Boards Division 4 Thread

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.

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.