I picked up Donald Brown yesterday and seriously thought about starting him over Le'Veon Bell. That might be a mistake.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hardware League - 2013 MacRumors NFL Fantasy Football
- Thread starter mscriv
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, it's interesting to see how Donald Brown has turned out to be the more productive back in Indy after the Richardson trade.
I've never had faith in Richardson. When he was traded he was seeing 7 or more men in the box just 18% of the time and the league average was 23%. That tells me defensive coordinators were more worried about the Browns passing game than the running game. So far his career has been nothing but hype. He got a lot of TDs last year because the Browns had nothing else going for them once in the red zone.
Donald Brown on the other hand is still a mystery. He's averaging over 6 yards per carry since the trade. He's also been helpful in the passing game. He just doesn't have the raw skills I expect from a guy putting up these types of numbers. He may crash back to reality, but I'm betting that he gets the majority of the carries for the rest of the season.
Hey Berlin Pretzels - sent you a trade offer.....
This goes out to anyone really - looking to trade Gates and a RB (Murray specifically) for a WR. I offered the tandem for Alshon Jeffery and an injured Denarius Moore. I'm looking for someone in that middle tier WR category.
Feel free to send offers my way. I know the bye is hitting Pretzel hard with both McCoy and his TE out this week.
This goes out to anyone really - looking to trade Gates and a RB (Murray specifically) for a WR. I offered the tandem for Alshon Jeffery and an injured Denarius Moore. I'm looking for someone in that middle tier WR category.
Feel free to send offers my way. I know the bye is hitting Pretzel hard with both McCoy and his TE out this week.
Speaking of trades, I have more startable (is that a word?) RBs than I know what to do with: Zac Stacy, Donald Brown, Steven Jackson, Ray Rice, Pierre Thomas, Le'Veon Bell, and Andre Brown. I'm willing to part with any of them to add depth to my other positions or package them with another position to upgrade.
Why do I have the feeling I'm setting myself up to be like a Colts team from the mid-2000? Tear through the season, get a bye, and then fizzle out by losing to an inferior team. 
Why do I have the feeling I'm setting myself up to be like a Colts team from the mid-2000? Tear through the season, get a bye, and then fizzle out by losing to an inferior team.
It would be an honor to be the team that makes that happen.
I just need to win this next game to not depend on others results.
Why do I have the feeling I'm setting myself up to be like a Colts team from the mid-2000? Tear through the season, get a bye, and then fizzle out by losing to an inferior team.
That's what my crystal ball shows. Except I wouldn't use the word "inferior".
Well darn Theres a 4-way tie for 1st place in the intel division.
How's that gonna work ?
How's that gonna work ?
Last edited:
Last week prior to the deadline, I send out a few trade offers. Some of you may remember seeing them. I was trying to make a last minute upgrade to my team before the deadline occurred. I was successful in making a deal with Whittier Poets. At that time I canceled most if not all the other trades.
The trade happened before the deadline and in my opinion should have been approved prior to week 13. It was not and Ill assume it was because the commish didn't see it prior to the weeks games being started. Fine, it happens. After the week, instead of approving the trade, it was vetoed because Poets was out of the playoffs. I've read the rules and dont see any mention of this as criteria for trades. Plus, the trade was made prior to the season being over and prior to the deadline.
I've played in over 40 FF leagues since 1997 and can only remember one trade ever being vetoed. It was in the early 2000 when an owner paid cash to another owner to trade his best players. That is collusion and in my opinion its the only time a trade should ever be vetoed.
I believe this trade should have been approved being that it was prior to the deadline; a deadline set by the commissioner himself. In all honestly the deadline should have been 2-4 weeks ago but Im not the one who set it.
I've been racking my brain to understand it but it still doesn't make sense to me. Best case scenario, the commissioner is making an in season decision on a rule that doesn't exists. Worst case scenario is this is blatant cheating. Either way it doesn't sit well with me. I find it ridiculous that we can expect someone can make a fair decision when keeping me from improving my team is clearly in his best interest. Regardless of what anyone else thinks is the correct decision doesn't matter because just the appearance of impropriety is enough.
At this point you can consider me out of the league. Im no longer going to be posting or reading this thread and Im no longer going to be setting a lineup. Dont bother PMing me about it either as Ill just delete the message without reading it.
You may call me a cry baby and think Im taking my ball and going home but this is more about me removing myself from a situation before I say something unbecoming of a member of this forum. Its taking every ounce of my restraint to keep this a PC as possible and not use the words I truly want to use. Unless I remove myself from this situation now, Im sure Ill say something I regret.
The trade happened before the deadline and in my opinion should have been approved prior to week 13. It was not and Ill assume it was because the commish didn't see it prior to the weeks games being started. Fine, it happens. After the week, instead of approving the trade, it was vetoed because Poets was out of the playoffs. I've read the rules and dont see any mention of this as criteria for trades. Plus, the trade was made prior to the season being over and prior to the deadline.
I've played in over 40 FF leagues since 1997 and can only remember one trade ever being vetoed. It was in the early 2000 when an owner paid cash to another owner to trade his best players. That is collusion and in my opinion its the only time a trade should ever be vetoed.
I believe this trade should have been approved being that it was prior to the deadline; a deadline set by the commissioner himself. In all honestly the deadline should have been 2-4 weeks ago but Im not the one who set it.
I've been racking my brain to understand it but it still doesn't make sense to me. Best case scenario, the commissioner is making an in season decision on a rule that doesn't exists. Worst case scenario is this is blatant cheating. Either way it doesn't sit well with me. I find it ridiculous that we can expect someone can make a fair decision when keeping me from improving my team is clearly in his best interest. Regardless of what anyone else thinks is the correct decision doesn't matter because just the appearance of impropriety is enough.
At this point you can consider me out of the league. Im no longer going to be posting or reading this thread and Im no longer going to be setting a lineup. Dont bother PMing me about it either as Ill just delete the message without reading it.
You may call me a cry baby and think Im taking my ball and going home but this is more about me removing myself from a situation before I say something unbecoming of a member of this forum. Its taking every ounce of my restraint to keep this a PC as possible and not use the words I truly want to use. Unless I remove myself from this situation now, Im sure Ill say something I regret.
^^^ Does anyone else want to weigh in on this before I respond publicly? Grapes feel free to PM me or email. I can promise you that no matter how you choose to express yourself that I will remain calm and respectful.
I'd like to hear the reasoning for the veto, and also, if you would, the parameters of the trade. I'm of the opinion that trades should pretty much be left alone unless it's Adrian Peterson and Marshawn Lynch for Donald Brown or something like that. Not a huge fan of commissioner veto power being used unless it's egregious, especially when the commissioner has a team in contention in the league.
grapes, I wish you would stick around for the discussion.
Question about rankings.
My team is tied with Cali yet they got the division champ. Why ?
The rules state :
Playoff Seeding Tie Breaker
Head to Head Record
We both won once against each other.
My team is tied with Cali yet they got the division champ. Why ?
The rules state :
Playoff Seeding Tie Breaker
Head to Head Record
We both won once against each other.
When multiple teams are tied the Head to Head tie breaker is looked at amongst all of those teams. When you look at all four of you at 6-7 you must judge the total winnings in all of the games you played against each other. The break down comes out like this:
SoCal went 3-1 in the four games played against Wonton, Portlandia, & HarryPot.
Wonton went 3-1 in the four games played against SoCal, Portlandia, & HarryPot.
Portlandia went 2-2 in the four games played against SoCal, Wonton, & HarryPot.
HarryPot went 0-4 in the four games played against SoCal, Wonton, & Portlandia.
SoCal wins the tiebreaker between he and Wonton because he won in their matchup against each other. Thus, the seeding works out to be SoCal, Wonton, Portlandia, and last HarryPot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm giving it a little more time for anyone else to chime in regarding the trade situation and I'm open to everyone's feedback. This situation doesn't have to wreck the league, but if grapes refuses to finish the season then we will have to see about what options we have regarding how to best complete the playoffs.
Last edited:
We'd be able to give more feedback if you would post the details of the trade and the reasoning for the veto. Right now we have nothing to go on.
The way I see it the trade deadline was Nov. 27th. and the trade happened Nov. 27th.
Why was it vetoed Dec. 1st. ?
ahh.. I see. The deadline is 12PM or 9AM Pacific time. The trade happened at 9:18AM.
No need to leave Grapes. You're gonna win so hang around man.
Why was it vetoed Dec. 1st. ?
ahh.. I see. The deadline is 12PM or 9AM Pacific time. The trade happened at 9:18AM.
No need to leave Grapes. You're gonna win so hang around man.
Well if the times listed on ESPN Fantasy are all EDT then Grapes should get the trade since it was made at 9:18AM.
That would be EDT. Two hours before the deadline.
Okay, here's the breakdown on the trade and the reason I chose to veto.
The trade deadline in all of our MR leagues was set for Wednesday November 27th and ESPN set the deadline time at 12 PM ET.
grapes911 (Team grapes 911) and Dandaman (Team Whittier Poets) agreed upon the following trade and did so before the deadline.
Per the ESPN system the trade was set to process this morning, December 3rd, unless vetoed by the LM. The reason for the delay was because both Green Bay and Baltimore played on Thanksgiving day (Thursday the 28th) and thus Randall Cobb and Ray Rice would not unlock until the completion of week 13's games.
In looking at trades I weigh two things:
1. Is there any collusion involved.
2. Is the trade made with good faith in that both teams are trying to legitimately improve their team and thus the integrity of the league's competitive nature is not violated. I try not to weigh the "fairness" of trades in terms of player value, but I do have to take into account the fairness in relationship to all other teams in the league.
What I mean by being fair to all other teams in the league is that a league owner must be making the deal because he truly believes that doing so will better his team. If an owner no longer cares about their team or has no reason to care about their team then they are not "playing to win the game" (to quote Herm Edwards) and their actions can only serve to damage the competitive balance and integrity of the league as a whole.
This occurred in a MR league a few years ago when a team owner was having a terrible season and stopped actively managing his team after going something like 0-4 or 0-5. He didn't adjust his starters after this point and obviously continued to lose over the course of the season. Then just before the trade deadline someone sent him a trade offer for some of his best players and, not caring at all, he agreed to the deal. I vetoed the trade because the inactive owner was not making a legitimate effort to improve his team. He wasn't even managing his team week to week and if I'd have allowed the trade to go through then it would have been unfair to the rest of the league to allow his lackadaisical attitude to adversely affect the competitive integrity of the league.
I give the above example as a way to clarify the various things a league manager has to balance when reviewing trades. I do not think the trade between grapes and Dandaman is a trade involving a owner who doesn't care, but in my opinion it does negatively affect the competitive integrity of the league. I reached out to grapes and Dandaman via PM after looking closely at their trade. On November 27th at 12:00 PM I sent the following PM to them.
So, just to be clear, my position is that for a trade to be legitimate both teams have to be actively seeking to improve their team towards the goal of making the playoffs and ultimately winning the league. Now, keep in mind, our league is a redraft league. This means we don't have the option to keep players from year to year and nothing about how this year plays out will affect the next year. Each year is a new year and everything is randomized. From this perspective there is no way possible that this trade can improve Dandaman's Whittier Poets team. Based on his 3-9 record he has already been eliminated from the playoffs and the trade will not even process until after the season is over. Teams that are out of the playoffs are not playing for anything since our league is a redraft league. If we were a keeper league or if Dandaman could improve his draft position next year by improving his status in the playoffs then things would be entirely different, but that's not how our MR leagues work. In my mind this trade is clearly one sided in that it only benefit grapes team. I understand that one could argue that there's no specific rule saying this trade shouldn't occur, but it clearly falls in my mind under maintaining competitive balance and fails to demonstrate that both teams will legitimately be improved. If this trade is fair then why shouldn't we let every team that made the playoffs trade spare players for starters from the teams that are already eliminated. No one would even think that was fair.
I did make the decision to extend the trade deadline later then most leagues allow, but in my mind this was to allow those teams still in contention to have the opportunity to trade amongst themselves before going into the playoffs. I never considered someone would even think it was "okay" to trade with a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs. I could be wrong, but to me, a reasonable team owner knows that it's not good sportsmanship to try and get a team eliminated from the playoffs to trade you one or some of their best players.
Allright, to finish out the timeline, grapes911 replied to my PM on November 28th at 5:38 PM outlining his reasons as to why he thought the trade should stand, mainly, that there wasn't a specific rule against it and that it wasn't collusion. After reading his response I wanted to give more time for Dandaman to respond before I made a final decision. Dandaman responded on November 29th at 6:26 PM stating "no problem", that he understood his games going forward "don't matter anymore". I didn't want to rush into a decision and I wanted to be fair that I had considered things from all angles. I did some additional research on the matter of fantasy football trades and finally did decide that my initial instincts were on target. Thus, I processed the veto in the ESPN system on Sunday, December 1st at 5:51 PM.
So, I hope this explanation at least gives some insight into how the process went down, how I went about making my decision, and ultimately why I made the choice to veto. I realize some people will disagree, but I do sincerely hope that everyone will understand that there was no self interest, malice, or impropriety involved. I also hope that grapes will reconsider his decision to quit, thereby ruining the experience for everyone.
The trade deadline in all of our MR leagues was set for Wednesday November 27th and ESPN set the deadline time at 12 PM ET.
grapes911 (Team grapes 911) and Dandaman (Team Whittier Poets) agreed upon the following trade and did so before the deadline.
Per the ESPN system the trade was set to process this morning, December 3rd, unless vetoed by the LM. The reason for the delay was because both Green Bay and Baltimore played on Thanksgiving day (Thursday the 28th) and thus Randall Cobb and Ray Rice would not unlock until the completion of week 13's games.
In looking at trades I weigh two things:
1. Is there any collusion involved.
2. Is the trade made with good faith in that both teams are trying to legitimately improve their team and thus the integrity of the league's competitive nature is not violated. I try not to weigh the "fairness" of trades in terms of player value, but I do have to take into account the fairness in relationship to all other teams in the league.
What I mean by being fair to all other teams in the league is that a league owner must be making the deal because he truly believes that doing so will better his team. If an owner no longer cares about their team or has no reason to care about their team then they are not "playing to win the game" (to quote Herm Edwards) and their actions can only serve to damage the competitive balance and integrity of the league as a whole.
This occurred in a MR league a few years ago when a team owner was having a terrible season and stopped actively managing his team after going something like 0-4 or 0-5. He didn't adjust his starters after this point and obviously continued to lose over the course of the season. Then just before the trade deadline someone sent him a trade offer for some of his best players and, not caring at all, he agreed to the deal. I vetoed the trade because the inactive owner was not making a legitimate effort to improve his team. He wasn't even managing his team week to week and if I'd have allowed the trade to go through then it would have been unfair to the rest of the league to allow his lackadaisical attitude to adversely affect the competitive integrity of the league.
I give the above example as a way to clarify the various things a league manager has to balance when reviewing trades. I do not think the trade between grapes and Dandaman is a trade involving a owner who doesn't care, but in my opinion it does negatively affect the competitive integrity of the league. I reached out to grapes and Dandaman via PM after looking closely at their trade. On November 27th at 12:00 PM I sent the following PM to them.
So, just to be clear, my position is that for a trade to be legitimate both teams have to be actively seeking to improve their team towards the goal of making the playoffs and ultimately winning the league. Now, keep in mind, our league is a redraft league. This means we don't have the option to keep players from year to year and nothing about how this year plays out will affect the next year. Each year is a new year and everything is randomized. From this perspective there is no way possible that this trade can improve Dandaman's Whittier Poets team. Based on his 3-9 record he has already been eliminated from the playoffs and the trade will not even process until after the season is over. Teams that are out of the playoffs are not playing for anything since our league is a redraft league. If we were a keeper league or if Dandaman could improve his draft position next year by improving his status in the playoffs then things would be entirely different, but that's not how our MR leagues work. In my mind this trade is clearly one sided in that it only benefit grapes team. I understand that one could argue that there's no specific rule saying this trade shouldn't occur, but it clearly falls in my mind under maintaining competitive balance and fails to demonstrate that both teams will legitimately be improved. If this trade is fair then why shouldn't we let every team that made the playoffs trade spare players for starters from the teams that are already eliminated. No one would even think that was fair.
I did make the decision to extend the trade deadline later then most leagues allow, but in my mind this was to allow those teams still in contention to have the opportunity to trade amongst themselves before going into the playoffs. I never considered someone would even think it was "okay" to trade with a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs. I could be wrong, but to me, a reasonable team owner knows that it's not good sportsmanship to try and get a team eliminated from the playoffs to trade you one or some of their best players.
Allright, to finish out the timeline, grapes911 replied to my PM on November 28th at 5:38 PM outlining his reasons as to why he thought the trade should stand, mainly, that there wasn't a specific rule against it and that it wasn't collusion. After reading his response I wanted to give more time for Dandaman to respond before I made a final decision. Dandaman responded on November 29th at 6:26 PM stating "no problem", that he understood his games going forward "don't matter anymore". I didn't want to rush into a decision and I wanted to be fair that I had considered things from all angles. I did some additional research on the matter of fantasy football trades and finally did decide that my initial instincts were on target. Thus, I processed the veto in the ESPN system on Sunday, December 1st at 5:51 PM.
So, I hope this explanation at least gives some insight into how the process went down, how I went about making my decision, and ultimately why I made the choice to veto. I realize some people will disagree, but I do sincerely hope that everyone will understand that there was no self interest, malice, or impropriety involved. I also hope that grapes will reconsider his decision to quit, thereby ruining the experience for everyone.
Snip :
To be clearer ESPN has a rule about this :
http://games.espn.go.com/ffl/resources/help/content?name=fair-play-and-conduct
"B: Collusive transactions
Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an obvious example of this. Another example is when a player drop is made so another team can pick up that player. Teams found in violation of this policy will be cancelled and their owners prohibited from participating in future ESPN Fantasy Games.
NOTE: Free Standard League members are expected to veto/protest any and all unfair or collusive trades throughout the season. At least 4 votes to protest are needed in a Free Standard League for a trade to be denied."
No votes on this ?
To be clearer ESPN has a rule about this :
http://games.espn.go.com/ffl/resources/help/content?name=fair-play-and-conduct
"B: Collusive transactions
Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. One-sided trades are an obvious example of this. Another example is when a player drop is made so another team can pick up that player. Teams found in violation of this policy will be cancelled and their owners prohibited from participating in future ESPN Fantasy Games.
NOTE: Free Standard League members are expected to veto/protest any and all unfair or collusive trades throughout the season. At least 4 votes to protest are needed in a Free Standard League for a trade to be denied."
No votes on this ?
Thanks for the breakdown. I don't necessarily agree with the decision. Preventing teams that are out of the playoffs from making trades altogether is a little too much involvement from the commissioner, in my opinion. You didn't list the players involved, and again, unless it's egregious, teams should be able to make trades up until the deadline - that is what it is there for. I know, personally, even after I'm mathematically eliminated, I try and win all my games. Sometimes you can knock someone out of contention, which is fun, and for pride/record. I'm eliminated in one of my other leagues, and I'm still playing to win.
I can understand in cases where a team is out and decides to give up all their good players for flotsam, but that would invoke the collusion rule anyway.
Wait, so you're in agreement that the other trade should have been vetoed?
Let's just say it right now - I would have been extremely pissed if that trade was vetoed for a couple of reasons. One, it was a fair trade. In fact, TCD turned down my original offer - twice. I weakened my WR position to upgrade at QB, and I hesitated in pulling the trigger, but figured a good trade should net both teams good players.
Two, I was gambling entirely on Tom Brady having a better last quarter based on Gronkowski returning/the schedule being easier. But his numbers before the trade were a bit scary. This was hardly MVP Brady for a scrub. It is irrelevant to me if one team is definitely out of the playoffs - both teams still want to win through the rest of the season. At least that should be the idea.
But yes, I agree with rdowns, the situation seems similar enough to warrant the question. Why did you allow my trade to go through? TCD is and has been out of it.
edit: nevermind, I see the players.
Last edited:
From a guy who has been out of the race all season - this trade wasn't, in my mind, all that one-sided.....
And I'm in agreement as far as the commissioner powers go - especially if said commissioner has a team in the league. I'm the commish in a league at my office and I'll only veto a trade if it is especially obviously one-sided.
I wouldn't believe for a second this trade was. At the end of the day, its not up to the commissioner to make the league "100% fair". If someone agrees to a stupid trade, to a certain extent you let the owner ride with their decisions.
Like I said, unless its Drew Brees for Ryan Tannehill, my opinion is let it go through.
----------
He linked them in the explanation post.....
Wes Welker and Randall Cobb for Ray Rice and Riley Cooper. I wouldn't call this a completely fair trade....but I don't think its particularly egregious either.....
And I'm in agreement as far as the commissioner powers go - especially if said commissioner has a team in the league. I'm the commish in a league at my office and I'll only veto a trade if it is especially obviously one-sided.
I wouldn't believe for a second this trade was. At the end of the day, its not up to the commissioner to make the league "100% fair". If someone agrees to a stupid trade, to a certain extent you let the owner ride with their decisions.
Like I said, unless its Drew Brees for Ryan Tannehill, my opinion is let it go through.
----------
He linked them in the explanation post.....
Wes Welker and Randall Cobb for Ray Rice and Riley Cooper. I wouldn't call this a completely fair trade....but I don't think its particularly egregious either.....
Oh, thank you, I missed that.
And yeah, I am in agreement with you. I can understand stopping obvious ridiculous trades, but if it's in any way a judgment call it should go through. And teams should be allowed to make trades until the deadline, regardless of record.
That is not an egregiously bad trade, in my opinion, and certainly not veto worthy.
Welker's scoring avg: 15.5
Cobb's avg: 6.9
total: 22.4
Cooper's scoring avg: 11.3
Rice's avg: 10.3
total: 21.6
It's also hard to argue there's no conflict of interest with the commissioner making judgment calls on late season trades that affect playoff teams. It's tough, but yeah, I think it was a misuse of the veto.