his huge concern, then why would he draft him in the first place? The fact that McNabb has significantly out performed Cassel both throught the whole year and and also for the last 3 weeks of fantasy production is to my mind absolute justification for the veto given the won/loss relationship between the two teams.

 

I guess this thread is about dead and done, but, I have to add:

 

On the year:

McNabb 147 pts, 21.0 ppg

Cassel 115 pts, 16.4 ppg

 

Over the last 5 games:

Cassel 89 pts, 17.8 ppg

McNabb 82 pts, 16.4 ppg

 

Over the last 3 games:

Cassel 62 pts, 20.7 ppg

McNabb 53 pts, 17.7 ppg

 

Maybe our scoring system is different than yours.

Not saying I'd give up McNabb for Cassel, but I'm just sayin.

[ghost168 0]

All I will add is that trades can only be vetoed for collusion and not stupidity of an owner. In our league a trade can never be vetoed by the commish but only by 80% league vote. Too much power from a comish is a bad thing!

[sirwinzalot 1]

I guess this thread is about dead and done, but, I have to add:

 

On the year:

McNabb 147 pts, 21.0 ppg

Cassel 115 pts, 16.4 ppg

 

Over the last 5 games:

Cassel 89 pts, 17.8 ppg

McNabb 82 pts, 16.4 ppg

 

Over the last 3 games:

Cassel 62 pts, 20.7 ppg

McNabb 53 pts, 17.7 ppg

 

Maybe our scoring system is different than yours.

Not saying I'd give up McNabb for Cassel, but I'm just sayin.

 

Take a look at NE's schedule compared to PHI's. Also McNabb's just now getting his Wr's, while Cassel has had his this whole time. It's also not all about the numbers for me, it's the value that a player has. McNabb, of course when healthy, is a top notch QB in the NFL, and has provin himself over time, what has Cassel proven? He can do okay against horrible teams for half a season. Can anyone easily say that Cassel is just as good as McNabb? Hell no! Not even close! Would anybody on this thread actually make this trade? I couldn't imagine anyone dumb enough to do this unless there's another motive besides trying to win games.

[ffbraddy 0]

How about this trade: guy offers Lance Moore and Fred Taylor for Brandon Marshall. The trade is accepted.

 

 

Background: Guy giving up Marshall is 1-7. Guy getting Marshall is 6-2 (best record in the league). These two guys are cousins. Guy giving up Marshall has been given several offers from other owners to try to get Marshall (including an offer of Moss and Gates for him) which was not even responded to, let alone declined. These two have made one other lopsided trade a few weeks back, when Guy getting Marshall gave up Plax for Orton, Vincent Jackson, and Devery Henderson.

 

Another interesting thing about this trade is that 3 minutes before the trade was accepted, guy getting Marshall made a post on the league website bitching about how no one will trade with him and how much it sucks to be last on waiver wire order. (To give you an idea about his trade offers, he offered me Jamarcus Russell and Robert Meachem for Aaron Rodgers when Romo was injured).

 

I haven't had the chance to talk to either of the guys about this, but this deal sounds extremely shady at best. What do you guys think?

[Dallas_Empire 0]

32 posts about a Mcnabb and Cassel trade. Man, you guys must be bored.

[McPaul 0]

get off your power trip and let the trade go through. these owners are NOT cheating.

[jrbdmb 28]

Just curious, for all the anti-veto people out there - what exactly is "proof of collusion"?

 

Do you actually expect the two traders to admit they are colluding? Find a signed contract?

 

I'd probably let this one slide, but I think from the McNabb owner's response there is enough evidence of something sneaky going on that I would not object if the OP vetoed the trade. As for all of the "never veto" responses, remind me never to join a league where two owners can fix the league with impunity because everyone has a "never ever veto" mindset.

 

Put me in the "when in doubt, don't veto" camp - but to me the "never ever veto" crowd sounds as ridiculous as any of the "should I veto LT2 for TO" threads on here.

[sirwinzalot 1]

get off your power trip and let the trade go through. these owners are NOT cheating.

 

Wow! How convincing.

[sirwinzalot 1]

How about this trade: guy offers Lance Moore and Fred Taylor for Brandon Marshall. The trade is accepted.

Background: Guy giving up Marshall is 1-7. Guy getting Marshall is 6-2 (best record in the league). These two guys are cousins. Guy giving up Marshall has been given several offers from other owners to try to get Marshall (including an offer of Moss and Gates for him) which was not even responded to, let alone declined. These two have made one other lopsided trade a few weeks back, when Guy getting Marshall gave up Plax for Orton, Vincent Jackson, and Devery Henderson.

 

Another interesting thing about this trade is that 3 minutes before the trade was accepted, guy getting Marshall made a post on the league website bitching about how no one will trade with him and how much it sucks to be last on waiver wire order. (To give you an idea about his trade offers, he offered me Jamarcus Russell and Robert Meachem for Aaron Rodgers when Romo was injured).

 

I haven't had the chance to talk to either of the guys about this, but this deal sounds extremely shady at best. What do you guys think?

 

I wouldn't make this trade, but I don't feel like it's vetoable. Marshall hasn't reached all the pre season hype, and Moore has been okay, if the 1-7 team is really hurting at RB, and I mean really hurting, then I can see him trying to help himself.

[Pinto 0]

The real stats also show that Clinton Portis has almost doubled LaDainian Tomlinson in both yardage AND TDs. I guess logic is clearly on the side of vetoing a straight up deal here, too....

 

That's not the logic. Your example is comparing a RB1 vs another RB1, not a QB1 vs a QB2. Your example also is showing one RB better this year and the other better historically, while QB1 is better this year and historically vs QB2.

[Pinto 0]

Just curious, for all the anti-veto people out there - what exactly is "proof of collusion"?

 

Do you actually expect the two traders to admit they are colluding? Find a signed contract?

 

I'd probably let this one slide, but I think from the McNabb owner's response there is enough evidence of something sneaky going on that I would not object if the OP vetoed the trade. As for all of the "never veto" responses, remind me never to join a league where two owners can fix the league with impunity because everyone has a "never ever veto" mindset.

 

Put me in the "when in doubt, don't veto" camp - but to me the "never ever veto" crowd sounds as ridiculous as any of the "should I veto LT2 for TO" threads on here.

 

 

I've been playing for ten years, being a commish for six of them. In all of this time, there hasn't been any vetoed trades nor did I ever vote against a trade, and there has been some bad trades. With that being said, I mostly agree with the no-veto crowd and let bad trades through, however I feel those on this site are too overzealous with blinders on and not clearly seeing collusion. Of course it'll always be a gray area and you'll never get confessions, and when in doubt, don't veto, however usually collusion trades shouldn't have any doubt. I would never stay in a league where collusion trades were allowed.