Help evaluate trades. Will answer yours.

[Lake209 34]

Please evaluate as if you are the Commish of a 12-team league (PPR): Would you allow these trades?

 

Trade 1: Andre Johnson and Marion Barber - FOR - Ronnie Brown.

*Yes or No. *Why?

 

Trade 2: Randy Moss - FOR - Marshawn Lynch

*Yes or No. *Why?

 

Thanks. Will answer back.

[fantasymind 1]

No and No...because Andre Johnson and Randy Moss are both WAY better than Brown and Lynch

[TheFid2 0]

I would say Johnson for Brown straight up might be acceptable, but only because Johnson's injured at the moment. No way Brown is worth both him AND Barber with the numbers he's putting up.

 

As for the Lynch trade, maybe in a few weeks when we can see how he adapts to an O-line less crappy than Buffalo, but Randy Moss with Favre throwing too him is still every bit as dangerous, so that's probably a No right now.

[ktuoms 0]

Please evaluate as if you are the Commish of a 12-team league (PPR): Would you allow these trades?

 

Trade 1: Andre Johnson and Marion Barber - FOR - Ronnie Brown.

*Yes or No. *Why?

 

Trade 2: Randy Moss - FOR - Marshawn Lynch

*Yes or No. *Why?

 

Thanks. Will answer back.

 

 

I wouldn't allow either. Seem to be pretty one sided. It would be more fair for it to be Marion Barber for Ronnie Brown even without Andre Johnson in the mix. Marion Barber is a little less valuable than R. Brown but not enough to warrant Andre Johnson. Reports out of Seattle are that it will be a 60/40 split Lynch/Forsett. That being said you are talking about a #1 receiver maybe even #1 in the league vs. a RBBC on a bad Seattle team.

[miggs721 0]

no and no...both not fair

[Gatorclan3 0]

You dont 'allow' or 'not allow' trades to go through due to them being fair. I dont know why this seems to be a yearly problem with leagues. I sometimes wish the veto option wasnt allowed for everyone b/c this is what happens...other members look at trades and determine whether or not they think its 'fair'. That is not what the veto option is for. If two teams agree to a trade, then it should go through....WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COLLUSION. This is when one team is OBVIOUSLY dumping crappy players to another team and recieving good players as a result. In the case of these two trades, I would definitely look into a possible collusion scenario. Both trades seem scetchy, not because they are not 'fair' but because they appear to have one team dumping mediocre players for great players. A couple of questions...do these two trades involve the same teams? Has there been any prior questionable trading? Again, to me...these trades appear to be collusion but you may need to further investigate the situation. It could also be a situation where one member is simply a moron who doesnt know what he is doing.

 

In my 14 team league, one member who is 1-3 has no QB for this week (he has Vick). Some guy offered him Sanchez, Lynch, and Spiller for his Peterson. The guy said, and I quote "Hmmm...Ill have to think about that one." Now I know there are VERY few people in these forums who would trade Peterson for those three mediocre players...but it does happen from time to time. If this trade goes through, as pissed as I would be to see it happen, Im not going to veto it because I think its one-sided.

[WiljenFC 0]

Unless the guy getting the bad side of both trades (and they are bad trades) is dumping people on purpose and knows these are bad trades, you job as commish is to do NOTHING.

[sirwinzalot 1]

Unless the guy getting the bad side of both trades (and they are bad trades) is dumping people on purpose and knows these are bad trades, you job as commish is to do NOTHING.

 

Couldn't agree more

[American Chewy 98]

agree on the "must allow so long as its definitely not collusion" crowd. unless everyone in your league says they will quit if you don't disallow it or something.

[belichick's hoody 0]

I disagree with the collusion thing- the commish shouldn't micromanage, but if you have an 0-4 or 1-3 guy who really doesn't care too much about his team and wants to shake things up for the hell of it, it can create an imbalance in the league. It sucks to draft well and actively manage your roster only to lose to some guy who took exploited others via trade.

 

I wouldn't allow either, although I guess you could make a case for Moss for Lynch since they were both just traded w/ value somewhat up in the air. And if the Moss deal was accepted yesterday between the two trades, it should definitely go through.

 

Thanks for mine.

[Lake209 34]

Gatorclan3 said: "It could also be a situation where one member is simply a moron who doesnt know what he is doing."

 

This is...both a hilarious statement and/because (it is sometimes) a problem. 9th year of this particular league. It's been held up by about 5 regulars...others have come and gone. We've never had an (overt) collusion problem. Past Commish's have "dis-allowed" a VERY FEW trades in 9 years due to the "fairness" problem. Some good points here. Maybe we should start thinking on this a different way. Reason for allowing Commish to monitor trade-agreements in the past is simply to hold the league together. We play for money...I don't know if we'd survive if Andre Johnson and Marion Barber were routinely traded for Ronnie Brown.

 

Again, thanks.

[Longus 2]

Please evaluate as if you are the Commish of a 12-team league (PPR): Would you allow these trades?

 

Trade 1: Andre Johnson and Marion Barber - FOR - Ronnie Brown.

*Yes or No. *Why?

 

Trade 2: Randy Moss - FOR - Marshawn Lynch

*Yes or No. *Why?

 

Thanks. Will answer back.

Trade 1: No... bc AJ is a true wr1 while barber and brown cancels each other out

Trade 2: Yes....WR1 for a SOLID RB2 with both being potentially a must start

to be quite honest if I was a player in a league then a voting should be held....let the votes speak for themselves

thanks for replying

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=372846

[kujerry 9]

No and no.

[rstevens34 0]

Of the two the first is way more objectionable. The second there may be some chance that Moss and Lynch are equal value, if Lynch blows up in Seattle. I don't see it but as a commish I don't think I would block it.

 

Sometimes people make stupid trades. I think I would let it go unless the people making the trade a history of stink trades.

[shameful dread 0]

I agree with Gator, if i just started playing fantasy football and i was the commissioner, i would say it's a bad deal on both trades.. but i've learned throughout the years that teams will deal players according to what they need, and sometimes it happens to become what seems like a one sided trade. I'm a commissioner in one of my leagues, and whenever a trade comes up, and i have to question if it sounds fair, i'd let the league do the vetoing.. but if it sounds way too obvious that one team will benefit while the other team gets absolutely nothing of help with the trade, then I'd step in there..

[Eriadoc 4]

I would say Johnson for Brown straight up might be acceptable, but only because Johnson's injured at the moment. No way Brown is worth both him AND Barber with the numbers he's putting up.

 

As for the Lynch trade, maybe in a few weeks when we can see how he adapts to an O-line less crappy than Buffalo, but Randy Moss with Favre throwing too him is still every bit as dangerous, so that's probably a No right now.

 

If there's no collusion, you let the trades go through, regardless.

 

That said, I'm with TheFid2 on the first one. I can see how an owner weak at RB might try to deal AJ for a RB he feels might put up good numbers going forward.

 

On the second one, I think it embodies the essence of a deal. If you wait to see how Lynch does, then that trade doesn't happen at all. If Lynch is doing well, then you won't trade him for Moss unless Moss is lights-out, in which case, the Moss owner won't trade. Similarly, if Lynch ends up sucking, no one makes that trade. Right now, the trade is a risk-vs.-reward trade. Trades are all about taking chances. So I say the second one is even more legitimate than the AJ trade.

 

Take a look at mine? TIA: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=372907