Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron


    
      
        Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
        (https://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi)
      

        the Gridiron >> between the 20's >>  Trade...
        
(Message started by: Larsen89 on Jul 23^rd, 2006, 3:50pm)

Title: Trade...
Post by Larsen89 on Jul 23^rd, 2006, 3:50pm

Recently there was a trade in a league I am in, and I was the only one to veto the trade, just was curious in some other's opinions, if you are interested in seeing what the rosters look like now, I can post that...
But here was the trade:

QB Drew Bledsoe
WR Randy Moss

Offered to/for:

QB Mark Brunell
RB Brian Westbrook

I'd like to here some comments.

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by MordecaiCourage on Jul 23^rd, 2006, 4:36pm

Tim, I think it depends on what each guy needed. For instance, if the guy who got Westbrook needed a starting RB more than anything else, then he would likely have to give up more to get him. I think Moss and Bledsoe may be a little much, but only if the guy had no other quality at the positions he gave up. If I had say, Manning, Delhomme, and Bledsoe on my roster and Holt, Moss, and Driver and my RB's were Kevin Barlow, Warrick Dunn, and Marion Barber. Well then I would say I would need to package a deal to another team to get a starting RB...hence the trade I just made makes sense....catch what I'm saying?

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by Larsen89 on Jul 23^rd, 2006, 6:21pm

Kenny,

Here is a new look at both teams that were involved in that trade.

Team A:
QB-
Brunell
Green

RB-
T. Barber
Westbrook
Moore
Alstott
A. Smith
Haynes

WR-
Fitzgerald
S. Moss
Driver

Team B:
QB-
Bledsoe
Volek

RB-
Anderson
McAllister
Jackson
Lewis
Bennett
Dayne

WR-
Glenn
R. Moss
McCardell
Curtis
Bruce

So what do you think now, my problem is Team B, strengthened his team to the point where he pretty much is the team to beat, Team A on the other hand, crippled it. That's just what I'm seeing, you had Two Moss's w/Fitzgerald, with Bledsoe QB'n. Might have been a little weak in the RB depart., but I think losing Bledsoe/Moss & picking up Brunell/Westbrook, you would have been better keeping what you had, and searching the waiverwire, RB's always pop up.

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by Philly on Jul 23^rd, 2006, 6:50pm

I've always subscribed to the idea that as long as there is NO evidence of collusion in a trade, it should be approved.

In this case, it was a bit lopsided, but the first owner had only one legit RB in Tiki. He desperately needed a second starter. He was OK in the WR department, so he was able to give up R. Moss (who is not a certainty to ever return to the top tier WR status again).

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by MordecaiCourage on Jul 24^th, 2006, 3:31pm

Based on the new rosters, I'd say it was fair. They both got what they needed. A little lopsided? Sure... but I wouldn't say it's not a fair deal! :)

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by StegRock on Jul 25^th, 2006, 2:36am

on 07/23/06 at 18:50:33, Philly wrote:

I've always subscribed to the idea that as long as there is NO evidence of collusion in a trade, it should be approved.

Moreover, if it was "guy one" who offered the deal; then, the deal REALLY should not be contested. The deal is surely lop-sided favoring "guy two", the guy to whom the deal was offered. I'm like Philly, though... If the league is comprised of competent, "consenting adults", there is no reason to be voting on trades. I digress... Frankly speaking, allowing voting on trades by rule is indicative of a weakness in a league. I understand that it may be a necessary evil, especially in the early formative years of a league or in leagues put together on the spot, especially over the net, but it should be looked at as a negative and something that should motivate a league to improve and something that a league should work to and hope to eliminate. The trade should stand even though, rosters notwithstanding, it's not a good deal for "guy one", but, again, he offered it... :-X

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by steelkings on Jul 25^th, 2006, 7:13am

Its really hard to be to judgemental at this point in the season about lopsided trades. A lot of the fun of FF is letting some of that play out.

I.E: I had a owner in my league last year ready to pull a preseason trade with him sending T.O to me for Lamont Jordan. He didnt do it because everyone blew him a bunch of crap. "Ya cant send Owens for a 2 back" I for one am glad they changed his mind. Ya just dont know do ya!

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by StegRock on Jul 25^th, 2006, 7:42am

While I agree with sk that we don't,... nay,... can't yet know how it's all going to come out in the wash,... cutting deals in fantasy football is ALL about maximizing (perceived) value at the time (of the trade). [smiley=deal.gif] You don't want to (too drastically) decrease the (generally perceived) value of your team.

Title: Re: Trade...
Post by cwhams on Jul 25^th, 2006, 10:25pm

I would agree, the whole, "Let's take a vote." thing breeds problems. People either don't vote at all, or vote for their own interest and could care less about the interests of the teams involved. As long as the teams involved think it is a good trade it should go through.

Lastly, leagues do need a decent commissioner that takes the politics out of trades. I'll give you Larry Johnson and Peyton Manning this week to beat Johnny's team as long as you trade them back to me next week, so I can beat Jimmy's team. In the case of blatant collusion the commish should step in and either stop the trade or let it go through as necessary to maintain the integrity of the league and the long term interest of it's participants.