Review this trade

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I don't see the problem with this trade at all.

Your example of 195 points for 91 points is completely irrelevant. Has nothing to do with who scored more points in the past, but rather how balanced the trade is from the day of completion.

Then it becomes a guessing game IMO. Rankings is a main tool in determining fairness.

So let me get this straight, you yourself claim they can get more than just starks for NE defense. Even though ypu vetoed a trade where he was getting more than starks for SEA defense

Originally posted by krizay:

So let me get this straight, you yourself claim they can get more than just starks for NE defense. Even though ypu vetoed a trade where he was getting more than starks for SEA defense

And you yourself even said the NE current owner needed WR and RB. he traded SEA defense for both snd ypu vetoed.

I'm not understanding your logic AT ALL. I think instead of assuming and looking for why the have to be cheating. Step back and analyze the trade itself. Leave whatever past history (judging by this trade may have been a manufactured one by paranoia ) in the past.

Seriously just read YOUR OWN comments here and see how contridictory you sound.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by krizay:
So let me get this straight, you yourself claim they can get more than just starks for NE defense. Even though ypu vetoed a trade where he was getting more than starks for SEA defense

And you yourself even said the NE current owner needed WR and RB. he traded SEA defense for both snd ypu vetoed.

I'm not understanding your logic AT ALL. I think instead of assuming and looking for why the have to be cheating. Step back and analyze the trade itself. Leave whatever past history (judging by this trade may have been a manufactured one by paranoia ) in the past.

Seriously just read YOUR OWN comments here and see how contridictory you sound.

Yep. I agree completely. The OP is so paranoid about the husband -wife tandem that he is not seeing that this was a fair deal that made sense for both sides. A trade will never be exactly even but if there is logic for both sides and its close it has to be approved.

Again then why didn't the wife submit a claim for Starks? 3 others did. Don't tell me she forgot. Highly unlikely.

Anyway, they did try to work the system over in 2013 when veto power was given to the owners via majority vote.

You have to consider collusion. And these two have a history, and the trade was unbalanced by the points scored and also how much more valuable defenses are in my league.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by krizay:
So let me get this straight, you yourself claim they can get more than just starks for NE defense. Even though ypu vetoed a trade where he was getting more than starks for SEA defense

And you yourself even said the NE current owner needed WR and RB. he traded SEA defense for both snd ypu vetoed.

I'm not understanding your logic AT ALL. I think instead of assuming and looking for why the have to be cheating. Step back and analyze the trade itself. Leave whatever past history (judging by this trade may have been a manufactured one by paranoia ) in the past.

Seriously just read YOUR OWN comments here and see how contridictory you sound.

Yep. I agree completely. The OP is so paranoid about the husband -wife tandem that he is not seeing that this was a fair deal that made sense for both sides. A trade will never be exactly even but if there is logic for both sides and its close it has to be approved.

Not a fair deal in my book and that's that :)

1. Unbalanced to begin with considering defense are much more valuable in my league
2. Husband and wife factor -- need to consider all angles of possible collusion
3. History of attempted collusion with these two.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I don't see the problem with this trade at all.

Your example of 195 points for 91 points is completely irrelevant. Has nothing to do with who scored more points in the past, but rather how balanced the trade is from the day of completion.

Then it becomes a guessing game IMO. Rankings is a main tool in determining fairness.

You are being way too black and white. Rankings are a tool in determining fairness, but rankings cannot be the end all. Things change. Situations change. Player values change. You cannot go strictly by the rankings.

A few weeks ago, I put through a trade which had someone traded Julian Edleman for Charcandrick West. At the time, West wasn't even ranked in the top 50 running backs. Using your logic, the trade was incredibly unbalanced because Edleman was rated WAY higher. Your logic would say that Edleman, because he had accumulated FAR more fantasy points than West had at that point, the trade would be incredibly unbalanced.

Then there is another scenario in my league which applies to this as well. I just put through a trade that was Danny Woodhead for Carson Palmer. Terribly lopsided in your eyes right? Well the person trading Carson Palmer has Tom Brady also, and his running backs are Marshawn Lynch and LeVeon Bell (or Marshawn Lynch and waiver wire trash since the injury). Well now this person essentially added Danny Woodhead for a bench player. With your logic, this trade would be incredibly unbalanced because Palmer has scored 100 more fantasy points than Woodhead has so far.

Bottom line is, rankings can be a tool. They are not the only tool. You need to not be so black and white and understand that when both parties are happy with a trade, who are you to say the trade is unfair?