Fair trade or veto? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Fair trade or veto?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby BrutallyHuge » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:39 am

So if someone is a fantasy football newbie and loves Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith, it's okay to trade Randy Moss and Priest for Jerry Rice and Emmitt? It wouldn't be collusion.

Obviously, collusion should be vetoed, but I think unconscionable trades should also be given consideration for veto. Maybe you cutthroats play fantasy football to pay your rent, but I play it for fun.
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby Plindsey88 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:49 am

BrutallyHuge wrote:So if someone is a fantasy football newbie and loves Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith, it's okay to trade Randy Moss and Priest for Jerry Rice and Emmitt? It wouldn't be collusion.

Obviously, collusion should be vetoed, but I think unconscionable trades should also be given consideration for veto. Maybe you cutthroats play fantasy football to pay your rent, but I play it for fun.


If after 4 weeks of play Jerry Rice and Moss had equal stats, and Emmitt had way better stats than Priest, then I don't see how you could veto it... You are more or less telling the owner with underperforming players, "Sorry, you're stuck with them because they were good last year." if you do.... That's not fair at all... You have to let the guy that is getting panicky learn from his mistake...

Who is to say for sure that Portis turns it around or that Tiki falls off? That might not even happen...

And who is to say that Palmer turns it around and starts going back to Chad over TJ, or that Stallworth does not replace Horn as Brooks' favorite target... This has been the year of the #2 WR in the NFL, and I don't see how you can tell a guy that he is not allowed to trade an underperforming #1 for two up and coming #2's... And I don't see how you can tell him that he has to hold onto a struggling Clinton in a new system and is not allowed to trade for a breaking out Tiki in a new system...

Yes, last year this trade would be VERY suspect, but this year, so far, this trade is about even....

You cannot FORCE an owner to stick by underperforming players because of their past performances...
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Bowie » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:52 am

BrutallyHuge wrote:So if someone is a fantasy football newbie and loves Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith, it's okay to trade Randy Moss and Priest for Jerry Rice and Emmitt? It wouldn't be collusion.

Obviously, collusion should be vetoed, but I think unconscionable trades should also be given consideration for veto. Maybe you cutthroats play fantasy football to pay your rent, but I play it for fun.

I agree that this is a bad trade. We all seem to agree that it is not callusion. But this it not at all like your Emmitt/Rice example. I haven't looked up exact stats for all of these players, but I would be willing to bet that based on stats so far this year alone, Team B would actually be the winner in this trade. Obviously, none of us agree that this early trend will continue, but you cannot veto this trade. We are already 4 weeks into the season, if someone wants to give up struggling stars and pick up lesser, but productive players, that is his right.
Don't veto it.
Last edited by Bowie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am so smart. S-M-R-T
Bowie Beginner
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1594
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama

Postby BrutallyHuge » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:54 am

Plindsey88 wrote:If after 4 weeks of play Jerry Rice and Moss had equal stats, and Emmitt had way better stats than Priest, then I don't see how you could veto it...


I'm talking about right now. Would you let Jerry Rice and Emmitt for Priest Holmes and Randy Moss go through if there is no collusion?
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby Plindsey88 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:56 am

BrutallyHuge wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:If after 4 weeks of play Jerry Rice and Moss had equal stats, and Emmitt had way better stats than Priest, then I don't see how you could veto it...


I'm talking about right now. Would you let Jerry Rice and Emmitt for Priest Holmes and Randy Moss go through if there is no collusion?


The owner would have to prove to me that there was no collusion... He'd have to give me a DAMN good reason why he thought this trade would improve his team.... If he couldn't, then I simply would not believe that there was no collusion....
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Plindsey88 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:57 am

Bowie wrote:
BrutallyHuge wrote:So if someone is a fantasy football newbie and loves Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith, it's okay to trade Randy Moss and Priest for Jerry Rice and Emmitt? It wouldn't be collusion.

Obviously, collusion should be vetoed, but I think unconscionable trades should also be given consideration for veto. Maybe you cutthroats play fantasy football to pay your rent, but I play it for fun.

I agree that this is a bad trade. We all seem to agree that it is not callusion. But this it not at all like your Emmitt/Rice example. I haven't looked up exact stats for all of these players, but I would be willing to bet that based on stats so far this year alone, Team B would actually be the winner in this trade. Obviously, none of us agree that this early trend will continue, you cannot veto this trade. We are already 4 weeks into the season, if someone wants to give up struggling stars and pick up lesser, but productive players, that is his right.


Exactly.... ;-D
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Pete123444 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:04 am

i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.
Pete123444
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Sweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 2523
Joined: 5 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tucson Arizona

Postby BrutallyHuge » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:20 am

Pete123444 wrote:i've been in several leagues that folded after stupid trades that didn't involve collusion. i'd veto it.


I've seen this happen before too. Trades like this ruin leagues.
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby eaglesrule » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:23 am

the only problem is barber is not emmitt smith or jerry rice. he had really high yardage totals last year, and the team seems to be better.

washington seems to be going nowehere fast.

I still think it is lopsided because houzamawaht'shisname and stallworth do not equal cj. and AT BEST based ont his year's stats and alst year's, barber and portis are equal. (I don't think so, but someone could argue it a bit I think)

I don't like vetos though. if that is your culture, do it.

but basically, I think it comes down to stallworth and the long h for johnson is the only total rip off part of the deal.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Plindsey88 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:29 am

eaglesrule wrote:the only problem is barber is not emmitt smith or jerry rice. he had really high yardage totals last year, and the team seems to be better.

washington seems to be going nowehere fast.

I still think it is lopsided because houzamawaht'shisname and stallworth do not equal cj. and AT BEST based ont his year's stats and alst year's, barber and portis are equal. (I don't think so, but someone could argue it a bit I think)

I don't like vetos though. if that is your culture, do it.

but basically, I think it comes down to stallworth and the long h for johnson is the only total rip off part of the deal.


But consider this:

Chad Johnson has 20 receptions...

Donte Stallworth has 22, and having not even started the whole season, TJ has 17....
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 6:49 hours
(and 54 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact