Sorry if you saw my post yesterday in the Draft Forum, but I need all of your esteemed opinions. I'm personally not making a big stink about the trade, but the rest of our league is up in arms and it pretty much hit the fan today. It's a 12-team Yahoo league ($50 buy-in) with some co-workers...the 2 guys making this trade are really good friends and are about to become roomates. Here's the trade offer and their rosters:
Team A (currently in 2nd place 5-3):
QB-Brees, Bledsoe
WR-Lelie, Holt, Givens, Chambers, J. Smith
RB- LT, K. Jones, J. Griffith
TE- Witten
K-Rackers, Graham
DEF- PHI
Team B (currently in 3rd place 5-3):
QB-Palmer, Garcia
WR-Moss, Galloway, Porter, B. Jones
RB- L. Jordan, Portis, F. Taylor, Westy
TE- Troupe
K- Kaeding
DEF- CAR, TEN
Trade is LT, S. Graham for Portis, Westy. I can see the justification, as Team A needs more depth at RB, but Team B getting LT makes this team STACKED!!!! I didn't protest the trade because these 2 guys would cry about it the rest of the season....just looking for anyone's thoughts. Thanks!
Doesn't it suck to get beat at Fantasy Football...by a girl?
Unfortunately, just because a team becomes "stacked" in a trade is not justification for a veto. If a team has RB depth, and another team wants to get some of that depth for a great player, there really isn't anything wrong with that.
Portis and Westbrook combined is about 181 points in a normal scoring system. LT and Graham is about 231 points. I would assume the LT owner does not feel he can win if he uses LT and KJ as his RB's (and has no depth right now either) and wants the 2 RB's that can get him more points on a consistent basis and give him depth.
If there is collusion involved, then the veto is obviously warranted. However, if you cannot prove that the two owners are working together, there's probably not a whole lot you can do.
The One, the Only, the Incomparable Mercer Boy. My My YouTube.
I can see your concern, but it really isn't justified. It's more you worrying that one team is doing great, and might be unbeatable instead of considering the trade. The team that is getting Westy and Portis really needs to trade, as he only has one starter. As a KJ owner, I have found it better to forget he even exists, like the mutant kid that gets locked in the root cellar. It's tough giving up LT, but he does need two starting quality backs. I'll bet if you ask him, he'd tell you he just about wants to puke thinking about giving him up.
I don't think you can make a huge deal out of this. One guy gives up 2 starting RBs for a better one and a kicker. That's what having depth is all about.
This is probably about as fair a trade as can be made. I don't understand the concern. I don't even know who you think is getting the better of the deal?
"I think that gay marriage should be something between a man and a woman" Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Posts: 3066
(Past Year: 29)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Yards this season: 6
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Livin in a powderkeg and givin off sparks
Mookie4ever wrote:This is probably about as fair a trade as can be made. I don't understand the concern. I don't even know who you think is getting the better of the deal?
Come on, I agree the trade cannot be vetoed but you don't know who's getting the better end of the trade? LT out scores Portis and Westy by himself most weeks. The trade is definately not vetoable but i dopn't think it can be questioned who's getting the better end of the deal. Team B doesn't even have to give up his most productive back.
BTW, with the sched the Lions face the LT owner would have been better off going with LT and Jones the rest of the way. Jones is going to improve dramatically down the stretch.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
Stacked team means nothing! I was told I had a stacked team and guess what? I have lost the last three weeks. If one team has depth to give then by all means the trade is ok.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by footballchick23 » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:54 pm 
