Lopsided Trade?

[Dagbeast 0]

Ok, I THINK this is a no-brainer, but I'd like to get opinions. The Commish in our league is trading Big Ben and Eric Decker for Tom Brady and Arian Foster. I objected, but they think it's a fair trade, since Brady has WR issues and Arian's yards / rush are down and he's sharing carries with Tate. Also, Decker's strong game last year and 1k yards last year were cited.

 

Thoughts?

[BTL99 34]

I actually don't think it is that bad of a trade. Let it go thru and be done with it. Arian aint doing . Brady aint the normal Brady and Decker is a WR on the best offense in football.

[goodnight 1]

looks fine to me as well

[ynotu 0]

The team getting Brady and Foster definitely wins, but it is not bad enough to claim collution. And if it isnt collution it is ok.

[Canadianfan 76]

Not fair at all. I'd object all day.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,653]

This is a garbage post. You're panties are in a bunch because two teams made a trade. Brady and Foster have been a massive disappointment thus far, and the other owner sold high on Decker.

 

Or is everyone in your league supposed to adhere to the dagbeast value counter and only trades that equal out exactly according to you are allowable?

[Ray_T 603]

Ok, I THINK this is a no-brainer, but I'd like to get opinions. The Commish in our league is trading Big Ben and Eric Decker for Tom Brady and Arian Foster. I objected, but they think it's a fair trade, since Brady has WR issues and Arian's yards / rush are down and he's sharing carries with Tate. Also, Decker's strong game last year and 1k yards last year were cited.

 

Thoughts?

Brady is not the fantasy goldmine he's been in the past.

 

His #1 target from last year left to go play with manning.

His #2 Target from last year went to Jail

His #3 Target from last year is injured

His #1 RB is also injured.

 

Hes basically working with a team full of backups and rookies. He's doing ok, but definitely not the top Tier QB he was.

 

This is a fair deal man.

[Kopy 496]

Looking for the 1. Collusion. Or 2. This trade is totally lopsided it would be detramental to the league, so it should be put to a league wide, majority wins vote.

Don't see either?

[Kopy 496]

Ok, I THINK this is a no-brainer, but I'd like to get opinions. The Commish in our league is trading Big Ben and Eric Decker for Tom Brady and Arian Foster. I objected, but they think it's a fair trade, since Brady has WR issues and Arian's yards / rush are down and he's sharing carries with Tate. Also, Decker's strong game last year and 1k yards last year were cited.

 

Thoughts?

You're gonna have to put down your 2011 fantasy football magazine.

[snatchit 108]

That is way lopsided... decker would just frustrate me, sure they all got in on the party against Oak but in most cases he will be hit or miss. I have no interest in that dude in anything but a # 3... and Ben ??? Brady is getting Gronk back and All ya have to do with Foster is hand cuff him with Tate. There is either a tard involved in this trade or something is up

[Dagbeast 0]

Thanks for the opinions, but I'm still having trouble not seeing this as lopsided. First of all, I'm not accusing the owners of collusion. I just think this will tilt the league and the guy that is getting Brady and Foster will run away with the league. Maybe I'm living in 2011, but I know we've just had 3 games, and that's not enough of a sample to bail on two former fantasy studs. Mark my words, Brady will get Gronk back and his young WR's will start growing up, and he will start going off again. They'll find a way to throw the ball, cause that's all they do. Foster had no preseason at all. He'll get his legs back. He may not be Foster of 2011, but he'll be a top 15 back this year.

 

Decker had a good week last week. He had a good year last year. But when it comes down to it, he's PM's 3rd option. Wes Welker is there now. Decker might have another game or two like last week, but really, he's Eric Decker. And Big Ben, please.

[Woble Eth 11]

Thanks for the opinions, but I'm still having trouble not seeing this as lopsided. First of all, I'm not accusing the owners of collusion. I just think this will tilt the league and the guy that is getting Brady and Foster will run away with the league. Maybe I'm living in 2011, but I know we've just had 3 games, and that's not enough of a sample to bail on two former fantasy studs. Mark my words, Brady will get Gronk back and his young WR's will start growing up, and he will start going off again. They'll find a way to throw the ball, cause that's all they do. Foster had no preseason at all. He'll get his legs back. He may not be Foster of 2011, but he'll be a top 15 back this year.

 

Decker had a good week last week. He had a good year last year. But when it comes down to it, he's PM's 3rd option. Wes Welker is there now. Decker might have another game or two like last week, but really, he's Eric Decker. And Big Ben, please.

Just because a trade is not to your liking, doesn't make it unfair. Trading is all about perceived value and putting yourself out there.. Also analyzing the needs of the teams involved in the trade...

 

You claim the guy getting Brady and Foster will run away with the league, why didn't anyone else approach the Brady / Foster owner? You are ready to vilify the guy when in fact he is being shrewd and selling high and buying low.

 

You can't rest on your laurels, if you have a need - send out offers. The response might surprise you.

 

Congrats to him.

 

Leave it alone and go make a deal yourself that has the rest of the league talking.

[saintsthunder 3]

We don't veto trades in my league. Only the Commish (me) has that power and I only Veto in CLEAR cases of collusion, such as McCoy for McGahee or something. If you put money down to play you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your team.

[Dr Hook 6]

let them manage their teams and only VETO if there is cheating.

[Yamirfaz 3]

Decker might be a really nice pick up if/when Welker gets injured and I'm not high on Foster this year.

 

I would imagine the team trading away Brady has another decent QB and at least 2 solid RBs.

[heavy-set 39]

i can see why you would object to it, but at some point ADP means nothing and the actual performance of the players matter.

 

eric decker is the best player in this trade. brady is above average, foster is meh, and big ben is a waiver wire qb.

 

but this would raise eyebrows.

[plasma george 52]

. I just think this will tilt the league and the guy that is getting Brady and Foster will run away with the league. Maybe I'm living in 2011, but I know we've just had 3 games, and that's not enough of a sample to bail on two former fantasy studs. Mark my words, Brady will get Gronk back and his young WR's will start growing up, and he will start going off again. They'll find a way to throw the ball, cause that's all they do. Foster had no preseason at all. He'll get his legs back. He may not be Foster of 2011, but he'll be a top 15 back this year.

 

Decker had a good week last week. He had a good year last year. But when it comes down to it, he's PM's 3rd option. Wes Welker is there now. Decker might have another game or two like last week, but really, he's Eric Decker. And Big Ben, please.

It doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what the 2 owners involved think....and you don't know, and they don't know which side will end up better, no matter what anyone thinks.

 

It's their teams, and they paid to enter the League, and manage their teams.

There's nothing you can do, if they both want to execute the trade, approve it.

[shutdown 40]

Ok, I THINK this is a no-brainer, but I'd like to get opinions. The Commish in our league is trading Big Ben and Eric Decker for Tom Brady and Arian Foster. I objected, but they think it's a fair trade, since Brady has WR issues and Arian's yards / rush are down and he's sharing carries with Tate. Also, Decker's strong game last year and 1k yards last year were cited.

 

Thoughts?

What you fail to mention are the rosters of each team. Suppose the one team drafted Philip Rivers (#5 QB) to backup Brady (#20) and he has no faith Brady gets back into the top 10 at the end of the year, which is a logical thought process at this point. So he unloads him and Foster (#18 RB) - (Perhaps he has any number of RB's currently ahead of foster - Moreno, McFadden, Murray, Bell) who he feels has lost something and sees more of a role for Ben Tate. He gets a WR he feels is better than his starters (assuming he's weak there ) and a serviceable #2 QB.

 

If he can get value for Brady (who he may no longer start if he drafted Vick or Rivers late) and Foster (who he'd probably like to bench because he's watching Joquie Bell score consistently every week from his bench), then it's a no brainer. Essentially he would get a WR to plug into his starting lineup and give up a qb he's not starting and an RB he starts but loses points to his bench for.

 

This his how you have to evaluate trades, you have to look at current rank, potential, and team needs. Not just names.

[Dsausage 36]

Its incredible to me how many retarded commissioners there are who post on this forum. This is a classic sell high buy lo trade and the owner of Big Ben and Decker should be proud of their handiwork. Brady and Foster have sucked and BB and Decker are red hot. Foster will get going and so will Brady especially that Gronk is going. This is an example of a very savvy trade and another example of power creates corruption and sour f ing grapes. This is the last time I will ever click on one of these stupid "is this trade fair" threads.

[Woble Eth 11]

Its incredible to me how many retarded commissioners there are who post on this forum. This is a classic sell high buy lo trade and the owner of Big Ben and Decker should be proud of their handiwork. Brady and Foster have sucked and BB and Decker are red hot. Foster will get going and so will Brady especially that Gronk is going. This is an example of a very savvy trade and another example of power creates corruption and sour f ing grapes. This is the last time I will ever click on one of these stupid "is this trade fair" threads.

[WR Guru 31]

I don't know how lopsided it is. Brady is 27th in scoring at QB in my league and is struggling mightily with no receivers, as many of us predicted. Foster is a timeshare back at this point and does not even appear to be the best RB on his own team anymore.

[jrbdmb 28]

Hooray!!! The first "should this trade be vetoed" thread of the year!!!

 

I am sure many more will follow shortly.

[goodnight 1]

i just dont see how "i think this needs to be vetod because in the future x is going to happen" is the least bit relevent. especially when its your opinion and not theirs.

[bigblue08 1]

While it may seem lopsided, if I were commish I would let it go through. Big Ben is much better at reading his blocks than Brady, and can pick up more valuable rushing yards.

 

If I were the poster, I would go to my house and punch myself in the face in front of my wife and kids for objecting to this trade.

[tecklc2112 7]

Mind your own business & let guys manage their own teams as they see fit. This trade is not even close to being veto-worthy.

[browns16-0 30]

I think it's fine. I'm not even sure who is getting the best of this trade.

[Ray_T 603]

harsh posts aside, these guys all are correct in one thing. This is not a trade to veto.

 

Brady is the #26 Ranked Fantasy QB this year.

His top WR's are Julian Edelman and Kenbrell Thompkins right now.

 

It is clear the Pats have gone away from the pass and are utilizing the run more than they have in recent years. This is not by accident.

 

I acknowledge Rothlisberger isnt ranked much higher (21 ranked fantasy QB) But he's playing on a team that will fall behind and his Garbage time production while the opponent is in a prevent defense will make him the better QB of the two (fantasy wise)

 

Decker is a WR in what may be the best passing offense in the NFL. He may be the #3 option, but it looks like Manning may have another year where all 3 starting WR's end up with a 1000 yard season.

 

Foster is the #20 ranked RB in fantasy points and has a young Stud (Tate) taking carries from him. Foster is at risk of losing his starting gig, (even if I dont think it's likely to happen)

 

Decker is roughly equal to foster in terms of value. You could argue one or the other is more valuable, but the fact of the matter is it is close.

and it looks like Brady and Rothlisberger may be of equal value currently.

 

Brady's value goes up if Gronk comes back from injury and can be productive. Given how long Gronk has been out of the lineup, there is no guarantee he can accomplish this feat this year. There will be a few games to shake off the rust for sure.

 

I think the deal is fair given the risks and issues on both sides.

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

absolutely no veto. We all value players differently. Ask yourself this- How many times have you made a trade offer that you honestly thought was fair and the other guy blasts you for being an idiot? Or vice-versa? It happens a lot. Just because YOU would not do the trade does not mean its unfair or lopsided.

[ynotu 0]

absolutely no veto. We all value players differently. Ask yourself this- How many times have you made a trade offer that you honestly thought was fair and the other guy blasts you for being an idiot? Or vice-versa? It happens a lot. Just because YOU would not do the trade does not mean its unfair or lopsided.

 

and no matter how unfair or lopsided a trade is or seems to be, you should only veto if there is collution. It really doesnt matter at all how other people feel about the trade. This is the reason I have removed veto's in my league (plus trades get executed immediately).

[chroniciguana 13]

Once again. "Lopsided" doesn't define "collusion." For collusion to exist, there must be a showing of "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy to cheat or deceive others." In the extreme: I trade you my best players, you give me your garbage, you win and we split the pot. And if this is shown to exist, the penalty is a helluva lot more severe than a veto. If you're prepared to argue collusion, you better be prepared to demand expulsion.

 

Can we have the word "collusion" added to the obscenity filter? As in "This is clearly #########!"

 

Also, there was once a time when the response to a lopsided deal was to make a better offer. I believe it was commonly known as Put Up or Shut Up.

[Dagbeast 0]

Thanks for all the comments and more than that, I really appreciate all the editorial comments. As soon as I finish my miserable day at work, I shall go home and punch myself in the face in front of my wife, several times, for I am a drudge of the earth. Then maybe I'll go throw myself off a bridge, since I dared to get opinions on the validity of a trade. I am lower than low. I have wasted all of your time for even clicking on this post. I'm sure all of you, especially the ones with thousands of posts, have much better things to do. Truly sorry.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Thanks for all the comments and more than that, I really appreciate all the editorial comments. As soon as I finish my miserable day at work, I shall go home and punch myself in the face in front of my wife, several times, for I am a drudge of the earth. Then maybe I'll go throw myself off a bridge, since I dared to get opinions on the validity of a trade. I am lower than low. I have wasted all of your time for even clicking on this post. I'm sure all of you, especially the ones with thousands of posts, have much better things to do. Truly sorry.

 

I think you missed the point. You should never ask the question "is this trade lopsided?" It doesn't matter. As long as the two guys making the trade are doing it because they think it improves their team, then the trade goes through. It's not your place to try to manage someone else's team for them.

[chroniciguana 13]

Thanks for all the comments and more than that, I really appreciate all the editorial comments. As soon as I finish my miserable day at work, I shall go home and punch myself in the face in front of my wife, several times, for I am a drudge of the earth. Then maybe I'll go throw myself off a bridge, since I dared to get opinions on the validity of a trade. I am lower than low. I have wasted all of your time for even clicking on this post. I'm sure all of you, especially the ones with thousands of posts, have much better things to do. Truly sorry.

Sweet Jeebus. Did you post your question hoping to be fed a unanimous chorus of agreement? An ego stroke? Or were you sincerely seeking advice?

[Ray_T 603]

 

I think you missed the point. You should never ask the question "is this trade lopsided?" It doesn't matter. As long as the two guys making the trade are doing it because they think it improves their team, then the trade goes through. It's not your place to try to manage someone else's team for them.

Just to add to this:

 

If you can see logic (misguided or not) in a deal, you should not consider the veto in any way shape or form.

 

before going to a veto, you should ask the person who you think was on the losing end of the deal and just ask.... why did you make the deal?

 

If they give you an answer that has any form of logic at all. You have to let the deal go through.

 

Yes there are gonna be times when that person values the player they are getting far more than they should, but that is life my friend. If you valued players the same as everyone in your league you'd never be able to get a trade done.

 

If you see someone trade Ray Rice for Moreno and the person getting rice is now poised to win because of the trade and the person giving him Rice is his brother.... yes, that is a veto.

 

a trade of Manning for Alex Smith in the same situation is also a veto.

 

A trade of Vick for almost any startable QB is probably not veto worthy because Vicks value varies highly depending on who you talk to. Hes actually the #2 Ranked fantasy QB this year so far (based on fantasy points per game using standard scoring)

 

My head tells me Vick is gonna get hurt and be worth nothing by mid season, but some people look at the current stats and the fact Vick used to be a fantasy stud and it is possible some may wrongly value him as a top 3 or top 5 player still.

 

so in this situation is it right to veto such a deal with vick ? Probably not. As long as I can see some form of logic, the deal goes through. Even if I do not agree with the decision, I will respect it and allow the trade to happen.

[TheUsualSuspect 207]

Wow, this was tough to read.