i had something similar happen with Shaun Alexander last year where I ended up giving CJ and SSmith for Alexander after his injury. The trade was vetoed by everybody, but the commish pushed it through regardless forcing the trade and asked people to support it. The guy who got CJ and SSmith still missed the playoffs and threw a fit, dropping all his players. The only reason he pushed it through was because I had a good team...
Anyways long story short, people who trade injured players are douches. You are not trading value for value, you are relying on the other owner impulsively clicking yes, which happens to the best of us. It's not a fair trade, it should be vetoed. Ronnie Brown for Edge is just bull. Granted you shouldn't have to baby an owner, but you should protect new ones in these types of cases. i don't see how trading a guy who can't play for a guy who has a weak schedule coming up and a top 10 RB candidate for remainder of season does the league any good.
Competitive owners who watch the waivers is good, but there is a point where it's just plain low. If you veto the trade, the worst that can happen is people play as they were, but if you push it through, the person who got cheated quits your league.
Kilroy1872 wrote:Trading injured players is the Fantasy Football equivalent of selling a dead bird to a blind kid. Yeah, you might make a few bucks, but it's bad juju, and sooner or later what goes around comes around.
Competative owners make for fun leagues. I don't like the idea of trading an injured player, but at least you know that owner is raising the level of play within the league. If you want a good league, you're gonna have to kick the "blind kid" to the curb.
You can be competitive and ethical. The concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and I don't think unethical owners raise anything in a league other than the animosity level.
Given my choice between a blind kid and a snake, I'll take the blind kid.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
I emailed the Edge owner and told him that the trade would more than likely get vetoed and I realize he's pissed but I didn't appreciate him threatening to sabotage my league. He wrote back saying he would calm down.
No word from the Brown owner who by the way definately was quick about picking up Chatman on Sunday, so if and when the trade gets vetoed he should hopefully not get stupid, but if either of them resort to dropping players, I'm going to lock whoever's team does, get the players back, and ban the owner.
did the Edge owner really expect to get the #1 RB in fantasy straight up for Edge with no strings attached? He probably did a backflip when he saw the trade offer, and I can surely state he did not care at all about the effect on the Brown owner only himself and the shot in the arm for his RB corps
all these trade veto threads are pointless, trades are only supposed to be vetoed if one team is colluding with the other to 'stack' a team, that didn't happen here, so no veto
Any owner who plays competitive fantasy football should be aware of the fact that he has to check out trades thoroughly. The 2nd owner can make whatever excuses he wants but if he had simply googled Ronnie Brown or checked any of the hundreds of FF sites, he would have found out in less than a minute that Brown was seriously hurt. He was greedy, didn't do his homework and when he realized he had made a mistake, tried to weasel his way out of it while crying foul and threatening to destroy the league at the same time. Bad, bad owner. I have less respect for him than I do for the first owner who was also being a weasel by trying to dump an injured player. If I was a member of this league, I wouldn't attempt any kind of trade with either one of them in the future.
Guys, when we offer a trade, we ALWAYS try to get more value coming to us than what is going away from our team. That's what trading is. Sure, there are degrees of ethics but trading is basically an unethical practice where it's each man for himself. Most of us understand this but some obviously don't. I personally wouldn't attempt to trade an injured player without disclosing the injury to the other owner. However, if I could talk another owner into giving me LT for Rudi Johnson, I'd do it in a heartbeat and not feel bad about the deal. Gaining an advantage is a primary component of trading.
So, I'd let the trade go through and tell the 2nd owner to grow up. Sure, the lack of ethics of owner #1 is evident. He's like a $10 whore. However...
I'll use an analogy of two women on a street corner. One says she'll have sex for $10. The other nicely dressed, presentable lady gasps and says "Whore!" A limo pulls up and a billionaire offers the 2nd woman $1,000,000 for a night with him. She agrees. First woman looks over and says "Whore!".
They're both whores. Only difference is the price. Getting back to the ethics question, what is a fair price [level of ethics]? Anything that doesn't break the league rules may not be moral but should be allowed. We're not little children who need to be led around. We're men and women and we should look out for ourselves. Too bad for owner #2. He didn't do the research and he paid the price.
I don't see how the first guy is in the wrong here assuming he offers the trade up not knowing the severity of the injury. Ronnie Brown walked off the field, I don't think anyone reasonably could assume he tore his ACL. How is it any different from trading for a guy who is in a slump and then blows up? Are you an asshole and unethical for knowing more about a players situation than another guy? If Ronnie Brown ends up missing two weeks then the Edge owner gets a steal.
"Maurice Jones-Drew, below the waist, is incredible." Mike Mayock
This is a tough call. I read all the responses and find myself agreeing with a number ot the posts.
The Brown owner did'nt know the severity of the injury when trade was proposed. Hingsight makes it look as if he was being unethical but at the time there could have been a couple of reasons why he wanted to make the trade. Brown did walk off the field. The Brown owner was taking a chance in Brown being alright and continuing to kick arse. I don't know that what he did was really all that bad. Yes he did propose the trade after the supposed injury but noone knew the sevirity.
The other new guy should have done some more homework but the fact is Brown was just having a MRI and noone knew the severity of it at the time of the trade. Next he says he will sabatage the league by giving up his players. That in itself is a crappy way of handling it.
I heard on the radio that Brown was out. When I went home and looked at the sports sites I saw nothing. Finally an hoour or 2 later the news comes out that it is a rumor follower by it being fact shortly after.
Very tough call. I see reasons to side with each party here. Go with your instincts grasshopper.
Cowboys 4 life
(Past Year: 79)
Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Somewhere between Silicon Valley and a bunch of Fruits
A veteran offers me LT for MJD and the first thing I do is wonder why. Blind kid should have done the same. Douche shouldn't be a douche and maybe neither should be in it next year, although typically time heals and tempers fade and all might turn out well.
That said: No collusion, no veto.
However, to construct a possible solution, maybe you have douche give Chatman to the blind kid.
Nfl Fan, the voice of reason... out!
Yo, Met... thanks for the sig! GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!