We all know each other and its a private 12 team league with idp. Team B proposed manning and suggs to team A for portis and boldin. They both agreed to it but im thinkin its not fair for team A. Team A accepted it because he thinks he has nothing to lose since hes 0-4.
QB M. Hasselbeck (Sea - QB)
WR J. Horn (NO - WR)
WR A. Toomer (NYG - WR)
WR A. Lelie (Den - WR)
RB C. Portis (Was - RB)
RB M. Faulk (StL - RB)
TE F. Jones (Ari - TE)
WR/TE M. Clayton (TB - WR)
BN K. Warner (NYG - QB)
BN A. Boldin (Ari - WR)
BN J. Putzier (Den - TE)
QB P. Manning (Ind - QB)
WR T. Holt (StL - WR)
WR J. Walker (GB - WR)
WR J. Porter (Oak - WR)
RB L. Suggs (Cle - RB)
RB E. Smith (Ari - RB)
TE L. Smith (Phi - TE)
WR/TE P. Price (Atl - WR)
BN T. Brady (NE - QB)
BN M. Williams (Min - RB)
Team B thinks its fair and says if anything hes giving up the most. He says "to say hasselbeck isnt far behind manning is wrong. hasselbeck is good but manning is the best. the scariest part is manning is goin to b even better this year with his guarantee to have over 70% completion rating. hes already thrown over 5 more tds than hasselbeck. hasselbeck played one less game but will he throw 5 tds. ill put money that says no. At this pase manning will throw 44td passes. thats a big load." which i think is bull. Thanks for your input guys.
That trade is not even close to veto-able. I don't how your league works but it shouldn't be the commishes job to babysit other teams telling them who they think they should and should not trade.
Edit: Just to elaborate a little, Manning is a definate upgrade over Hass and while Suggs aint no Portis, with the way Portis has been playing he isn't that huge of a downgrade either. Plus team A can trade Hass for someone else after.
Also, 2 points a reception?!?! thats wack. You could potentially sub a pass catching RB like Pittman in for Portis and he would probably do better fantasy wise, not good.
Last edited by Fern on Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Doesn't sound that bad to me. Team A gets Manning (the best player of the deal-this year), and Suggs (an unknown who could break out). He gives up an underacheiving Portis and an injured Boldin. Normally if a RB of Portis' level was struggling after 4 weeks, I would say hold on and see what happens. However, people were worried before the season that he wouldn't be great in WAS. He is really only playing like the anti-Portis crowd said he would. For this reason, it is perfectly legitimate to panic and try to unload him if your team needs a shake-up. As for Boldin, who knows when he will come back, and how effective he will be?
To tell you the truth, depending on what team A is able to get when he turns around and deals Hasselbeck, I kind of like the deal for him.
At the very least, it is not a deal you should veto.
Not even close to vetoable. Manning has been a best and will continue to be so. He probably should have kept Portis and traded something else. All this did was make team B mediocre at QB, mediocre at RB, and made team A excellent at QB, and mediocre at RB. So who do you think actually got the better end of the deal? Now team A can deal Hasselback and someone else for a top RB, and he could make a great bounce back.
team a) upon further review is coming out ahead I think.
In three wr leagues PLUs flex, your WR unit is actually harder to keep stocked with talent than the RB's I think. your third wide out can be crap, and the second wideout average. If he accepts this to gamble on suggs -- which he might be thinking is more of a gamble than portis, but both can be a bit of a gamble right now,
he could flip hasselbeck for a quality wideout and go for three quality guys starting. or combine toomer and hasselbeck for a top flight option and crush people that way, considering he has peyton. its not like he won't have two serviceable backs.
I think the drop off at the various wideout plateaus is in soem ways steeper than the drop off at the rb plateaus. that could be a strategy he is employing.
by Vlad the Impaler_ffc » Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:15 pm
These threads are popping up everywhere. If there is no evidence of collusion and the trade is not unconscionable on its face, let it go through. The analysis is not who got the better deal in your subjective opinion, but whether this trade is so terrible that no sane person could make it. I don't think this trade is anywhere near unconsciounable.
Vlad the Impaler wrote:These threads are popping up everywhere. If there is no evidence of collusion and the trade is not unconscionable on its face, let it go through. The analysis is not who got the better deal in your subjective opinion, but whether this trade is so terrible that no sane person could make it. I don't think this trade is anywhere near unconsciounable.
The trade is in the realm of fairness. As a commish myself, I have to be careful not to let my feelings cloud my judgment. When I see a trade go down, I have to put aside the feelings of: "If I knew that, I would have traded ______ to him!"
This trade is not even close to being considered veto-able.