Boards Division 4 Thread

Molly

Voted against it again

Benimar

padraig_f wrote: »

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.

Agreed. If we assume every player was drafted in the correct order then one team is giving up the 2nd best player and the highest ranked player they are getting in return is the 80th best player.

It's very hard to make a balanced trade from that starting point.

Benny Cake

This trade is only marginally better than the first proposal and is still ridiculously one-sided...
Voted against it again.

This gives a fair reflection on the one sided nature of the trade:
http://www.fantasysp.com/nfl_trade_analyzer/?leftplayer1=Peyton+Hillis&leftplayer2=Marcedes+Lewis&leftplayer3=Justin+Blackmon&leftplayer4=Andrew+Luck&leftplayer5=&rightplayer1=Eli+Manning&rightplayer2=Ray+Rice&rightplayer3=&rightplayer4=&rightplayer5=&usernamesign=&firstname=&passsign=&theurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fantasysp.com%2Fnfl_trade_analyzer%2F

Masked Man

Eli Manning is 25 times better than Andrew Luck?

It looks like this player has not played a game yet. He is either a rookie, injured, or returning from suspension.

At this point in the season his numbers compared to last years:

I'm not arguing for the trade. Just saying those things should probably be taken with a big pinch of salt.

and 0 for Blackmon as well. Come on.

Benny Cake

Masked Man wrote: »

Eli Manning is 25 times better than Andrew Luck?



I'm not arguing for the trade. Just saying those things should probably be taken with a big pinch of salt.

and 0 for Blackmon as well. Come on.

Ok, fair enough, but the trade is still nuts.

2 rookies, a waiver wire pickup TE & a backup RB with upside in exchange for a stud running back and top tier QB

Masked Man

Ya know if you use the projected points here it actually comes to:

Rice + Manning = 563

Luck + Blackmon + Hillis + Lewis = 569

Obviously they're projections and I didn't bother with the scoring sytsem.

Benny Cake wrote: »

Ok, fair enough, but the trade is still nuts.

2 rookies, a waiver wire pickup TE & a backup RB with upside in exchange for a stud running back and top tier QB

Most of the league should be active this weekend so it shouldn't be a problem getting people to veto it if they're against it. Like I said I'm not arguing either way.


I'm really a lot less interested in this than the amount I've posted suggests.

Syferus

While I see both sides I have to question the motives of trying to explain the trade away as being fair by comparing projected points totals. 560ish from two players is far, far, far more valuable than 560ish for four players for obvious reasons - you're only taking up two active spots on your team.

It sounds very much like someone reaching for reasons to support a previously held opinion in the face of any argument against that opinion.

I really don't know what can be gained from that sort of discussion.

Masked Man

Syferus wrote: »

While I see both sides I have to question the motives of trying to explain the trade away as being fair by comparing projected points totals. 560ish from two players is far, far, far more valuable than 560ish for obvious reasons - you're only taking up two active spots on your team.

It sounds very much like someone reaching for reasons to support a previously held opinion in the face of any argument against that opinion.

I really don't know what can be gained from that sort of discussion.

Seriously

Masked Man wrote: »

Eli Manning is 25 times better than Andrew Luck?



I'm not arguing for the trade. Just saying those things should probably be taken with a big pinch of salt.

and 0 for Blackmon as well. Come on.

Masked Man wrote: »

Ya know if you use the projected points here it actually comes to:

Rice + Manning = 563

Luck + Blackmon + Hillis + Lewis = 569

Obviously they're projections and I didn't bother with the scoring sytsem.



Most of the league should be active this weekend so it shouldn't be a problem getting people to veto it if they're against it. Like I said I'm not arguing either way.


I'm really a lot less interested in this than the amount I've posted suggests.

Masked Man

Jesus I still can't believe that post.

padraig_f

Masked Man wrote: »

Rice + Manning = 563

Luck + Blackmon + Hillis + Lewis = 569

This isn't the way to calculate value, by that system you could say that three kickers have a higher trade value than Aaron Rodgers.

You don't really need to work out numbers to see how one-sided a trade this is. But let's do it anyway. The correct way to calculate the value of a player is to compare them to an average player at their position (where average is a player picked in the middle of the draft). It's called VOA (value over average) or VORP (value over replacement player). Average players have a value of 0, above-average players are positive, below-average players are negative. All major rankings are based on this system.

Here are the Football Outsiders VOA numbers for the trade:

Ray Rice: +210
Eli Manning: +25
Total: +235

Peyton Hillis: +6
Justin Blackmon: +33
Andrew Luck: -22
Marcedes Lewis: -38
Total: -21

So two above average players on one side (one way-way above average, Football Outsiders actually rate Ray Rice the most valuable player in the draft), and 4 roughly average players on the other side, where the total is actually below average.

Masked Man

Again I'm not discussing the value of the trade. I really couldn't care less about whether or not this trade is fair.

eagle eye

Masked Man wrote: »

Again I'm not discussing the value of the trade. I really couldn't care less about whether or not this trade is fair.

You really don't understand what its about then.

Masked Man

ehm what?

I'm in Div 3, and I'm not involved in this trade. Why would I care?

eagle eye

Masked Man wrote: »

ehm what?

I'm in Div 3, and I'm not involved in this trade. Why would I care?

Why are you posting if you don't care?

Masked Man

Because there were other discussions happening apart from that one. I tried to stop a few posts ago but then we all kinda turned this thread to ****. Anyway I'm stopping now.

padraig_f

Reminder to vote if you don't like the trade, as it stands it's going through, and the deadline is Sunday afternoon. I don't think the removal of DeSean Jackson has fixed the essential problem of giving up Ray Rice, and not getting anyone from the top-four rounds in return (and no-one has argued that it has).

Benny Cake

padraig_f wrote: »

Reminder to vote if you don't like the trade, as it stands it's going through, and the deadline is Sunday afternoon. I don't think the removal of DeSean Jackson has fixed the essential problem of giving up Ray Rice, and not getting anyone from the top-four rounds in return (and no-one has argued that it has).

Agreed, I voted against it again. Unfortunately, it seems as though people are tired of this fiasco by now & it will be allowed go through...

poldebruin

I have voted against the trade again. As mentioned, it is marginally less onesided, but it was so lopsided in the first place, it still is an unfair trade imo.

Ray Rice is designated by NFL.com as an undropable player on any given week. This is to ensure a fair game. What is being proposed here, is to drop him for the entire season, before a game is played in return for some bit pieces.

What is puzzling to me in this instance, is that after all the conversation this week, there is still no interest in obtaining any value from, what must be clear now, a very valuable player, just an acceptance to request very little and (obviously) give very little. Surely Golf Bravos must know he could get much better value for his team, and more in return by waiting to see if any offers come in.

I had Ray Rice both my years in the FF league, and he's been a workhorse (if a little inconsistent) and would've drafted him in a second. I cannot make a bid for him now however after all of this gazumping of the trade this week.

If the trade goes through, it goes through. Hopefully it'll get the veto it deserves again.

Benimar

I've also voted against it. I've voted against 2 trades ever, both in the last few day.

Just looking there and I see that 6 RBs were taken in the 1st Round after Ray Rice. I'm sure all of those teams would take Rice in a heart beat and Golf Bravos would get much higher value in return.

Jimmy Iovine

RGIII with the first of what will be a lot of TD passes this season.

Two interceptions by the Jets defence as well. It's a decent enough start to the campaign for me.

Jimmy Iovine

Another TD for RGIII and a returned TD from the Jets D. Wasn't expecting this kind of a start. Hopefully they keep it up.

Benimar

Looks like that trade is going to go through. Hopefully we are wrong and it won't affect the balance of the league...but I'm very worried about it being approved if I'm honest.

As has been stated many times its hard to see how it isn't one sided, but we have to go will the will of the majority I suppose.

Molly

How can you see how many have voted against it?

Benimar

Molly wrote: »

How can you see how many have voted against it?

I'm not sure you can. Maybe the GM can?

The trade is still active so there hasn't been enough votes against to stop it yet. When I voted against the last trade it was the vote that meant it was vetoed, and it showed up as vetoed immediately.

I think there are 3 or 4 who have posted on here that they have voted against it.

matthew8

I don't think I can see how many have voted for or against it.

Molly

Anyone intetested in a trade involving gronkowski. Looking for rb help. San Diego Tribesman is the team name.

poldebruin

Well I had a slender lead going into the Sunday night game, but as a Bronco fan I couldn't root against Moyross Piebalds starting qb, Peyton Manning. Now, my only hope is that Malcolm Floyd lights it up tonight and that Ed Dickson does squadoosh!

Biggest Fantasy disappointemnt of the weekend for me was subbing CJ Spiller out of the lineup at the last minute for MJD. Spiller went for 169 and 1 td for 23 fantasy points.

I'll have to take a look at the FA pickings for a kicker if the Buffalo O is anything to go by. Happy that my receivers, while not lighting it up points-wise, seemed to get a lot of targets and reasonable yardage.

I thought Andrew Luck looked very good against a strong bears D. Matt Ryan and Atlanta look "as advertised" against KC in Kansas. Cutler had a good game, an would have had a monster points-wise if the bears hadn't taken their foot off the pedal in the 2nd. I fear a little bit for the season though. He seemed to be forcing the ball into some very tight coverages (doubles and otherwise) and can see a lot of ints for him again this year. ~I hope I'm wrong, as I like rooting for the bears and Cutler. Brandon Marshall is a beast and Randy Moss isn't done yet (SF look like early SB favs, and Alex Smith looked like a different QB)

poldebruin

Molly wrote: »

Anyone intetested in a trade involving gronkowski. Looking for rb help. San Diego Tribesman is the team name.

Would love to Molly, but I'm fairly light at the position ,myself. I thought your RB stable looks fairly decent.

I'm sure you'll have no shortage of offers though!

raven136

Im thrilled with my team

Vick
Kevin Smith
Riddley
Megatron
Andre Johnson
Mike wallace
Keller

Could do with a better TE but other than that

slowharry

looking like a loss for me I need Mc Fadden to outscore R Brown by over 16 points so its not looking good for the Zebras.

Disappointed in Titus Young only 2.5 points and I was expecting a big game from him especially with Cobb on the bench (looks like he has more than special teams to offer)

Wilson screaming at the TV last night 4 failed pass attempts for the game winning TD not a great starting QB to have in your fantasy football.

I'm now back in the QB market

poldebruin

slowharry wrote: »

looking like a loss for me I need Mc Fadden to outscore R Brown by over 16 points so its not looking good for the Zebras.

Disappointed in Titus Young only 2.5 points and I was expecting a big game from him especially with Cobb on the bench (looks like he has more than special teams to offer)

Wilson screaming at the TV last night 4 failed pass attempts for the game winning TD not a great starting QB to have in your fantasy football.

I'm now back in the QB market

McFadden could easily do that for you tonioght. Ronnie Brown won't be getting too many touches afaik.

I might be interested in trading Joe Flacco after seeing Matt Ryan's performance yesterday, I can't imagine I'd be dropping for anything other than injury and bye weeks, but as QB pickings are so thin I'd probably want a bit too much for him.

Hernadez and a big upgrade at wr or rb for me or for flacco and celek or some such.

If you take a look at the depth chart for our league, a couple of teams are carrying 3 qbs if I remember, so they might be looking to offload one a bit cheaper.

Don't bail completely on Wilson just yet, he looks mighty talented, his problem will be getting the time he needs to develop with a big free agent signing, matt flynn in the wings. in fact, why don't you see if you can pick Flynn off the waivers if he's available. There's no value in any other team bidding for him really.

padraig_f

Voting on the Ray Rice trade still open due to players involved being active. I think the quota of 9 votes is probably too high. Obviously the 2 players involved will be for it, so out of the remaining players you need 9/14 (64%) to overturn it. If you have a couple of people who aren't that interested, then you need a very high percentage of people then (9 out of 11/12) to reject it. I'd think a quota of 7 or 8 would be a better number. People don't vote against a trade lightly, so if you have 50% of the other people voting against a trade, there's probably something wrong with it. I'm not saying we can change the quota now, but it does seem a little bit flawed, and if you wanted, you could get bad trades through without much difficulty (especially by resubmitting them).


As for my fantasy week, I had a disaster. My fears realised about Welker, 4th in targets on the Patriots after Gronk/Hernandez/Lloyd. And on a day when the Patriots scored 34, Welker had just 14 receiving yards.

Cam Newton had a bad day with 1 TD, but I'm less worried about him. He still had 300 yards and I see they're still calling designed run-plays for him. Also from a fantasy point of view, he's a lot of fun to watch.

Jonathan Stewart was out injured, and my handcuff pickup Mike Tolbert got hardly any carries.

My Bills defense conceded 48 points against the Jets (!), and finished on negative points. The only way is up, I guess.

poldebruin

padraig_f wrote: »

My Bills defense conceded 48 points against the Jets (!), and finished on negative points. The only way is up, I guess.

I was looking to draft the Bills D, but you nipped in ahead of me. I bought the hype.

If the Jets can do that to them in the home opener in Buffalo??!

Benny Cake

The Ray Rice trade has been vetoed, democracy works!!

Benimar

padraig_f wrote: »

Voting on the Ray Rice trade still open due to players involved being active. I think the quota of 9 votes is probably too high. Obviously the 2 players involved will be for it, so out of the remaining players you need 9/14 (64%) to overturn it. If you have a couple of people who aren't that interested, then you need a very high percentage of people then (9 out of 11/12) to reject it. I'd think a quota of 7 or 8 would be a better number. People don't vote against a trade lightly, so if you have 50% of the other people voting against a trade, there's probably something wrong with it. I'm not saying we can change the quota now, but it does seem a little bit flawed, and if you wanted, you could get bad trades through without much difficulty (especially by resubmitting them).

I agree with this 100%.

jester1980

I took an awful beating last night, time for Cheetahs tet checking the Waivers.

poldebruin

jester1980 wrote: »

I took an awful beating last night, time for Cheetahs tet checking the Waivers.

it's fairly thin pickens there - hope you have a low waiver prioity?

Benny Cake

poldebruin wrote: »

Well I had a slender lead going into the Sunday night game, but as a Bronco fan I couldn't root against Moyross Piebalds starting qb, Peyton Manning. Now, my only hope is that Malcolm Floyd lights it up tonight and that Ed Dickson does squadoosh!

Biggest Fantasy disappointemnt of the weekend for me was subbing CJ Spiller out of the lineup at the last minute for MJD. Spiller went for 169 and 1 td for 23 fantasy points.

Thank God for my sake you left Spiller on the bench, he would have made things very difficult for my Piebalds!!

poldebruin

Benny Cake wrote: »

Thank God for my sake you left Spiller on the bench, he would have made things very difficult for my Piebalds!!

and he's given me a headache as to who will start for Buffalo next week - it has to be him now, right?

It's early yet, but looks like you bagged a bargain with the Manning pick. Didn't your kicker bag you 16 points too?

Benny Cake

poldebruin wrote: »

and he's given me a headache as to who will start for Buffalo next week - it has to be him now, right?

It's early yet, but looks like you bagged a bargain with the Manning pick. Didn't your kicker bag you 16 points too?

With Jackson injured I'd start Spiller, no question..

Manning looks good alright, early days but hopefully he'll get better as the season goes on...

Cundiff bagged me 16 points alright, kinda makes up for Deangelo Williams bringing home the grand total of 0.4!!!

Molly

Ryan mathews being started in our league

matthew8

And the Blue Bloods and Golf Bravos are at it again, but this time the Golf Bravos are getting the crazily good deal. Bravos get CJ2K, Julio Jones, Andrew Luck and Blackmon in exchange for Martin, Santana Moss, James Jones and Eli.

Syferus

Really sounds like something strange is going on there. Are they just trying to stick it to the league at this point? There's no consistency in a trade that's swung that wildly in the opposite direction besides collusion and/or anger.

CoachTO

Syferus wrote: »

Really sounds like something strange is going on there. Are they just trying to stick it to the league at this point? There's no consistency in a trade that's swung that wildly in the opposite direction besides collusion and/or anger.

This doesn't often happen but I agree with Syferus. Sounds like the 2 of them are messing at this point. And someone asked how do you prove collusion or someone taking the piss before. This is a prime example of it.

Whatever about 1 stupid trade 3 in a row is taking the p1ss with the league. I am all for letting people get raw deals if they cant figure it out on their own but to try do it more than once and then throw a stupid deal in the opposite direction shows something fishy.

Benny Cake

CoachTO wrote: »

This doesn't often happen but I agree with Syferus. Sounds like the 2 of them are messing at this point. And someone asked how do you prove collusion or someone taking the piss before. This is a prime example of it.

Whatever about 1 stupid trade 3 in a row is taking the p1ss with the league. I am all for letting people get raw deals if they cant figure it out on their own but to try do it more than once and then throw a stupid deal in the opposite direction shows something fishy.

Agreed, time for the GM to step in here...

poldebruin

It does seem like they are determined to do business alright! Where and how are these complex trades being brokered? I haven't seen any discussion on here or on the nfl.com site.

I'm actually not as bothered by this proposal though. At least there is now some evidence to go on, on which to base the trade.

• Luck looked good against the bears and Manning and the Giants could have a down year.
• James Jones looks like he might break his projections going off week 1 production. Julio Jones could be the top receiver in the league.
• Gabbert (Blackmon) looked a world better in week 1 while now we know that Santana Moss has a viable qb throwing at him by the looks of things.
• Doug Martin is clearly the Bucs starter (blount was healthy afaik and didn't see much action), while Chris Johnson and the Titans looked poor.

On paper I would say this looks one-sided, but it is nothing compared to what was being proposed before imo.

I still wonder how somebody could draft 14 players and be prepared to offer 6 of them for trade less than a week later with (what seems like) no discussion whatsoever?

jester1980

Defo something Fishy going on here,

Does anyone know the two lads? Do they post much?

I have loads of conspiracy theories

frostie500

Guys I think that the time has come to step in on this. For the first trade I gave the benefit of the doubt to both parties but regardless of the changes that they have made to the trade it seems quite clear that they are looking to do something beyond the norm.
The fact that their previous trades were vetoed shows that the league will not support another trade. It's hard not to question whether these players want to have any part in the league by their actions.
I'll leave the decision to the GM but it's pretty clear that we need to do something. If both parties want to become active on the discussion boards and show their intentions/reasons and proof of discussions they would find a lot more support

Benimar

Something doesn't look right here. The first two trades were completely onesided and this 3rd one smacks of an F*** you to the league.

I'd like to hear from the two parties, but I think at this stage the benefit of the doubt has been lost and it's up to the two parties to show that there isn't collusion/an attempt to distort the league.

This needs to be nipped it the bud now.

CoachTO

The irony is had they done the 3rd trade first there probably wouldn't have been any thought to motives with them. But the problem with the new trade for me is the balance of power has gone from Team A to Team B even though the first 2 trades it was the Team A gaining the balance of power from the trade. That for me shows something fishy alone.

As a GM this is how I would handle it now rule 10 has been broken.

- PM them and give them a certain amount of time to come on here and discuss their motives
- Then discuss the trade and their knowledge of it.
- If it seems fishy I would ban either of them from trading for the rest of the season with
- If they then react to that ban by no longer taking part I would kick them and Im sure the mods will back it up and probably ban them from the AF forum also making sure they dont take the piss again.

On a side note I would give more lenience to one team who has at least made an effort to talk in here for the first trade the other team as made no effort being active in here and should at this point be told to come in here and explain.

This event is a good way for us to improve on the rules for next season and opens our eyes to it.