• Commissioner Corner Message Board

  • Ryan G. S. Ryan G. S. Nov 15, 2010 9:47 PM Flag

    Comish needs input on proposed trades.

    I don't want to preface these two trade scenarios anymore than what is fair so I'm just going to state the facts about the league I reside over and then add the 2 scenarios. I want your opinions on both scenarios, not combined. I determine whether this is a "Fair" trade for the PAY league or not. Both trades scenarios were proposed within an hour or two of eachother by the same team.

    1. 12 teams
    2. Pay to play, private league (not free)
    3. 4 playoff spots
    4. One of the traders is current league leader trading with 2 seperate teams ( 1 of which has NO chance to make playoffs and the other that has very SLIGHT chance with a comeback)
    5. Trader A is personal friends with Traders B and C. 6.Trader C does not even fill out lineup weekly anymore.
    7. Standard Yahoo scoring.

    Here are the trade scenarios. Please comment on them seperately.


    Trader A GIVES: Desean Jackson, Felix Jones, Reggie Bush

    Trader A GETS (from trader C): Jeremy Maclin, Frank Gore, Willis McGahee


    Trader A GIVES: Jabar Gaffney, Dustin Keller, Pierre Thomas

    Trader A GETS (from trader B): Ray Rice, Visanthe Shiancoe, Michael Crabtree

    Veto or allow either or both of these two trades???

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 1st seems much more even than the 2nd. veto 2nd for sure!!!

    • in most leagues theres a trade deadline to stop that kind of BS,in my league it was two weks ago

    • Veto them Both. Team A is trying to take you for a fool.

      Eagles recievers are about the same value in my personal book. But in no way is Gore equal to felix Jones.

      Then on the second one I don't even think this should be a question on your part. Ray Rice is a focal point of the Ravens offense, Crabtree is the #1 in SF, And Shiancoe is a decent option at TE. Gaffney is #2 in Denver, Pierre Thomas has been injured all season, and Dustin Keller does not make up for that.

      I say either Veto them both, and tell team A to stop fucking around or let them through and cut him a check for the winnings now.

    • Get off your high horse and allow both trades. I see no problem

      • 1 Reply to Chris the Chemist
      • First Trade:
        Gives up Jackson - 39th, Jones - 109th, Bush - 2216th
        Gets Maclin - 41st, Gore - 5th, McGahee - 147th.

        Seriously? Anyone thinks this is fair? Are you insane?

        Second Trade:
        Gives up Gaffney - 101, Keller - 58th, Thomas - 241.
        Gets Rice - 37th, Crabtree - 106th, and Shiancoe - 132nd.

        This trade might seem more balanced, but it's still a ripoff. All the guys he gets are about to explode for stats, all the other guys have limped along all year.

    • Veto both trades. Besides the fact that both of these trades are NOT fair in any way, the fact that person C never even sets their lineup but now wants to trade says collusion. It's a hoax, and as commish you can't allow these trades to go through on your watch.

    • If a team has given up to the point of not even filling out a lineup than any trade involving that team should be looked at very carefully...As for the trades themselves, Senario 1 is basically Gore for Felix. Bush & McGahee are throw aways and DJax and Maclin are a wash...Don't know many people who would just offer up a prime #1 RB for a RB splitting carriers 3 ways on a bad team.

      Senario 2 Trader A also would be getting the better deal since Thomas is a question mark, Keller is a decent player but is a TE and Gaffney? Gaffney is a WR you pick up when your 3rd string WR is on a Bye. Rice is a versitile RB on a good team and Crabtree is the #1 WR.

      Bottom line - if this is Week 3 and all teams are still viable then they both get passed. Now, teams headed to the playoffs are looking ahead trying to get players with favorable matchups and teams that are out of it just don't care. I would veto both trades based on the teams involved.

    • I would allow both of these trades. Neither seems too skewed and depending on how the owners see these players may be absolutely fair to them

    • First trade is pretty sided for tader a, also the simple fact that the other trader has not been fillling out his lineup leads me to believe that a couple friends got together and said "Hey your not playing and cant win hook me up"......VETO....Second trade needs no explanation......VETO....if are mathmatically out then you shouldnt be allowed to trade with playoff contenders

    • I have been a commisioner of a pay league for 16 years. At first glance.
      Scenario 1
      seems to fairly even #1WR D Jackson for a 1 RB Gore with a couple of throw ins to help it along.
      Scenario 2
      Is not even close to being fair.

      I would try to talk to each of the owners involved in the trade. If they have legit reasons for wanting the deals then you can't do anything about dumb owners all you can do is keep the integrity of your league.

    • if it's a pay to play league, both trades need to be vetoed. they're both very, very suspect as it is, but the fact that both teams are either mathematically eliminated or near eliminated and friends with the league leader is total BS. even if the trade was fair, it should be vetoed based on collusion.

      I have been commishing a pay-to-play league for 7 years now; it is $200 buy-in, 14-team league; winner takes $2200, 2nd takes $400, 3rd takes $200. we have very strict rules about collusion, but the most obvious is: IF YOU ARE MATHEMATICALLY ELIMINATED, YOU CAN ONLY TRADE WITH OTHER TEAMS THAT ARE MATHEMATICALLY ELIMINATED. no team that is contending has ANY business trading with a team that is out of the running. that trade should be vetoed every time.

    • View More Messages

Expert Fantasy Advice

Sign up for Yahoo Fantasy Football