Boards Division 4 Thread

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