Boards Division 4 Thread

Masked Man

poldebruin wrote: »

If I'm missing the point, it must be very well hidden. It simply says that onesided trades lead to a ban.

poldebruin wrote: »

"10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently. "

You have the wrong part in bold iyam.

10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently.

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

I'm not advocating a lynch mob. This started with a question about whether the veto rule was in effect and the conversation started from there.

I, for the most part, wouldn't and haven't vetoed any trades. But this is before a football has been kicked and involves swapping the #1 pick in many drafts for the #37 ranked RB (ADP of 108)



If I'm missing the point, it must be very well hidden. It simply says that onesided trades lead to a ban.

I have asked the mods to clarify the rule but it seems masked man has pointed out where you are going wrong with said rule.

I don't see it as one sided and you can sprout rankings all you want. The only stupid part of the trade is Rice for Hillis. But obviously that was taken into consideration by offering Lewis. Again probably doesnt beef the stock but Manning for Luck and Jackson for Blackmon for many would be considered alright including myself. Both Luck and Blackmon touted for big seasons. It still isnt ridiculously lobsided no matter how you want to make it out to be. Not enough for rule 10 to kick in.

padraig_f

Trade is ridiculously one-sided. All players on one side are better. Ray Rice is a consensus top-3 overall pick, the best player on the other side, Peyton Hillis, was picked at the bottom of the 5th round. The other players involved make it even more lop-sided (Eli Manning clearly better than Luck, DeSean Jackson clearly better than Blackmon). If that's not a ridiculously one-sided trade, I don't know what is.

CoachTO

padraig_f wrote: »

Trade is ridiculously one-sided. All players on one side are better. Ray Rice is a consensus top-3 overall pick, the best player on the other side, Peyton Hillis, was picked at the bottom of the 5th round. The other players involved make it even more lop-sided (Eli Manning clearly better than Luck, DeSean Jackson clearly better than Blackmon). If that's not a ridiculously one-sided trade, I don't know what is.

Then click the veto button if you dont like it. As masked man pointed out the rules says if someone goes out to deliberately destroy the league with ridiculous trades they will be banned. So in this case it is up to every member to veto the trade. 9/16 required in this case.

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

I don't see it as one sided and you can sprout rankings all you want. The only stupid part of the trade is Rice for Hillis. But obviously that was taken into consideration by offering Lewis. Again probably doesnt beef the stock but Manning for Luck and Jackson for Blackmon for many would be considered alright including myself. Both Luck and Blackmon touted for big seasons. It still isnt ridiculously lobsided no matter how you want to make it out to be. Not enough for rule 10 to kick in.

Well if the Rice and Hillis part of the trade were removed, then, no I wouldn't be having the conversation. i would still think it was a bad trade, but not a completely one-sided one. But Rice is in the deal, so your point is moot.

Fantasy football is all about spouting statisitics! The point is, when Golf picked his 3 players @ #2, #61 and #63 ALL of the other players he now so desperately wants were ALL still on the board (80, 81, 112, and 177) In fact, thinking about it this way does lead me to be very suspicious of the trade.

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

Then click the veto button if you dont like it. As masked man pointed out the rules says if someone goes out to deliberately destroy the league with ridiculous trades they will be banned. So in this case it is up to every member to veto the trade. 9/16 required in this case.

I'm sure any active members will click the veto button, but when you have 11for the actual draft. 2 members are involved in the trade. Getting 9 votes for a veto before the season kicks off is going to be tough work.

Look, the point is, this is a b*llsh*t trade that will ruin the competitiveness of the league for all of the other owners this year, whether we get 8 vetos or 9.

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

I'm sure any active members will click the veto button, but when you have 11for the actual draft. 2 members are involved in the trade. Getting 9 votes for a veto before the season kicks off is going to be tough work.

Look, the point is, this is a b*llsh*t trade that will ruin the competitiveness of the league for all of the other owners this year, whether we get 8 vetos or 9.

Ruin the competitiveness of the league? For fook sake thats bs and you know it.

But simple fact rule 10 is not in breach here and if members cant be bothered to log in and look after their teams or veto the trade it shows they dont care about the trade or the league also. They would have gotten the email, they would have noticed when they sign into NFL.com and they would have noticed if they came in here.

But my point is the boards.ie member run these leagues as members leagues and have full say and the GM should not be cancelling anything unless the charter has been breached and in this case the charter hasn't.

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

Fantasy football is all about spouting statisitics! The point is, when Golf picked his 3 players @ #2, #61 and #63 ALL of the other players he now so desperately wants were ALL still on the board (80, 81, 112, and 177) In fact, thinking about it this way does lead me to be very suspicious of the trade.

What I suggest is a mod contacts both players and also every player in the league contact them also and explain themselves and if they cant give the Mod a reasonable explanation he then tells the GM to cancel the trade. Their BS will be very apparent if they aim to wreck the league.

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

What I suggest is a mod contacts both players and also every player in the league contact them also and explain themselves and if they cant give the Mod a reasonable explanation he then tells the GM to cancel the trade. Their BS will be very apparent if they aim to wreck the league.

Agreed. Again I hope it is an error and much ado about nothing.

So all they have to do is explain why they would trade Rice #2 for Hillis #80(who is also a backup RB to Jamaal Charles btw) before a ball has been kicked.

Then explain with a straight face why they would trade eli manning, who threw for nearly 5000 yeards last year, who throws to Hakeem Nicks and Victor Cruz for a rookie qb with very few weapons.

Finally, explain why they think desean Jackson, with Michael Vick throwing him the ball in the high-powered Phillie Offence will be a worse WR this year than Justin Blackmon who is being powered by Blaine Gabbert in the woeful Jacksonville Offence.

matthew8

I highly doubt collusion ( which is being implied here), unless they've been real thorough. They were discussing the trade in the draft lobby. I still think it was a mistake. Maybe Julio Jones was meant to be in there or something. So don't carelessly throw around accusations, because I know I wouldn't like to be accused of cheating. Let's give it a rest until one of them tells us what's going on.

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

Ruin the competitiveness of the league? For fook sake thats bs and you know it.

No, I genuinely beleive what I said. I want to keep the leagues as fair as possible. Again, I don't mind one side getting the better of another in a deal, but this would be ridiculous

CoachTO wrote: »

But simple fact rule 10 is not in breach here and if members cant be bothered to log in and look after their teams or veto the trade it shows they dont care about the trade or the league also. They would have gotten the email, they would have noticed when they sign into NFL.com and they would have noticed if they came in here.

As explained earlier, not everyone regularly checks email. The season hasn't even started yet. Most might not check back till the saturday before kickoff (tongihts game excepted) This is a huge (onesided) trade of major pieces before a ball is even kicked.

CoachTO wrote: »

But my point is the boards.ie member run these leagues as members leagues and have full say and the GM should not be cancelling anything unless the charter has been breached and in this case the charter hasn't.

~I think it could be a breach. I suppose we could ask the members if it comes down to it.

padraig_f

CoachTO wrote: »

Then click the veto button if you dont like it. As masked man pointed out the rules says if someone goes out to deliberately destroy the league with ridiculous trades they will be banned. So in this case it is up to every member to veto the trade. 9/16 required in this case.

Yeah I did vote against it, and while I'm against the trade, I don't think it falls under rule 10, which is to guard against people purposely sabotaging the league. I don't think this was the case here, but let's see what the guys say.

poldebruin

matthew8 wrote: »

I highly doubt collusion ( which is being implied here), unless they've been real thorough. They were discussing the trade in the draft lobby. I still think it was a mistake. Maybe Julio Jones was meant to be in there or something. So don't carelessly throw around accusations, because I know I wouldn't like to be accused of cheating. Let's give it a rest until one of them tells us what's going on.

Agreed. I didn't want to mention my reasons for being against the trade at all (I don't think you should lobby for vetos against a genuine trade) but when others claim they can't see what the problem is, you have to elaborate.

I'm off to watch the game. Hope it;s a good un!

slowharry

Am I remembering things ass ways but was there a F/A list of players once the waiver period was up that could be picked up instantly without the whole waiver process.
I just went to the bottom of the waiver list to switch my defence, putting me well out of the Olgetree race.

jester1980

Have to agree with the lads here, this is a shockingly one sided trade.

No idea why the other team would accept it.

Ive just gone in and voted against it too.

slowharry

Voted against the trade not because my beloved Zebras are playing the Sharks this week, but because its ridiculous

jester1980

Thats about 5 votes against now, just need 4 more so.

Benny Cake

Could I suggest the GM email all owners via the league homepage on NFL.com, as not all are gauranteed to see this discussion?

Benimar

jester1980 wrote: »

Thats about 5 votes against now, just need 4 more so.

I am just about to vote against it now, so thats 6.

I can deal with a one-for-one trade where one player is clearly better than another, but the trade benefits the needs of both teams. This, however, is completely one sided.

All 3 players on one side are superior to their equivalent on the other side (Lewis is just a throwaway addition). The trade significantly improves Blue Bloods but pretty much destroys Golf Bravos.

Count me as a no..going to vote now.

EDIT: It appears my vote was actually the 9th veto, so the trade has now been overturned.

Molly

Can we get a justification behind the trade anyway?

frostie500

Guys I was alerted to the conversation relating to the trade and have been reading through the thread to get a feel for what everyone believes but I cant see any issue with the trade.

It's pretty clear that this has the potential to be a lobsided trade but it also has to be said that Luck has been drafted highly in a lot FF drafts and Hillis was a top pick last year after his breakout season with the Browns. Jackson underperformed last year so trading him for Blackman is reasonable.

Rule 10 hasnt been broken and therefore I cant see any issues with this trade. All the players in the league have a right to veto the trade so if enough of you can agree to veto than the trade wont go through otherwise there is no reason to stop the trade

jester1980

The issue is closed now, no point in asking why thye did it? Trade has been cancelled.

Now its time to get on with the season and watch the Cheetahs destroy many opponents

Benimar

frostie500 wrote: »

Guys I was alerted to the conversation relating to the trade and have been reading through the thread to get a feel for what everyone believes but I cant see any issue with the trade.

It's pretty clear that this has the potential to be a lobsided trade but it also has to be said that Luck has been drafted highly in a lot FF drafts and Hillis was a top pick last year after his breakout season with the Browns. Jackson underperformed last year so trading him for Blackman is reasonable.

Rule 10 hasnt been broken and therefore I cant see any issues with this trade. All the players in the league have a right to veto the trade so if enough of you can agree to veto than the trade wont go through otherwise there is no reason to stop the trade

FWIW, I don't believe there was collusion or a deliberate attempt to weaken a team. I do, however, feel its a very lopsided trade and that is why I voted to veto it. Its the first time I've vetoed a trade, but I feel it was necessary.

I don't think anyone can claim collusion before a game has been played!!

poldebruin

frostie500 wrote: »

Guys I was alerted to the conversation relating to the trade and have been reading through the thread to get a feel for what everyone believes but I cant see any issue with the trade.

It's pretty clear that this has the potential to be a lobsided trade but it also has to be said that Luck has been drafted highly in a lot FF drafts and Hillis was a top pick last year after his breakout season with the Browns. Jackson underperformed last year so trading him for Blackman is reasonable.

Rule 10 hasnt been broken and therefore I cant see any issues with this trade. All the players in the league have a right to veto the trade so if enough of you can agree to veto than the trade wont go through otherwise there is no reason to stop the trade

Well i'm happy the trade was vetoed, and to let that be the end of it.

However for the moderator of the Fantasy Football not to be able to see that this was a hugely disproportionate trade beggars belief. If this isn't a onesided trade, then I don't think we will ever see one.

Look at it this way, would eyebrows have been raised if Golf had picked any of the proposed players at #2 in the draft which is essentially what was being proposed.

On the plus side, it's nice to have such an active league.

Finally, I generally don't even take much of an interest in the trades that take place, but this one jumped out.

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

However for the moderator of the Fantasy Football not to be able to see that this was a hugely disproportionate trade beggars belief. If this isn't a onesided trade, then I don't think we will ever see one.
.

This is all irrelevant because the mods will only step in if the charter is abused. In this case the Charter was not abused and was something the members were in a position to resolve which you all did in the end. As Frostie pointed out Rule 10 or the charter was not abused.

Benny Cake

CoachTO wrote: »

This is all irrelevant because the mods will only step in if the charter is abused. In this case the Charter was not abused and was something the members were in a position to resolve which you all did in the end. As Frostie pointed out Rule 10 or the charter was not abused.

5 years playing fantasy football and I've never seen a trade vetoed....
Clearly there was something wrong with it....

CoachTO

Benny Cake wrote: »

5 years playing fantasy football and I've never seen a trade vetoed....
Clearly there was something wrong with it....

I fail to see the relevance of what you posted and what you quoted.

Oh and over 10 years playing fantasy and I have seen many trades vetoed both here and stateside. Usually because the a non bias GM steps in or the members discuss it and veto it which has happened here because they have the power to.

eagle eye

Thats one of the most ridiculous trades I have ever seen. I looked at it myself in disbelief and then went to some trade analysers and they all bring it up as horrendous.

EveAlex

im evan and im one part of this trade

in teh draft it was made clear that the golf bravos didnt want ray rice

seems the guys really likes Luck as do i. hes also a jacksonville fan

the original offer was jackson and eli for luck and blackmon

i didnt really want to give either up, especially not luck as i think he may have a cam newton style rookie season. i also think jackson is overrated and overpaid.

but i really wanted rice

so we haggled and settled on a 4 for 3 deal

i dont see the issue - both teams get who they want to be on their roster

Benny Cake

CoachTO wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of what you posted and what you quoted.

Oh and over 10 years playing fantasy and I have seen many trades vetoed both here and stateside. Usually because the a non bias GM steps in or the members discuss it and veto it which has happened here because they have the power to.

I guess I was implying that, IMO, the trade was in violation of the charter. As some other posters have alluded to, the trade was ridiculous in the extreme....

In any case, its done now so onwards and upwards....

CoachTO

Benny Cake wrote: »

I guess I was implying that, IMO, the trade was in violation of the charter. As some other posters have alluded to, the trade was ridiculous in the extreme....

In any case, its done now so onwards and upwards....

If you read rule 10 you will see it clearly wasn't in violation. Did you read the thread at all? Rule 10 is about someone with intent to wreck the league with lobsided trades. I doubt either members had any intent to wreck the league.

CoachTO

EveAlex wrote: »

im evan and im one part of this trade

in teh draft it was made clear that the golf bravos didnt want ray rice

seems the guys really likes Luck as do i. hes also a jacksonville fan

the original offer was jackson and eli for luck and blackmon

i didnt really want to give either up, especially not luck as i think he may have a cam newton style rookie season. i also think jackson is overrated and overpaid.

but i really wanted rice

so we haggled and settled on a 4 for 3 deal

i dont see the issue - both teams get who they want to be on their roster

And this here is why it should have been discussed with both members before everyone got their knickers in a twist. As I said earlier both members probably thought it was a fair trade and saw nothing wrong with it. Both got what they wanted.

In one of the league in the US im in this trade would have been allowed after discussing if it was confirmed both members knew what they were giving up.

EveAlex

CoachTO wrote: »

Both got what they wanted.

thats why we both haggled and countered since the draft

we both give up something in order to gain something



last year i saw jeremy maclin get swapped for victor cruz and we all thought it was a mental trade. the last laugh was had by the guy on the 'losing end'

matthew8

Here's the thing though, if all those players were so well liked by both of you, why weren't they drafted far earlier?

CoachTO

matthew8 wrote: »

Here's the thing though, if all those players were so well liked by both of you, why weren't they drafted far earlier?

To be fair how many players have you said to yourself in a draft you will go and get and dont pull the trigger on or keep saying Oh I will get him in later rounds and someone grabs him before you. That argument of why didnt you draft them is stupid. So you are basically saying no one should ever trade and should have gotten said picks in the draft.

Benny Cake

matthew8 wrote: »

Here's the thing though, if all those players were so well liked by both of you, why weren't they drafted far earlier?

Exactly, the guy drafted Rice second overall and immediately declared "he's on the block"

Why draft him with the second pick if you dislike the guy that much?

EveAlex

Benny Cake wrote: »

Exactly, the guy drafted Rice second overall and immediately declared "he's on the block"

Why draft him with the second pick if you dislike the guy that much?

i dont know why

maybe the pressure of second pick made him pick the no.2 RB in the league as opposed to someone he truelly liked

if he took luck or blackmon with the second pick wed have all though him mad!

Benimar

I think it's lop-sided as one team has given up the 2nd, 63rd and 66th picks for the 80th, 81st, 112th and 177th picks.

I cannot see how that can be an equitable trade. Any trade analyser you put that into is showing it as completely one-sided.

eagle eye

EveAlex wrote: »

i dont know why

maybe the pressure of second pick made him pick the no.2 RB in the league as opposed to someone he truelly liked

if he took luck or blackmon with the second pick wed have all though him mad!

And we'd all think he is mad doing a trade like that. Totally ridiculous and one of you knew well it was and it should never have went ahead. One of you knew it was never going to happen too. And that person should have had a bit of cop on.

poldebruin

EveAlex wrote: »

im evan and im one part of this trade

in teh draft it was made clear that the golf bravos didnt want ray rice

seems the guys really likes Luck as do i. hes also a jacksonville fan

the original offer was jackson and eli for luck and blackmon

i didnt really want to give either up, especially not luck as i think he may have a cam newton style rookie season. i also think jackson is overrated and overpaid.

but i really wanted rice

so we haggled and settled on a 4 for 3 deal

i dont see the issue - both teams get who they want to be on their roster

Hi Evan,

Thanks for coming on and clearing things up. As i had mentioned earlier, Manning and Jackson for Luck and Blackmon i would have no argument against (even though i still think it's a terrible deal for the Manning/Jackson side)

I can see that there is a thought process behind it, but it seems strange that after the draft a deal would be put together for 4 players that golf could have picked with any one of the picks he's giving up but chose not to.

The Ray Rice for Peyton Hillis was the large straw that broke the camel's back in this instance. I hope this doesn't put you off, and it bodes well forthe league that we have so many actively participating

EveAlex

were two team owners in a fantasy league

were entitled to believe we can carry out a trade between each other

it takes two to accept a trade remember

both parties were getting what they want

for him he was getting his projected top QB, a backup RB and two players he loved from his club

i was gettin a replacement for luck and my top RB

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

If you read rule 10 you will see it clearly wasn't in violation. Did you read the thread at all? Rule 10 is about someone with intent to wreck the league with lobsided trades. I doubt either members had any intent to wreck the league.

I'm not even sure why you're taking such an interest in this particular division. i appreciate you dropping by and giving your opinion, but it was clear that many in the league felt it *could* be a violation. The moderators have dealt with it and the issue is over.

Rule 10 asks boards members to prove intent, i would say that this is impossible to do or police and if that is the case it should be taken out or amended to put it to a league vote or some such - if you get 10 votes that they think it is then the user should be booted?

Evan or Golf, now that you have explained the trade i'm happy and I'm sure the other members are that there was no intent in this instance.

poldebruin

EveAlex wrote: »

were two team owners in a fantasy league

were entitled to believe we can carry out a trade between each other

it takes two to accept a trade remember

both parties were getting what they want

for him he was getting his projected top QB, a backup RB and two players he loved from his club

i was gettin a replacement for luck and my top RB

Thanks for explaining. I agree there was a thought process there and that you were both acting in good faith.

Most of the members have also explained that they rarely if ever veto trades, myself included. This one just stands out.

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

I'm not even sure why you're taking such an interest in this particular division. i appreciate you dropping by and giving your opinion, but it was clear that many in the league felt it *could* be a violation. The moderators have dealt with it and the issue is over.

Oh I am sorry I didn't realise I couldn't post in other threads in the AF forum without approval. The fact of the matter is I was quoted I responded and then was told there was a Rule violation even though we all already established including the mod there wasn't hence what you quoted. But my apologies I will stay out of your way.

poldebruin

CoachTO wrote: »

Oh I am sorry I didn't realise I couldn't post in other threads in the AF forum without approval. The fact of the matter is I was quoted I responded and then was told there was a Rule violation even though we all already established including the mod there wasn't hence what you quoted. But my apologies I will stay out of your way.

there's no need to be defensive. I said that i appreciated your opinion and that you took the time to read through and respond (even if i didn't agree with it).

CoachTO

poldebruin wrote: »

there's no need to be defensive. I said that i appreciated your opinion and that you took the time to read through and respond (even if i didn't agree with it).

The fact of the matter is had I not dropped into the thread the GM would have most likely vetoed the trade even though as I pointed out early on it was up to you guys as members to do so. I also brought it to the attention of Frostie to ask him his ruling on it and to post on thread. As to why I care about any of these divisions is because I was one of the few bodies who helped get the boards leagues up and running and try make sure it keeps going every year. The league aren't perfect and some rules need to be discussed but I felt it was necessary to make sure things were done right regardless of our opinions on the trade.

matthew8

CoachTO wrote: »

poldebruin wrote: »

there's no need to be defensive. I said that i appreciated your opinion and that you took the time to read through and respond (even if i didn't agree with it).

The fact of the matter is had I not dropped into the thread the GM would have most likely vetoed the trade even though as I pointed out early on it was up to you guys as members to do so. I also brought it to the attention of Frostie to ask him his ruling on it and to post on thread. As to why I care about any of these divisions is because I was one of the few bodies who helped get the boards leagues up and running and try make sure it keeps going every year. The league aren't perfect and some rules need to be discussed but I felt it was necessary to make sure things were done right regardless of our opinions on the trade.

I would've actually checked the rule before doing anything.

slowharry

I think that's enough trade talk. Lets get back into some Fantasy football banter.

Will the Blue Bloods overcome this weeks emotional roller-coaster and adopt an us against them attitude.

Can my Zebras handle the intensity of division 4 FF following our promotion from div5.

Go Zebras

matthew8

A new trade was proposed, basically the last one minus DeSean Jackson.

padraig_f

matthew8 wrote: »

A new trade was proposed, basically the last one minus DeSean Jackson.

It's still very one-sided IMO, any time you're giving up a top-3 overall player and don't get a 1st or 2nd-rounder in return, it's going to be one-sided, no matter how you rejig the smaller pieces.

I don't like vetoing trades, but I do think this has the potential to damage the league. A guy would be getting Ray Rice, the 2nd overall pick, while keeping all his picks from rounds 1 through 4. If we assume the top 64 players were taken in rounds 1-4, he's got a top-3 player, whilst giving up no-one better than 64th. I think that would be a very hard team for anyone to beat.