Lacy for McCoy

[Chef99]

Why would you slam Chef like that? Chef robbed JDM of Peyton Manning last year, then bent me over on a Russell Wilson trade. He likes to wheel and deal, not all of them are going to be in his favor.

Thanks, Harold. Milk doesn't mean it, he's just being Milk.

sorry chef... did not realize that i called you an asshole...

I had a second note that i did not transition well... My point about you and others who trade all the time is that sometimes you make terrible trades, but when you trade so often it evens out... so you should know who you are vetoing...

Aw, it's all good. I'm actually beginning to understand you now.

 

[tlance]

and thats my problem, if thats what your league philosophy is then just abolish the veto system... Like i said i prefer leagues without the veto system, but once it is there it should be used for its purpose... A trade like this cries collusion because there is no logic behind it(unless Lacy was drafted before McCoy)...

That is pretty arogant, IMO.

Just because you don't see the logic does not mean there isn't any.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

That is pretty arogant, IMO.

Just because you don't see the logic does not mean there isn't any.

How is that arrogant?? there is no way to prove collusion, so isn't it all whether you think it is collusion or not... How else do you decide whether it is collusion or not than if you don't see any logic behind the trade...

You state that there should be a warning, but why should they get a free pass?? If they are colluding then you should snip it from the beginning... and just because the trade is not a BIG deal does not mean it should be allowed...

Assuming that McCoy was drafted before Lacy and that the drafter made his first pick not by auto draft , how can you defend this trade??

again remember that Lacy had a concussion after week one and only 61 total offense in game 2, while McCoy played pretty well(proving that the Sproles affect wont be too much)...

 

[tometom]

veto. there should be more compensation going to the McCoy owner than just Lacy. In PPR, McCoy has a lot more value than Lacy imo. Even if it's a lower level WR swap or whatever, there has to be something that evens that out.

 

[TKOSpikes]

So milk. What about the guy who chose Lacy before Lynch? He can't trade for beast mode under your rules.

This is not veto material. This is one top 10 back for one top 10 back.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

So milk. What about the guy who chose Lacy before Lynch? He can't trade for beast mode under your rules.

This is not veto material. This is one top 10 back for one top 10 back.

You mean lynch before lacy. And yes I would have a problem with that too. Only difference is that the original pick would have likely been after THE BIG 3 were taken.

 

[TKOSpikes]

No. I mean Lacy picked before Lynch, as was the case in many a draft.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

No. I mean Lacy picked before Lynch, as was the case in many a draft.

then I am not sure what you are talking about and where you got the thought that I would have a problem with that deal...

Lynch has been much better than Lacy this season, so he would be trading for the player who is doing better...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

my problem is that the preseason player that the owner has perceived to be the better player has been significantly better so far this season...

 

[TKOSpikes]

I'm talking about the higher drafted player being traded fir the lower drafted player. Are you saying if Lacy had one game of 120 and a TD then you would drop your case? Two games is not something to value a trade on when the players are of this magnitude...maybe for a Gates vs Witten deal everyone would swap sides to get Gates, but if you liked Lacy and drafted him ahead of Lynch, there should be no reason for you to like Lynch better now. After the Seahawks defense on opening Thursday and a tough divisional game @ Detroit where you know Rodgers wanted air stats.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I'm talking about the higher drafted player being traded fir the lower drafted player. Are you saying if Lacy had one game of 120 and a TD then you would drop your case? Two games is not something to value a trade on when the players are of this magnitude...maybe for a Gates vs Witten deal everyone would swap sides to get Gates, but if you liked Lacy and drafted him ahead of Lynch, there should be no reason for you to like Lynch better now. After the Seahawks defense on opening Thursday and a tough divisional game @ Detroit where you know Rodgers wanted air stats.

Yes, i am saying that... A player needs to show that they are worth it before you can change your mind about the player(especially when your original player has done nothing for you to lose faith in his value)... and 2 games is enough when one of the games the player leaves the game with a concussion...

 

[tlance]

There is an owner in 1 of my leagues who literally plays like it is a weekly league. If a player is hurt, he trades him. If a guy is on bye, he trades him for a slightly lesser player who is not on bye. If he likes a player's matchup, he may try and swing a deal for a specific player.

He has been the "loser" of just about every trade he has made in terms of value, yet he has also made the playoffs every year we have done the league.

The point is, value is in the eye of the beholder. It is not your job to manage the other 11 teams in your league. Vetoing trades does not allow people to manage their teams the way that they see fit, and that is the essence of fantasy sports.

If you don't like the trades someone makes, kick him out of the league. That is better than vetoing.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

There is an owner in 1 of my leagues who literally plays like it is a weekly league. If a player is hurt, he trades him. If a guy is on bye, he trades him for a slightly lesser player who is not on bye. If he likes a player's matchup, he may try and swing a deal for a specific player.

He has been the "loser" of just about every trade he has made in terms of value, yet he has also made the playoffs every year we have done the league.

The point is, value is in the eye of the beholder. It is not your job to manage the other 11 teams in your league. Vetoing trades does not allow people to manage their teams the way that they see fit, and that is the essence of fantasy sports.

If you don't like the trades someone makes, kick him out of the league. That is better than vetoing.

Tlance, you are missing the point... If you want your league philosophy to never veto trades, then dont make it an option... once the option is there it should be used when needed, why allow a season to get ruined due to bad trades??? Especially if Money is on the line(not sure if money is on the line here)...

And i will bring back chef here because this was the point i was trying but failed to make about him and others who trade all the time(which is in your scenario)... Some owners get the benefit of doubt, because they are so active and make so many trades... you have to know who you are vetoing, but in the OP the scenario does not seem like the owners should get the benefit of doubt...

 

[tlance]

Tlance, you are missing the point... If you want your league philosophy to never veto trades, then dont make it an option... once the option is there it should be used when needed, why allow a season to get ruined due to bad trades??? Especially if Money is on the line(not sure if money is on the line here)...

And i will bring back chef here because this was the point i was trying but failed to make about him and others who trade all the time(which is in your scenario)... Some owners get the benefit of doubt, because they are so active and make so many trades... you have to know who you are vetoing, but in the OP the scenario does not seem like the owners should get the benefit of doubt...

I know what you are saying and I get it.

I just disagree strongly.

I played in an expert baseball league this year with trades, but no review policy. We all decided to trust others to do what is right, more or less like MBBRL. This is how every league should be, however, the fact that there was no policy made me nervous. I did not personally know the other owners like I know the MBBRL guys. I would never veto any well intentioned trade, but the lack of a policy was slightly unsettling, even though I knew I would not use it.

Vetos should be used to prevent cheating, and that is all. Anything more is overstepping regardless of what the league rules are. I think trading is kind of like the motto for the US Justice system. Better let 9 guilty men go free than to wrongly punish 1 innocent. When in doubt, you need to let it go.

Trading an RB who was ranked # 2 overall preseason for a guy who was ranked #5 is close enough to pass regardless of what performance has been to date. You would not take Lacy over Shady, nor would I, but there are plenty of well intentioned people who might (Packer fans, Lacy's mother, etc).

Maybe the owner in question wanted Lacy all along, but timed out on his first pick and got autopicked. The point is, you never know what someone's reason is, and it is not the other owners place to judge.

Now if the trade was McCoy for Starks, then we would have a big problem.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I know what you are saying and I get it.

I just disagree strongly.

I played in an expert baseball league this year with trades, but no review policy. We all decided to trust others to do what is right, more or less like MBBRL. This is how every league should be, however, the fact that there was no policy made me nervous. I did not personally know the other owners like I know the MBBRL guys. I would never veto any well intentioned trade, but the lack of a policy was slightly unsettling, even though I knew I would not use it.

Vetos should be used to prevent cheating, and that is all. Anything more is overstepping regardless of what the league rules are. I think trading is kind of like the motto for the US Justice system. Better let 9 guilty men go free than to wrongly punish 1 innocent. When in doubt, you need to let it go.

Trading an RB who was ranked # 2 overall preseason for a guy who was ranked #5 is close enough to pass regardless of what performance has been to date. You would not take Lacy over Shady, nor would I, but there are plenty of well intentioned people who might (Packer fans, Lacy's mother, etc).

Maybe the owner in question wanted Lacy all along, but timed out on his first pick and got autopicked. The point is, you never know what someone's reason is, and it is not the other owners place to judge.

Now if the trade was McCoy for Starks, then we would have a big problem.

Already mentioned that earlier as a reason not to veto... I am assuming that he Knowingly drafted McCoy and McCoy was picked before lacy... With those 2 assumptions, i just dont see any logical reason for this trade, and thats why i would veto this deal, because if there is no logic then i have to believe collusion(especially since the 2 owners who made the trade are in a relationship)...

I do agree with you that i prefer leagues that dont have a veto system in place(although i have an interesting veto system that i do what to put in place if i ever commish a real league)...

I just believe that leagues with veto systems should abolish the system if they are never going to use the veto... and if they are going to use the veto, where is the line?? My line, is if i can not make a defense for the "loser".

 

[MilkSpiller22]

just to be more clear, If i am ever to veto in a league, i ask 4 questions.

1. Can I defend the loser of the trade
2. Did the "loser" shop around first
3. Is the "loser" an active owner or make a lot of trades
4. Who did the the "loser" make the trade with

question one is the most important, but the other questions ask if the owner should get the benefit of doubt...

 

[tlance]

just to be more clear, If i am ever to veto in a league, i ask 4 questions.

1. Can I defend the loser of the trade
2. Did the "loser" shop around first
3. Is the "loser" an active owner or make a lot of trades
4. Who did the the "loser" make the trade with

question one is the most important, but the other questions ask if the owner should get the benefit of doubt...

A couple thoughts for the road:

Why should you defend a trade that someone else has made? Have you ever been wrong about a player? I sure have.

Trades would rarely happen if everyone valued players the same way. If somebody had tried to deal AP for Leveon Bell a week ago, would you have vetoed it?

 

[TKOSpikes]

1st round pick for 1st pick is in no way, shape, or form vetoable. Who are you to decide whether or not the McCoy owner is now scared of Sproles? Vetoes are for shady (pardon the pun) deals...not 1st round picks.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

A couple thoughts for the road:

Why should you defend a trade that someone else has made? Have you ever been wrong about a player? I sure have.

Trades would rarely happen if everyone valued players the same way. If somebody had tried to deal AP for Leveon Bell a week ago, would you have vetoed it?

I dont follow what you are saying... maybe i wasnt clear enough...

When i look at a trade, a try to see it from the "losers" eyes, and try to see why they would make the trade, if i dont see a reason then i cant defend it... and if there is a veto system, then when else am i going to use it than for trades that i just dont see why the "loser" would do it...

 

[Raid]

No way you can veto this deal. Lacy was coming off the board as the #3 RB in a lot of drafts this summer. He will get one track sooner or later. Still to be seen how much Sproles effects McCoy. Especially if the plan is to continue to sub out McCoy for entire drives.