Boards Division 4 Thread

poldebruin · 03-09-2012 11:35pm

matthew8 wrote: »

I think it's less of a big call than drafting a RB. It's far less risky. The bottom line is Brees throws for a ton of yards and TDs. Graham is his favourite target, and he really only has 2 big ones this year, no one other than Colston and him should top 800 yards.

Obviously he is an elite TE, and a beast, just not used to seeing TE's going in the first. Their numbers are trending upwards though, and are rarer than WR's so I can see the point.

I enjoyed that aspect of the draft this year - WR's. QB's TE and RB's all going in the first round. It makes it more interesting than all the RB's jumping off the board followed by the WR etc. With the way the NFL is turning (has turned) to the pass RB's definitely do not have the value they used hold, that said, I did use my first 2 picks on them!

slowharry · 04-09-2012 1:57pm

Well Auto draft was kind enough to me drafting 12

R1 - Dareen Mcfadden - Happy out:)
R2 - Jamaal Charles - decent RB 1&2
R3 - Dez Bryant - Hope the Bodygaurds are up to task
R4 - Aaron Hernadez - Still cant figure out if this is a steal or a reach
R5 - Denarious Moore - He has a dodgey hamstring and Palmer as QB not sure on this one
R6 - Titus Young - hopefully megatron sees a lot of triple coverage
R7 - Ryan Williams - the RB situation in Arizona is not great but its the 7th round so cant whinge much
R8 - Rashad Jennings - If only MJD continued his holdout
R9 - Russel Wilson - hopefully he is more Cam Newton than Blaine Gabbert
R10 - Brandon Lafell - not a bad WR4 option
R11 - Randall Cobb - Who? WR from Greenbay apparently.

R12 - Kyle Rudoulph - Decent backup TE
R13 - Jason Hanson - Kicker, in a dome at least
R14 - Redskins - Defence, don't know why I let it pick a defence:(

All in all the poor QB situation outstanding I cant complain too much. Picks 5 & 7 seem pretty week at this stage but you never know what might happen.

padraig_f · 04-09-2012 2:04pm

Picking 7th.

1. Cam Newton QB
2. Wes Welker WR
3. Darren Sproles RB
4. Jeremy Maclin WR
5. Jonathan Stewart RB
6. Darrius Heyward-Bey WR
7. Brandon Pettigrew TE
8. Shane Vereen RB
9. Kendall Wright WR
10. Felix Jones RB
11. Ryan Fitzpatrick QB
12. Brian Quick WR
13. Buffalo Bills DEF
14. Lawrence Tynes K

Not very happy with my team. Picking order went against me, the guys I liked always seemed to go a pick or two before me, and I was left picking the best of bunch I didn't like.

Picks #1 and #2 have some risk, which is never great at those positions. Newton with just one year under his belt could see a sophomore slump. Welker 31, in a contract year, on a team with some new receiving options. Two guys who possibly over-achieved last year.

Happy enough to get Sproles at #3.

Round #4 was a bit of a sickener, Aaron Hernandez, Mike Wallace and Dwayne Bowe all on the board with 4 or 5 picks to go, and I would've happily taken any of the 3. The 3 of them went (two on autopick) and the best I was left with was Maclin, which I had ranked a level below.

Didn't realise Jonathan Stewart was carrying an injury at #5, but doesn't seem to be too serious.

Thought I got some OK value further down, but it's not going to make up for a questionable top 5.

Jimmy Iovine · 04-09-2012 2:20pm

1. Arian Foster
2. Steve Smith (Carolina)
3. Brandon Marshall
4. Frank Gore
5. Steve Johnson
6. Robert Griffin III
7. Tony Gonzalez
8. New York Jets
9. Sebastian Janikowski
10. Alfred Morris
11. Andy Dalton
12. Steve Smith (Rams)
13. Ronnie Hillman
14. Leonard Hankerson

Missed my draft for the second year in a row. No internet where I am. Only after getting it back now. Also I put no preferences in place or anything. Don't think I fluked it like last year but my team is kind of okay, I think.

Anyone on here care to critique it for me? My knowledge of the players in the game is lacking at the moment.

I did that team evaluater thing and my weakness was at QB and strengths at RB.

I really hope Marshall can do it this year. Had him last year and he drove me bonkers at times. He had the most dropped passes in the league at one stage I think.

Oh yea and it appears I was drafting first which I'm ****ing raging over. I could have done much better with the draft.

padraig_f · 04-09-2012 2:27pm

slowharry wrote: »

R4 - Aaron Hernadez - Still cant figure out if this is a steal or a reach

Ah, it was you then, I had him as a steal at that position.

R11 - Randall Cobb - Who? WR from Greenbay apparently.

This guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0nND-vzPk

Rookie last year, nice sleeper.

matthew8 · 04-09-2012 4:48pm

Anyone on here care to critique it for me? My knowledge of the players in the game is lacking at the moment.

Here we go.

1. Arian Foster

I won't complain about picking Foster really, but I would've picked Rodgers. No one has ever been disappointed after drafting Rodgers.

2. Steve Smith (Carolina)

I would be inclined to go RB around here, but not a bad pick by any means.

3. Brandon Marshall

Jay Cutler is one of my "guys", and so is Brandon Marshall. Good choice.

4. Frank Gore

I think his legs are gone, but I suppose it was like pick 63 and you needed another RB.

5. Steve Johnson

Legit pick.

6. Robert Griffin III

Ditto.

7. Tony Gonzalez

Ditto.

8. New York Jets

This I don't like. I prefer the Eagles who I got in like the 12th.

9. Sebastian Janikowski

Fine pick.

10. Alfred Morris

I won't blame you after drafting a potential starter in the 10th, but I would never draft a Skins RB because I would get migraines and wouldn't be able to sleep thinking who'll start.

11. Andy Dalton

Bang on. It's not a spectacular pick, but exactly what the doctor ordered.

12. Steve Smith (Rams)

Hey, Bradford has to throw to somebody, right?

13. Ronnie Hillman
14. Leonard Hankerson

Dunno. Not questioning the picks just dunno.

Jimmy Iovine · 04-09-2012 5:08pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Here we go...

Thanks very much. I would probably have picked Rodgers alright had I been online for the draft.

Gonna have to take a look at available players and maybe even dip into the trading market.

Hopefully it'll be enough to get me a promotion again.

There's no question about me making next years draft. I can't miss it three years in a row.

jester1980 · 04-09-2012 5:20pm

1. Aaron Rodgers RB
2. Trent Richardson RB
3. Ahmad Bradshaw RB
4. Vernon Davis TE
5. Reggie Wayne WR
6. Greg Little WR
7. San Holmes WR
8. LeGarrett Blount RB
9. Sideny Rice WR
10. Nate Burleson WR
11. New York Giants
12. Blaine Gabbert QB
13. Owen Daniels TE
14. Ryan Succop K

Overall im happy enough with last night, was over the moon i got Rodgers at 3rd pick. In 4 years playing i've never had an amazing QB.

Satisfied with my 3 RB's too.

I could have done a little better on WR but what can you do.

I know projections are rubbish but down for a 131 - 110 victory for week one.

Go Cheetahs.....

slowharry · 04-09-2012 5:27pm

matthew8 wrote: »

And a website that rates your team:
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/rate-my-team/team.php?team=8CC22J978eC6 Edit this team and put in yours to get an analysis.

Thanks for the link, I checked out the Zebras and according to the site with only average in-season management I have a 79% chance of making the playoffs. They are obviously unaware of my poor in season management skills.

Jimmy Iovine · 04-09-2012 5:34pm

jester1980 wrote: »

I know projections are rubbish but down for a 131 - 110 victory for week one.

Go Cheetahs.....

Yea you're right. Projections mean nothing. I'll win that match 120 - 100. Rodgers to throw 7 interceptions and Foster to run in 5 TDs.

padraig_f · 04-09-2012 5:43pm

slowharry wrote: »

Thanks for the link, I checked out the Zebras and according to the site with only average in-season management I have a 79% chance of making the playoffs. They are obviously unaware of my poor in season management skills.

I entered mine into that, it said with great in-season management, I'd have a 50% chance of making the playoffs

matthew8 · 04-09-2012 5:46pm

There are 4 different models of projections on that website, but the analysis is the same.

matthew8 · 04-09-2012 7:56pm

I've had a look around and the Blue Bloods, Zamunda Zebras and the Moyross Piebalds are struggling for depth at QB and have a couple spare WRs. My situation is the opposite, I have Matt Cassel and Matt Schaub, both of which are good backups for a 16-team league, and I only need one of them. Are any of your WRs up for grabs?

Of all those teams the Zebras are the most obvious partners with Wilson starting and no backup, the player who interests me most is Titus Young and I'd be willing to do a Schaub/Young trade. On the blue Bloods only Blackmon would interest me

slowharry · 05-09-2012 9:38am

Considering Young was picked just 3 spots ahead of Cutler as opposed to 2 rounds ahead of Shaub, what about a Young for Cutler trade.

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 2:14pm

slowharry wrote: »

Considering Young was picked just 3 spots ahead of Cutler as opposed to 2 rounds ahead of Shaub, what about a Young for Cutler trade.

That's the problem. Cutler is nearly untradeable for me, and Young is the only WR I'd be interested in. So I guess we can't deal.

slowharry · 05-09-2012 6:56pm

matthew8 wrote: »

That's the problem. Cutler is nearly untradeable for me, and Young is the only WR I'd be interested in. So I guess we can't deal.

Denarius Moore is injured (hamstring) so I'm not really too keen to offload any WR's untill his situation clears up.

poldebruin · 05-09-2012 9:21pm

Hi All,

I see a trade has been proposed - it looks like we can vote for or against the trade on the website. Is this what we want going forward.

If so, I will be voting strongly against it as it looks ridiculously one-sided to me. Again, I'm not sure if we need to give reasons etc, or is that going to be perceived as unfair on the people involved in the trade?

Benny Cake · 05-09-2012 9:22pm

poldebruin wrote: »

Hi All,

I see a trade has been proposed - it looks like we can vote for or against the trade on the website. Is this what we want going forward.

If so, I will be voting strongly against it as it looks ridiculously one-sided to me. Again, I'm not sure if we need to give reasons etc, or is that going to be perceived as unfair on the people involved in the trade?

Completely agree... I will be voting against the trade for the same reasons.

Masked Man · 05-09-2012 9:38pm

What's the trade?

poldebruin · 05-09-2012 9:40pm

Ray Rice (RB - BAL)
Eli Manning (QB - NYG)
DeSean Jackson (WR - PHI)

For

Peyton Hillis (RB - KC)
Marcedes Lewis (TE - JAC)
Andrew Luck (QB - IND)
Justin Blackmon (WR - JAC)

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 9:43pm

Seeing as I'm playing the golf bravos this week that looks like a perfectly reasonable trade. But seriously Lewis is waiver wire fodder, Rice is a 5 round upgrade on Hillis, Manning is a 3 round upgrade on Luck, and Jackson is around a 3 round upgrade on Blackmon too. I'll try to get in touch with the golf bravos and see what's going on. Another problematic aspect is that Eli Manning is playing tonight, and the trade ie pending for saturday morning, so I don't know how that would work.

Benny Cake · 05-09-2012 10:34pm

Can the league GM veto a trade?

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 10:36pm

Benny Cake wrote: »

Can the league GM veto a trade?

I'm think I can, but I think it could be cancelled automatically because Golf Bravos are trading a starter.

Masked Man · 05-09-2012 10:40pm

I'm fairly sure a GM isn't supposed to be able to veto a trade. That's what the league wide vote is for, kinda defeats the purpose of that if you can.

Benny Cake · 05-09-2012 10:48pm

Masked Man wrote: »

I'm fairly sure a GM isn't supposed to be able to veto a trade. That's what the league wide vote is for, kinda defeats the purpose of that if you can.

There has to be some protection against an obviously one-sided trade like this. There's no guarantee all league owners will check in on their team before Saturday, meaning they may not have the opportunity to vote...

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 10:51pm

Benny Cake wrote: »

There has to be some protection against an obviously one-sided trade like this. There's no guarantee all league owners will check in on their team before Saturday, meaning they may not have the opportunity to vote...

The protection is I can say to the owners that the trade is unfair and they must reverse it. I'll give them a chance to come on here and explain why the trade was made. I know this trade has been in the works since draft night, and tbh I think someone made a mistake with the offer or something.

Masked Man · 05-09-2012 10:54pm

Benny Cake wrote: »

There has to be some protection against an obviously one-sided trade like this. There's no guarantee all league owners will check in on their team before Saturday, meaning they may not have the opportunity to vote...

The protection is the league wide vote. It's your responsibility to check, it's your league.

matthew8 wrote: »

The protection is I can say to the owners that the trade is unfair and they must reverse it. I'll give them a chance to come on here and explain why the trade was made. I know this trade has been in the works since draft night, and tbh I think someone made a mistake with the offer or something.

As far as I can see a trade can't be reversed once it's accepted.

poldebruin · 05-09-2012 10:57pm

Masked Man wrote: »

As far as I can see a trade can't be reversed once it's accepted.

No, but you can ask the two owners nicely to back it out. Of course, if the players have played before it's spotted it's a bit of a mess.

On another note, can we dip into the waiver/FA pool yet, after the basking in the glow of my team after the draft, it has lost some of it's lustre!

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 10:58pm

Masked Man wrote: »

As far as I can see a trade can't be reversed once it's accepted.

Well they can reverse the trade, it would just have to be a manual reversal.

On another note, I mentioned this in the draft too, there's obviously no rule, but I would really appreciate it if every team had an avatar. It only takes like 30 seconds to set one and it gives off the impression of a more active league. Any avatar will do.

Masked Man · 05-09-2012 11:01pm

No, but you can ask the two owners nicely to back it out.

How? I'm looking at a pending trade I'm involved in in Div 3 and I don't see a way to cancel it. You'd have to ask them to trade back, which really sucks and could easily lead to problems. Or maybe get a GM to take control of the team and make the trades, but that seems like a bad idea.

League wide vote is the only way to stop a trade going through afaik.

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 11:12pm

It's quite simple. Here's how I would hypothetically do it:

Guys, I don't think that trade is fair at all and I ask you to trade the players you received back.

poldebruin · 05-09-2012 11:18pm

It happened last year and the owners swapped the players back with no problems.

Later in the year the GM did need to kick an owner and take the team in charge and undo a number of trades/transactions. It is and waas a total mess, but you can only try to keep the league as fair as possible for all involved.

The problem with the league voting being the only policing, is that 4 or 5 might be aware of the trade, take time to vote against it, but still lose as 12 other members abstained. I think this would allow the trade to go through.

CoachTO · 05-09-2012 11:33pm

matthew8 wrote: »

The protection is I can say to the owners that the trade is unfair and they must reverse it. I'll give them a chance to come on here and explain why the trade was made. I know this trade has been in the works since draft night, and tbh I think someone made a mistake with the offer or something. .

As league GM you cannot reverse anything. We have it in the rules that the rest of the league votes on the trade. Do not abuse your power of GM to go against the rules we all set in place.

As members of the league if you all don't agree with it click the veto button. Div 3 had a similar situation.

GMs are just figure heads who helped setup the league and help maintain it. The members make all the decisions not the GM.

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 11:34pm

Alright, I'll just vote against it then.

Masked Man · 05-09-2012 11:35pm

matthew8 wrote: »

It's quite simple. Here's how I would hypothetically do it:

Guys, I don't think that trade is fair at all and I ask you to trade the players you received back.

"No, I/we think it's a fair trade, the league had a chance to veto it and didn't. Why should a trade that we both think is fair be undone by the subjective opinion of you/a small number of other players."

There is no way I would undo a trade I thought was fair after it had gone through the vote.

poldebruin wrote: »

It happened last year and the owners swapped the players back with no problems.

Later in the year the GM did need to kick an owner and take the team in charge and undo a number of trades/transactions. It is and waas a total mess, but you can only try to keep the league as fair as possible for all involved.

The problem with the league voting being the only policing, is that 4 or 5 might be aware of the trade, take time to vote against it, but still lose as 12 other members abstained. I think this would allow the trade to go through.

huh I can't remember either of those from last year. I remember the GM taking over control of teams more than halfway through and adding/dropping players and in general doing **** he shouldn't.

The league vote isn't perfect but it's the fairest way to do it imo. It's an owner's responsibility to take an interest in their league. The GM should not have the power to undo a trade.

CoachTO · 05-09-2012 11:36pm

poldebruin wrote: »

The problem with the league voting being the only policing, is that 4 or 5 might be aware of the trade, take time to vote against it, but still lose as 12 other members abstained. I think this would allow the trade to go through.

The leagues have message boards and one that gets sent to each member also you have here to discuss it. If members dont check it thats simply tough sh1t. Besides you only need a certain amount of Vetos.

matthew8 · 05-09-2012 11:40pm

I really don't think we should say anything anyway until one of the owners comes online and we know it wasn't a mistake. If it's accepted, the blue bloods will have Eli Manning, CJ2K, Ray Rice, Eric Decker, Jordy Nelson, Julio Jones and DeSean Jackson. That is a ridiculous team in a 16 team league.

poldebruin · 05-09-2012 11:50pm

CoachTO wrote: »

The leagues have message boards and one that gets sent to each member also you have here to discuss it. If members dont check it thats simply tough sh1t. Besides you only need a certain amount of Vetos.

Well the chairman does have a power of some description as outlined in the charter. I think it's fair to say that this proposed trade falls into that category. This makes no mention of a league vote.

"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. "

Not everyone is going to be active during the week, nor might they have access to emails to be made aware of the trade.

Matthew8 has already mentioned there may be a mistake with the proposal as it stands - it certainly looks odd, so hopefully that will be confirmed to be the case.

poldebruin · 05-09-2012 11:53pm

Masked Man wrote: »

"huh I can't remember either of those from last year. I remember the GM taking over control of teams more than halfway through and adding/dropping players and in general doing **** he shouldn't.

Well it did happen, it may not have been a trade, but it was some sort of transaction that was frowned upon.

Masked Man wrote: »

The league vote isn't perfect but it's the fairest way to do it imo. It's an owner's responsibility to take an interest in their league. The GM should not have the power to undo a trade.

Not all owners will be tuned in throughout the week. If the league vote fails to veto this trade, you would be happy to accept it, and let it go through?

CoachTO · 06-09-2012 12:00am

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 are missing the point of that rule and in this case it doesn't apply as this trade is not an obvious one sided trade. In fact its not one sided at all. Some might not agree with it but Rule 10 does not apply here. If both parties made the trade which both seen it to be fair and no collusion between them happened to make 1 team stronger than the other Rule 10 does not apply.

CoachTO · 06-09-2012 12:02am

poldebruin wrote: »

Not all owners will be tuned in throughout the week. If the league vote fails to veto this trade, you would be happy to accept it, and let it go through?

So what. The veto is in place and everyone knows about it. When trades are proposed people get emails about it pointing them towards it. Also as members of a Boards.ie league it is on every member to be active in the league and check here also. If an owner isnt tuned in tough sh1t, That member is at fault for not bothering to check their own league.

Masked Man · 06-09-2012 12:14am

poldebruin wrote: »

Well it did happen, it may not have been a trade, but it was some sort of transaction that was frowned upon.

Not all owners will be tuned in throughout the week. If the league vote fails to veto this trade, you would be happy to accept it, and let it go through?

I didn't mean to say it didn't happen, just kinda surprised I don't remember it.

I'd accept it if it goes through. I'm probably not the best person to ask though. I'll pretty much only veto a trade if there's collusion, which might be a bit extreme. Plus I agree with everything TO said, it's an owner's responsibility to check the league. Like I said it's not perfect but it's down to the players to make the best of it and be active in the league and on here.

poldebruin · 06-09-2012 12:15am

CoachTO wrote: »

You are missing the point of that rule and in this case it doesn't apply as this trade is not an obvious one sided trade. In fact its not one sided at all. Some might not agree with it but Rule 10 does not apply here. If both parties made the trade which both seen it to be fair and no collusion between them happened to make 1 team stronger than the other Rule 10 does not apply.

Come now, I know that you know your NFL, and you can't honestly say you think this trade isn't an abomination.

Ray Rice for Peyton Hillis
Eli Manning for Andrew Luck
DeSean Jackson for Justin Blackmon
Mercedes Lewis for AN Other that will need to be dropped to make room?

Rice is the #1 rated back on FF Sharks, Hillis is #37
Manning is rated #7 amongst QBs, Luck is #18
Jackson is #28, Blackmon is #38
Lewis, as has been mentioned is waiver wire fodder. (ranked #24 over all TEs)

Any one of these as a standalone trade would raise eyebrows - all three together is completely ridiculous.

poldebruin · 06-09-2012 12:18am

Masked Man wrote: »

I didn't mean to say it didn't happen, just kinda surprised I don't remember it.

I'd accept it if it goes through. I'm probably not the best person to ask though. I'll pretty much only veto a trade if there's collusion, which might be a bit extreme. Plus I agree with everything TO said, it's an owner's responsibility to check the league. Like I said it's not perfect but it's down to the players to make the best of it and be active in the league and on here.

If you only veto a trade where you can prove collusion, then you will not be vetoing any trade at all - how can you prove collusion between teams? You can certainly suspect it, but to prove it?

Rule 10 on the charter outlines two ideas - one-sided trades or collusion. Both conditions do not have to be met by an event to fall into consideration.

CoachTO · 06-09-2012 12:24am

poldebruin wrote: »

Come now, I know that you know your NFL, and you can't honestly say you think this trade isn't an abomination.

Ray Rice for Peyton Hillis
Eli Manning for Andrew Luck
DeSean Jackson for Justin Blackmon
Mercedes Lewis for AN Other that will need to be dropped to make room?

Rice is the #1 rated back on FF Sharks, Hillis is #37
Manning is rated #7 amongst QBs, Luck is #18
Jackson is #28, Blackmon is #38
Lewis, as has been mentioned is waiver wire fodder. (ranked #24 over all TEs)

Any one of these as a standalone trade would raise eyebrows - all three together is completely ridiculous.

My knowledge has nothing to do with it. Rule 10 doesn't apply here unless clear collusion has happened. On face value it does seem like a stupid trade yes but its not completely lob sided and rule 10 doesnt apply here it is up to the members of the league to veto it. And unless collusion can be proven the GM cant touch it. My point here is the GM should not abuse his powers and touch it. If the other league members dont agree they can veto it simple as.

CoachTO · 06-09-2012 12:27am

poldebruin wrote: »

If you only veto a trade where you can prove collusion, then you will not be vetoing any trade at all - how can you prove collusion between teams? You can certainly suspect it, but to prove it?

By discussing it with both members is a way to start but if we create a lynch mob for every trade we dont agree with also no trades will ever get done because everytime it happens people will cry wolf. Besides obvious collusion is obvious. Obvious stupidity and rookie mistakes are also obvious.

Rule 10 on the charter outlines two ideas - one-sided trades or collusion. Both conditions do not have to be met by an event to fall into consideration.

Neither have happened here and you still are missing the point of Rule 10

Masked Man · 06-09-2012 12:27am

If either side can provide a half reasonable explanation for a trade (I'm not referring to this one), I probably wouldn't veto it. I don't have to agree with it or think it's smart but I don't think I'd veto it if there's any thought behind it.

Trades with collusion would be somewhat obvious. If the guys knew each other outside of the league, or it was near the end of the season and one guy was pushing for a playoff spot and the other was near the bottom.

I haven't really given my opinion on this trade, but seeing as how it's week one and I haven't seen anything which says that they know each other irl, it's probably just a bad trade or a bad mistake. I wouldn't veto it but like I said I'm kind of against the veto.

CoachTO · 06-09-2012 12:31am

Simple matter here:

- Contact both members and ask them to explain the trade. As Masked man said it will become obvious if it was done in collusion or with the aim to be lob sided.

- If it is clear collusion and their explanation doesn't fly then Rule 10 kicks in.

- If not 9 of the 16 members need to veto it if people still dont agree with it.

It is all that simple. I have been playing this a long time and have seen trades I thought were stupid get passed but just because my opinion of it was bad doesn't make the trade lob sided or done in collusion just means I don't agree.

poldebruin · 06-09-2012 12:33am

CoachTO wrote: »

My knowledge has nothing to do with it. Rule 10 doesn't apply here unless clear collusion has happened. On face value it does seem like a stupid trade yes but its not completely lob sided and rule 10 doesnt apply here it is up to the members of the league to veto it. And unless collusion can be proven the GM cant touch it. My point here is the GM should not abuse his powers and touch it. If the other league members dont agree they can veto it simple as.

In fact a rereading of rule 10 of the charter doen't mention collusion at all - it just has to be an obviosuly onesided trade that makes a team in the league ridiculously strong (which is strange wording). If the trade goes through I would hope it would be looked at under this rule.

You cannot argue the trade isn't completely lopsided - I just pointed out why it is obviously so. Unless you are arguing that the 3 significant upgrades (and probable everyweek starters) is outweighed by receiving Mercedes Lewis in return.

Well if it's in the leagues hands then I urge all and any Division 4 owners to take the time to login and veto the trade for the reasons outlined above.

poldebruin · 06-09-2012 12:39am

CoachTO wrote: »

By discussing it with both members is a way to start but if we create a lynch mob for every trade we dont agree with also no trades will ever get done because everytime it happens people will cry wolf.

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)

CoachTO wrote: »

Neither have happened here and you still are missing the point of Rule 10

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

Boards Division 4 Thread

Comments