Ray Rice/Ocho Cinco Trade

[AHF]

In a 14 team league, we just had the draft this past weekend and immediately two teams consumated the following trade:

Ray Rice and Benjamin Watson

for

Chad Ocho Cinco and Jermaine Gresham

The team trading away Rice for Ocho Cinco now only has 2 RBs on his roster, with Marshawn Lynch now starting. In addition to Ocho Cinco, he has Johny Knox and Danny Amendola as candidates for his last WR starting position. He is starting Greg Olsen at TE already.

The team trading away Ocho Cinco for Rice wasn't starting Ocho Cinco and has Brandon Lloyd and Dwayne Bowe as his starting WRs. Before trading for Rice, he had only Mendenhall and Beanie Wells as his RBs.

No viable RBs are available in FA (the best guys are guys like Javon Ringer).

Obviously, the issue I have is that it makes no sense for the team trading away Rice since he majorly downgraded his lineup with the trade; since he has no RB depth after the trade; and since he could have acquired any WR in the league for Rice particularly given that this is a league where running TD and yards are worth 1.5 points for every 1 point of receiving yards and TDs (i.e., 100 yards and a touchdown is 16 points for rushing but only about 10.5 for receiving).

I don't mind people having differing opinions and trying to improve their teams, but the league doesn't have a veto ability for anyone but the League Manager and he was away from his computer over the weekend when the trade went through. I protested the trade via email and posting on the league board, and the LM apologized for missing this when he returned.

I have since posted on the board asking the teams involved in the trade to explain why the trade was made and have gotten no response (although it has only been a day).

Am I being a jerk for continuing to demand an explanation? Am I wrong to think this smells of collusion? Is there any way a sane person could make this trade?

[CambiBulungo]

I don't think you're being a jerk...everything you said seems like collusion to me!

[spinnuh]

Yeah I believe an explanation is definitely in order. This trade makes no sense. I understand some people just play fantasy football to get the guys they want to root for on their team, and Ochocinco is one of those guys some people love to watch and root for but this is a trade involving one of the top 5 RB's in fantasy football for a low end WR2 basically.

That's what is good about being in an active league with the option to vote to veto a trade. Most leagues will have this option where if half the league votes to veto a trade it doesn't go through. It's for unbalanced trades like this one where two people are colluding or one of the team owners have no idea what they are doing.

[Dan Lambskin]

no collusion no veto

[AHF]

no collusion no veto

Agreed . . . which is why it concerns me that 4 days after the original protest post and following the demand for an explanation that neither team has offered any type of explanation as to why this was a good faith trade and the team that traded away Rice hasn't even bothered to insert Ocho Cinco into his lineup.

[Cards24]

We use a rotating three voter committee and I can assure you this trade would have failed 3-0 and we are really lenient with our trade votes, in fact can't remember the last time we turned down a trade and we have been going for 8+ years. Beanie instead of Ray Rice would have approved this one, no question... Like Ron Burgundy would say... THIS IS JUST DUMB!

[spodog]

no collusion no veto

Agree

[c0megets0me]

I think you have to veto something that lop sidded .............are you sure its not 2 teams w/1 owner?

[ramble2]

no collusion no veto

Agree

I tend to agree, but a trade like this is why it's nice having an engaged commissioner. Someone who can contact both owners and find out what the hell is going on, and why this trade is being made. It's not like two guys colluding are going to announce it on the league message board. The trade really makes no sense at all, and I think, at the least, the two managers involved could at least explain themselves to the league. Otherwise it's going to leave a bitter taste in the mouth for the remaining teams.

For what it's worth, in my baseball league we've got a more subtle rule about vetos. The commish still has veto rights, but can also demand a modification of the trade. We haven't vetoed a trade in years, primarily because we don't tend to veto unless there's collusion. Instead, there's a couple of trades every year that are so lopsided that the commish steps in, finds out what's going on, and suggests a few modifications to balance things out. The managers involved usually end up suggesting modifications themselves once the worries are brought up, and they are free to bail on the deal rather than accept the modifications. It's worked really well, and has led to no hard feelings so far.

Good luck. I hope this isn't a money league, because I'd be royally pissed if I were in your shoes!

[AHF]

.............are you sure its not 2 teams w/1 owner?

This is a league where one guy was out recruiting returning owners and new owners so it is less likely but still possible. Others on the league board are now openly asking this question, though.

A week after the trade and still no attempt at an explanation from the teams involved.